This post is being locked as people keep talking past each other and being overly aggressive.
Someone said that "guy with tourettes loudly shouts the n word at black actors at an award show" could be a standardized test question for Woke 2 and I thought that was funny.
Anyway, as someone with Tourette's (not as bad as this guy but still,) I know that you can't control it but I also sympatize with the actors who were (unintentionally) greviously insulted during what should have been a proud moment for them. I think if anyone was in the wrong, it'd be the BBC for not cutting it (it wasn't even a live broadcast and they cut other shit including "Free Palestine," they thought this was more appropriate than that)
this shit is driving me mad, why is everyone arguing about the guy with torrettes instead of banding together to tar and teather the person(s) responsible for this thing not getting censored?
you hate to see the divide and conquer shit working so thoroughly
Kind of surprised that the website that just had a discussion on if words like "see" were ableist would have a struggle session about this.
I'm not dismissing the importance of speech, but it is easier for people (especially without disabilities) to engage with the concept of ableist speech/wording than with a lot of the other, more difficult aspects of ableism.
https://hexbear.net/comment/6911362
I lathed too hard, sorry comrades
Please don't make light of this. It's clearly deeply painful for everyone involved.
It's c/slop. If the site wants to seriously hash out this issue then why not make a serious dedicated thread and create an actual dialogue? Oh wait that's too productive. Let's just have serious discussions about twitter posts some more.
These discussions happen where they happen organically. People are being serious in this thread. "It's /c/slop" isn't a reason to make light of that.
I'm actually responding with the correct amount of levity, thank you. Blocking you now since you feel entitled to be involved in my posting decisions and seem to be operating under the assumption that I am somehow socially responsible to you in some way.
I disagree strongly with this comment. Explanation inside the spoiler.
Why would you allow slave owners to live?
They don't deserve a quick death. Make them pay for what they've done.
Show
They don't deserve a quick death. Make them pay for what they've done.
I didn't really want to get into it in this thread, so I responded to the initial comment with a light-hearted joke about killing slave owners (well, it's a joke but slave owners did deserve to be killed of course). However, the underlying implication in that comment (and also in yours I think) that living with disability is a fate worse than death did bother me and does IMO express a very normalized form of ableism.
I want to make sure to be 100% clear that I am not accusing you or @deforestgump@hexbear.net of being malicious here. As I said, this notion is normalized and structurally integrated into most societies today. I just wanted to make this comment because I felt that it was important to point out. Disability isn't a punishment that's greater than death (and the idea that it is has been used to enable genocide - though again, I don't mean to accuse you of this of course). Disabled people are still alive and their lives have equal worth to those of people who have no disabilities (although it's more proper to say no disabilities so far, since many disabled people are disabled by circumstance and not birth).
I love that image by the way, it gets me every time.
Possibly true, but that doesn't make it any less ableist (not that you're saying it does). I anything, it makes it more ableist. If it's just bait then the goal is purely to offend disabled people.
I don't think they are saying it for any sort of ableist reason, they are just making fun of Discourse. For example, you sometimes see radlibs say "actually some disabled people had no choice but to keep slaves" and things like that. The point is to make fun of tokenizing lib idpol rhetoric.
At least, I'm pretty sure . . .
Sadly, I think this in reference to the recent BAFTA incident.
Even if it is, you are giving pretty uncharitable reading... Your post reads more like defending disabled people owning slaves than any abelism from RGB(which I don't think is your point). Given how much defense of gig industries I have seen on the basis of "helping the disabled" I wouldn't be surprised if there is some discourse that is unironic in "well they needed slaves".
Also I have seen tons of discourse on "disability isn't an excuse for racism and general assholery they are just racists assholes" (including on hexbear)
Even if it is
I don't see what else it could be. I had a quick look at their profile, they've been posting/RTing a lot about it.
you are giving pretty uncharitable reading...
Perhaps. I'm open to being wrong about this if there's something else they have said that gives this more context.
Your post reads more like defending disabled people owning slaves than any abelism from RGB(which I don't think is your point).
Yes, of course that's not my point. Nothing excuses owning another human being. I expanded on my interpretation here.
I think you would have to intentionally misinterpret what was said to get that take given the context of the thread it was posted in
Can you say more to connect these two ideas? What do you think they are actually trying to say?
My interpretation is that it's a sarcastic attempt to liken the two following ideas.
- A person with Tourette's isn't saying slurs because they're racist (which is correct).
- A person can't be held accountable for owning slaves because they needed help due to a disability (this is absurd).
The implication that those are at all similar seems very ableist to me. Of course, it's possible I've misinterpreted it, which is the problem with this kind of "hot take" Twitter bait method of communication.
Also, does BRG use they/them? I wasn't aware. If so I should edit my other comment.
Yeah I'm in agreement with you, my disagreement was with you telling calfpupa it wasn't bait. You're all good.
That's fair. It probably (almost definitely) is bait of some sort, yeah.
Yeah, i've been following the discourse during a slow day. its rough. usually i think he has alright takes but this whole ordeal has really shown a bad side of him
Oh god, of course this isn't his first post about this.
I've been avoiding this discourse on Twitter because... well, the obvious reasons.
You just got a comm ban and had comments removed for ableism in the previous thread about this subject (the BAFTA incident). I'm not going to discuss it with you here. If you actually want your question answered, I clarified to purpleworm in this thread.
Yeah being banned for calling dipshits on this site cracker over them calling Black people gusanos makes me ableist, great fuckin take
No, you were banned from the comm due primarily to your intense hostility to me after I clearly explained to you why and how you were being ableist and offensive to people like me, who have Tourette's syndrome. Rather than respect my points about the condition, you proceeded to hurl the same hateful comments that I have faced in my life many times before.
Your fellow comrades have been patient, fair, and respectful towards you, but here you are, still picking fights and stirring shit up almost a day later.
Tell me again how I need to sit down and have things explained to me, tell me again
you proceeded to hurl the same hateful comments that I have faced in my life many times before.
Hateful comments like 'racism is bad no matter the intent'
You have made it very clear that you have no intention of learning even a single thing about the topics you are ignorant about. Instead, you would rather insult and belittle the people here who have given you every opportunity to be better than you have been. You have zero respect or regard for good-faith discussion. I am beyond done wasting time with your ableism.
Never before have I seen someone so intensely hostile to a person that already agrees with every one of their arguments. It's pathetic, and you really need to take some time to reevaluate why you treat others like this.
being banned for calling dipshits on this site cracker over them calling Black people gusanos
Banned CyborgMarx [any, any] from the community Pop Culture
reason: You have consistantly misrepresented Tourette's in this thread, and seem uninterested in listening to comrades who have the condtion when they explain how it functions to you. Take a day off please.The modlog explains why you were banned.
Edit: I agree with you that the slur causes real harm and the "gusano" comparison is distasteful. You are still wrong about Tourette's. Your comment about it being possible it was "medically induced racism" are still ableist.
Edit 2: changed the quote above to the actual phrasing of your comment. I don't mean to misrepresent what you said.
I agree with you that the slur causes real harm and the "gusano" comparison is distasteful
"distasteful" is that what you call it, cool
You are still wrong about Tourette's. Your comment about it being possible it was "medically induced racism" are still ableist.
Again with the bullshit lies, I did not claim Tourette's is medically induced racism, that makes no sense, as I pointed out in that thread 99% of people suffering from Tourettes do not unconsciously scream slurs at Black people
I was talking about an individual's specific condition, which apparently induced him to be racist, RACISM THE VERB, not simply the mindset you dense crackers, his intent is irrelevant; what matters is the harm he perpetrated and how that harm was mitigated (or in this case, not mitigated) in the aftermath
Internal mindset of a disabled individual suffering embarrassment: less relevant, though open to sypmaphty
Actions unconsciously taken by said individual that seriously harm Black people attending: Far more relevant and crucially in need of centering in light the horrendeous handling by the event planners
Intent =/= Impact, this is some real basic baby leftist shit and it's genuinely embarrassing how many of you can't figure this out
"distasteful" is that what you call it, cool
I call it distasteful because it was ambiguous and clarified in later comments (it was just about standpoint epistemology being wrong, not meaning to equate the black people who are upset to gusanos). That ambiguousness of course does harm PoC who had to read the comment (presumably including you) and that is wrong and should be avoided.
as I pointed out in that thread 99% of people suffering from Tourettes do not unconsciously scream slurs at Black people
You're just wrong. Some other people who suffer from the type and severity that this man suffered from would obviously do this. This is why you're facing so much backlash, you are just wrong about the disability issues which are involved, and you seem to be insisting again that there is something specially racist about this man that makes him different from other people with tourette's and that's why he's saying slurs.
I was talking about an individual's specific condition, which apprreoanlty induced him to be racist, RACISM THE VERB, not simply the mindset you dense crackers, his intent is irrelevant; what matters is the harm he perpetrated and how that harm was mitigated (or in this case, not mitigated) in the aftermath
This, however, is a better explanation of your point and thank you for giving it. I agree with you that regardless of his intent, which was clearly and obviously not racist, his actions still caused harm to the black people on the receiving end.
I agree with the rest of your comment, but as true as it is that for proper accountability in this situation we need to correctly identify the issues of racism involved, it's equally true that we need to correctly identify the issues of disability involved.
It's almost like that mod is a liar and doesn't know how to read or understand basic concepts like intent =/= impact, and seemingly doesn't give a shit about other users calling Black people gusanos
Please see my edit. Sorry, I think I edited while you were replying.
No one called you a Gusano. I implied that black people are not inherently correct about everything because they are black. This was perfectly demonstrated by people claiming that they understand Tourette's in one comment and then saying that John Davidson is a racist in another because he didn't call white presenters crackers.
Am I obligated to Listen To Jehovah's Witness Voices? They have the same stance on medical science.
Yeah, when I read your further comments in that thread I understood you were only making a point about standpoint epistemology (if an identity made someone correct on a subject, we would have to listen to gusanos). I understand why the way it was phrased might hurt someone, though. And that hurt does harm black people, just as disabled people are harmed by some of the discourse on this subject.
This was perfectly demonstrated by people claiming that they understand Tourette's in one comment and then say that John Davidson is a racist in another because he didn't call white presenters crackers.
This along with the comment that mentioned "medically induced racism" were the actual reason for the comm ban.
I can understand the first comment being ambiguous enough to cause confusion, but the second makes it explicit. People came in in bad faith, refusing to even entertain the notion that they could possibly be wrong. Why am I obligated to be comradely to people who literally do not believe in medical science about disabilities? Why should I trust my disabled family members' well-being to anyone who ignores medical science when it annoys them?
The Twitter comments see that it's bait and act accordingly. The usual suspects on here instead take the bait every time.
Having Tourette’s is not equatable with owning slaves but I missed any previous struggle sessions on this so go off folks
???
Tourette = the disability
calling black people slurs = the racismnot hard to understand, being black doesn't stop you from being ableist so why should being disabled cancel out being racist.
Him saying the slur is not evidence of his racism. The disability does not force him to vocalize things he subconsciously thinks, it forces him to vocalize things he finds abhorrent and wrong. This is also why he's not calling white people "slurs" as some people have mentioned, because he presumably doesn't think those are taboo because anti-white racism isn't real (correct).
Now, the harm that is done to the black people who were on the receiving end is of course still real. But if this discussion starts with "why should being disabled cancel out being racist" it's fundamentally missing the point of one half of the equation (ableism and disability) and it's not going to accomplish anything.
I also find it extremely troubling that the broadcaster who got to farm controversy by inflicting these slurs on millions of black people while scapegoating disabled people and censoring "free Palestine" is now completely getting away with that while the discourse turns into a war between disabled people and black people, which are of course not at all mutually exclusive categories.
Knowing a word is racist, harmful, and inappropriate does not make you a racist. The very same reasons we find it offensive are the reasons he shouted it.
Say someone’s colostomy bag broke in public. It smells like shit, nobody likes the smell of shit, the person with the colostomy bag probably doesn’t like the smell of shit either. Would you find it appropriate to say “this person loves the smell of shit, they intended to make us all smell their shit?”
- Show
them having colostomy bag breaking in public is not similar to calling people slurs, one is targeted one is public, a better example is if a person with that got on a bus knowing they have it and stood infront of a poc, knowing there's a possibility they'll do it on them, even though they don't have control about that factor they had control over other factors in the situation and should still be held accountable.
Also there's people who like the smell of shit, and there's probably SOME people with that disorder who like the smell of shit, having a didability doesn't stop you from having a kink, or being racist. in that same way having tourettes doesn't cancel out being racist.
So we're just going straight to "disabled people should not be allowed out in public", I see.
I find it sad that so many people are taking this position when the whole point of Davidson’s film was to show the ostracisation he has faced from society because of his neurodivergence.
The correlation is having a disability that can make other people uncomfortable.
Yeah, you’re right, people with disabilities should not be allowed in public…/s
Are you actually saying this person with Tourette’s “might” have a kink for calling people slurs? Lmao that is so ableist
Cracker weaponizing marginalized groups and twisting my words gold medal championist.
Don’t even. You drew a comparison between someone with a disability attending an awards show and someone intentionally positioning themselves in a way to cause harm to PoC. You also implied in a “there’s no way to know” way that this person might be getting off on their disability, while in reality they are forced to live with the judgement of people like you who will attribute malice to something they have no control over.
woah there, save up your energy for the next championship.
Ableist weaponising their own identity as an excuse to not have empathy for others struggles gold medal championist
them having colostomy bag breaking in public is not similar to calling people slurs,
Yes it is, in that it's an unpleasant thing no one would like to have to deal with and which happened because of a disability and through no one's fault.
If you call someone a slur for no reason, you're an asshole. If you call someone a slur because of your disability which makes it impossible not to do that, you're just trying to exist in this fucking world.
The difference is the individual has to deal with the colostomy bag, the ones who have to deal with the slurs are Black people not the one shouting them
The Tourettes guy lives with constant tics, movement and speech constantly being interrupted. No way of being sure you'll get your sentence out, no way of being sure you won't say something abhorrent. Tourettes fucking sucks to have.
You're acting like a south park character. "Oh he gets to say all sorts of taboo stuff!"And in case you didn't notice, the guy with Tourettes has to deal with it too.
At the end of the day, a whole lot of Black people, from the actors on stage to Black members of the audience to Black viewers watching the broadcast, have to hear some white dude say the n-word. What actions have been taken to address the very real harm caused by this? This thread and the previous thread that got locked have said much to explain why the white dude said the n-word. But the fundamental gap of understanding between the POC users and the white users here is that his intent doesn't matter an iota. The fact that he said it is already enough.
If you're not convinced, notice how I used the term "n-word" even though I'm using the word in a completely clinical non-racist context. "John Davidson said the n-word during this year's BAFTA" is a completely neutral sentence reporting something that happened, but it would be grossly inappropriate to spell out the word and go, "uh aktually, I'm not being racist because I'm just reporting what actually happened." The word is censored and rightfully so. So, the discussions about Tourettes, while enlightening, is ultimately not very relevant. He as a white man said the n-word in front of many Black people and that is good enough for those Black people to rightfully demand an apology and restitution from him, BAFTA, and the BBC.
Intent does not erase impact. Disability explains occurrence, not institutional failure
Tourettes sucks, doesn't change the fact slurs caused harm
Oh, the guy with Tourette’s, too, has to deal with the slur, as is evidenced by the massive backlash he’s facing.
My point was that the disabled individual is not always in control of their disability, I never meant to say Black people should just deal with it.
I don’t think either side of this argument (on this site, at least) should feel or be made to feel like they are defending an ableist or racist viewpoint when they are defending quite the opposite.
He has a form of Tourette’s that literally forces you to say the worst possible thing in that moment. He has called the Queen the C-word to her face and said that he has a bomb in a public crowd.
Obviously the two people he said the word to (and every black person who saw the event because the BBC care too much about views to censor the incident apparently) have the right to be upset that he called them the word, I’m not disputing that at all. But this form of Tourette’s is essentially like the intrusive thoughts some people with OCD get which is in no way representative of them as a person.
(and every black people who saw the event because the BBC care too much about views to censor the incident apparently)
I am convinced they did this intentionally to stir up controversy and distract from the censoring of pro-Palestine activism at the expense of both black and disabled people.
Yeah, but their inversion is representative of them as a person: intrusive thoughts are a reinforcement mechanism; your brain telling you what's inappropriate. This form of Tourette’s makes you act on your (verbal) intrusive thoughts.
This means the slurs indicate that he's not a racist. A racist with this form of Tourette’s would not consider slurs the epitome of inappropriate behavior.
Having the "Say the worst thing possible" disorder is actually not racist.
So? you can have the "say worst thing possible" disorder and still be a racist
A disabled person can be a lot of things, both good and bad, because they are a person. This comment of yours is completely meaningless.
Yeah? a disabled person can be racist that's what I'm saying, them having a disability doesn't mean they can't be racist
So you agree then, that a person's disability and their capacity for racism are two separate factors. Unless there is a different point you are making.
Yes? that's what I have been saying this whole time, him having tourettes doesn't mean he can't be racist, he can't control that he says it, but he can control other things, has to apologise to those he offended, afterwards to actually show he's not a racist.
Imagine weaponizing the very real suffering of Palestinian to put a POC in their place on a social media website.
my bank account has the equivalent of 12.38 usd, and I have 7.69 usd on me in cash, I don't live in a country that easily allows me to send or receive money abroad, I didn't have enough money to afford my own schizophrenia medication or visits to the psychiatrist for a while no I don't have the money. so no, I don't have the money.
Would be really nice if everyone could just shut the fuck up for like 30 minutes or something
Just like half an hour, please, I beg you
Twitter created the worst fucking culture of saying this type of thing with the original character limit. 
Poddy Mouth had a good response to the whole event. Featured some black people with tourettes too.
thing with intersectionality is that there are going to be actual people in that intersection and they have the most authority to speak.
Poddy Mouth had a good response to the whole event. Featured some black people with tourettes too.
Can you link this? Or even better, make a separate post with it? This sounds incredibly valuable in this situation.
i've blocked popculture and that's probably the most appropriate place for it but here's the 15 minute cutout from the 2 hour live https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKgdiyI_TCI
I ended up posting it to popculture. Let me know if you want me to credit you by name for the recommendation.
nah it's cool. i didn't do anything special finding it. Better for Dom to stand on his own merit.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Of course crackers here are twisting themselves in a knot about Black people being rightly pissed off about blatent racism and ludicrous accustions of ableism
Also it's a just simple statement of historical fact, a disproportionate number of slaveowners were indeed disabled, it's almost like the existence of disability doesn't negate the impact of racial abuse hmmm
it's almost like the existence of disability doesn't negate the impact of racial abuse hmmm
Of course it doesn't.
Also it's a just simple statement of historical fact, a disproportionate number of slaveowners were indeed disabled
Come on, we all know that "simple statements of fact" that disparage marginalized people without context are not actually morally and ethically neutral "simple statements of fact". This logic is reductive and it harms not only disabled people but all other marginalized people as well.
that disparage marginalized people
I wasn't aware white people were marginalized
nd it harms not only disabled people but all other marginalized people as well.
Suure, BlackRedGuard is "harming" ALL marginalized by pointing out basic historical facts, hey at least you pasty fucks can detect some form of harm, but apparently only when Black people are commiting it
I wasn't aware white people were marginalized
Disabled people are. This reply is beneath you.
Suure, BlackRedGuard is "harming" ALL marginalized by pointing out basic historical facts
Yes, reinforcing the practice of pointing out "facts" without context that might disparage marginalized people harms marginalized people including black people.
Edit: white people strip "facts" and "statistics" of context all the time to serve racist purposes. I'm not saying that's necessarily BRG's intent here (to deliberately promote ableism), but I am saying that we shouldn't pretend stating inflammatory "facts" without context is a neutral act. Normalizing this practice has real harmful impacts for all marginalized people.
Disabled people are. This reply is beneath you.
Yes it's the existence of a disability that pissed BlackRedGuard off and not the obnoxious displays of hard-headed whiteness
Yes, reinforcing the practice of pointing out "facts" without context
What's the context BlackRedGuard missed, seems to me he was knee-deep in some real nasty context and felt some historical perspective would shock some people out of the white haze they're in
white people strip "facts" and "statistics" of context all the time to serve racist purposes. I'm not saying that's necessarily BRG's intent here (to deliberately promote ableism)
No you're not "saying" that's what he's doing, you're just implying it
but I am saying that we shouldn't pretend stating inflammatory "facts" without context is a neutral act.
Stating historical facts in now "inflammatory" when used to advance simple and correct positions like "the existence of disability doesn't negate the impact of racial abuse" (which you happen to agree with by the way) yet BRG is still somehow in the wrong because...implications... Ok.
Disabled people are. This reply is beneath you.
Yes it's the existence of a disability that pissed BlackRedGuard off and not the onxionous displays of hard-headed whiteness
I was replying to your comment there, not BRG's. The marginalized identity being potentially harmed here by the contextless statement in the tweet "a lot of slaveowners were disabled" is disabled people, not white people who are not marginalized.
No you're not "saying" that's what he's doing, you're just implying it
I'm saying he may not have meant to do it, but it in my opinion had the effect of promoting ableism. This is separate from the racial aspect and does not take away from the point there.
"the existence of disability doesn't negate the impact of racial abuse" (which you happen to agree with by the way) yet BRG is still somehow in the wrong because...implications... Ok.
If this was BRG's point (which makes sense) then I agree with it. However, I feel it was expressed in a careless way which harms disabled people. That may not have been the intent, but sadly it may have been the effect. This doesn't negate the racial trauma behind it, or indeed the correctness of the point that black people have a right to be traumatized by slurs regardless of the intent behind them.
As I said in my reply to you in the other sub-thread, I don't think I'm going to be able to reply to you further in this discussion without hurting you and myself more. This is a difficult and traumatic topic for everyone involved and I don't want to keep triggering those issues for both you and myself when I don't feel we're going to resolve this with this conversation.
I was replying to your comment there, not BRG's
You were replying to my comment about BRG's tweet, don't be obtuse
The marginalized identity being potentially harmed here by the contextless statement in the tweet "a lot of slaveowners were disabled" is disabled people, not white people who are not marginalized.
Ok, so now you're back to talking about BRG, got it, let's figure out what the operative word in BRG's tweet was, hint it wasn't "disabled", it was "Slaveowners". Why? Because in the context of the wider discourse about Black people being subjected to racial abuse, he's making a point that even the densest cracker can understand, which helps illustrate the wider argument he's advancing which is "disability does not negate racial abuse"
Which, by the way already you agreed with
If this was BRG's point (which makes sense) then I agree with it. However, I feel it was expressed in a careless way which harms disabled people
OH NOW WE START TO GET IT, after paragraphs and an entire thread trashing BRG (and anyone defending him), suddenly his point (that every Black person in his replies immediately understood) becomes clear, despite that fact it was always clear
Also why is BRG supposedly "careless" maybe your whiteness got in the way of seeing the obvious, you ever think of that?
I think this is a good post! People of color are often given the bill for accommodating white disabled people.
I read "disabled" as a verb and mentally said "as they should have been"
he follow me on twitter, i started reading about the drama today, and im pretty sure he is just ragebaiting
Isn't moot the creator of 4chan, though? I'm just confused what he has to do with this tweet.
