this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
76 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
805 readers
440 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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!"
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.
The tourettes is integral to the discussion, because that is why he said it. There was no intent behind the word. Not acknowledging that is akin to not acknowledging that the word is hurtful and the way the broadcaster has handled it is harmful.
No, the why is only important insofar as to find ways to mitigate or prevent it from happening again. As far as addressing restitution is concerned, it doesn't mean a whole lot. If I knocked over your vase, the restitutional act would be to replace your vase or pay you money. Examining the particular events which led me to knock over the vase is only important to check whether I knocked over your vase for the sake of preventing additional damage or prevent harm to you. Outside of those two exceptions, the particular reasons why I knocked over your vase (I was too clumsy, I had too much to drink, I didn't see the vase, I thought the vase was more sturdy) doesn't alter the proper restitutional act of replacing the vase.
I guess I fundamentally disagree. If someone shoved you into the vase it would be very different, even if you were the one to knock it over. If I was hosting a big party and we were all getting drunk and I'd placed my vase near the dancefloor and you slip and knock it over, then that would also be different to me from the situations you describe. If you were just dancing wildly and knocked it over that would still be different to me. If you were just visiting and knocked over a vase of mine on accident then I would probably not feel like you would have to replace it. Accidents happen and things exist to be used until they can't.
Separating an action from what caused it seems like causes more harm than anything else.
In this scenario I'd say the broadcaster is the party host who placed a vase right next to a bunch of drunken dancers. Should probably have censored the slurs instead of "free palestine".
Intent does not erase impact. Disability explains occurrence, not institutional failure
Tourettes sucks, doesn't change the fact slurs caused harm
Yeah? No one is arguing that it doesn't
Yes, they are, that's what the accusations of ableism are amounting to
No they aren't. You and others are being ableist because
I haven't seen anyone say anything akin to "actually it was really cool and awesome he said that slur and you're ableist if you think otherwise".
Edit: and I can see from the other thread that you know all this already as it has been explained to you several times. So I don't know why you keep arguing against a position you know noone holds, nor why you keep ignoring the actual arguments set forth for you.
Spare me the bullshit gaslighting
A bad faith user pretended I believed Tourette's makes people develop racist beliefs. I never said this, I never believed it, and now multiple users have spread this lie, I explained multiple times a medical condition can induce unintentional racist ACTIONS, not internal racist beliefs, ACTIONS, I clarified that distinction multiple times hence my point of intent does not erase impact
I have clarified multiple times intent does not negate impact, that implies I do NOT believe it was a conscious choice, again you're spreading lies
In the very specific context of inflicting racial abuse on other people because of a neurological condition, then avoidance OR ANY OTHER harm reduction strategies become viable, because the harm is no longer individualized as racial abuse is a very specific thing, REGARDLESS OF INTENT
This does not apply to most sufferers of Tourette's because racism (which does not require intent to be inflicted) is not synonymous with the typical inconvenience, annoyance, or uncomfortableness typical Tourette's sufferers deal with on an individual level and I NEVER CLAIMED "he should stop having Tourettes" what a blatant lie
I said the impact of slurs is not something he has to deal with, his disability is the explanation for why it happened and he has to deal with his condition, that does not mean the n-word impacts him in any way similar to the way it impacted the cast of Sinners, again you're a liar and a weasel trying to twist my words, disengage and kick rocks
Gaslighting is when you point out what a person is doing, when that person does not like being confronted with what it is they are doing.
A user pointed out the logical conclusion of the arguments you put forth. It was, and is, clear you attach a moral value to the tics.
Come on, none of us are liberals here. We understand that just because you say one thing it does not stop you from doing another.
Here's what I think has happened: You consider yourself a leftist. A leftist isn't ableist, so obviously you aren't. When it was pointed out to you how what you were doing was ableist, you got super heated and didn't actually engage with the argument, because it was so obviously wrong, since you're a leftist. No reason to interrogate your own beliefs or arguments. And now you're locked up, getting more and more mad, because you keep getting confronted with your ableist arguments.
And you have multiple times put forth arguments that only function if it is a conscious choice. I'm not spreading lies, I'm just saying stuff you don't enjoy hearing.
In other words: He should stay out of public view. This is not harm reduction, it is ableist.
And here we have you attaching a moral value as well as implying some level of conscious choice on his part. He's separate from most sufferers, somehow. He's not typical. It's clear you don't actually understand what tourettes is or does, despite it being explained a bunch of times already.
It's either that or stay out of public view, as I said. That's what people have pointed out to you a bunch of times before, yet you keep not engaging with it.
In a metaphor about tourettes being like a colostomy bag bursting, you argued that it was different because it didn't hurt him. You did not argue specifically as you claim to do now. Yet somehow I'm the one lying and twisting words.
The disengage function is not a magical "get the last word" button. Attempting to use it as such is incredibly weasely lol. I think if you go and :logout: and come back in a day or so, you'll probably be less heated and realise how locked up you were beforehand.
It will probably be best for both of us if this interaction stops however, so I am going to stop replying. Hopefully this helps with getting you to cool off a bit.
It's clear you don't consider anything that happened that night to be actually harmful to Black people, because hey, "it wasn't intentional," and apparently that's all that matters to you, because in your mind intent can negate impact and any action taken to mitigate that impact is ableist since intent trumps the harm
I'm not wasting my time with people who lie, twist words and deny basic concepts of medical ethics
You are very mad about me "twisting your words" and "lying", but you keep doing the same yourself. Is this because you don't realise it or because you think it doesn't count when you do it? Of course I consider it harmful, as I have already said. I thought saying things meant you were immune to all accusations or logical conclusions? I personally think it would be fitting if he apologised. I don't think he is racist because of a tic, nor do I think it's racist to react negatively to arguments or behaviour like yours.
Call me crazy, but I don't think we should lock up people with tourettes, even when they say hurtful things.
Is medical ethics when you want to lock up people with tourettes and you attach moral values to their tics?
Kinda rich to hear you speak of medicine, when you so far have failed to engage with what tourettes is or does.
I love this. In the end they agree with you but still want to spit essays worth of bullshit at you just to make sure you know who's boss
Again, there's the crux of why your cracker brain doesn't understand a thing I'm saying, he doesn't need to BE a racist to perform racist ACTIONS, again intent does not negate impact
Now I want to lock them up and throw away the key!!!! As if avoidance of triggers isn't actually a real treatment plan for sufferers of Tourettes, do I really need to pull up a Tourette's advocate saying the exact same thing before it penetrates your skull, I mean I better not since the advocate in the link is Black and you may take issue with that. Fuck it, disengage and go yell at him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgaqKIxS4Hs
Great way to engage with text. Really nailing the debatebro vibe.
Buddy, I do not agree with you at all
See again you keep arguing against things I haven't said. Why do you insist on making discussion much more difficult? Why did you ignore it when I responded in detail last time? It seems like you're just doing this for the dopamine or something like that.
No, you just want to keep them out of public view. I suppose throwing away the key would help with that.
And again: If they do not follow this treatment or they are not far along it, then what? You have an incredibly narrow view of who is allowed to be part of public life.
So where have I said anything that would give you that idea? You've freaked out about me "twisting your words" and "being a lying weasel" for pointing out how you are being ableist. So I must assume you have a direct quote of me that points this out. Should I worry for him because he has tourettes and that might make you want him disappeared? Oh hey here's another black man talking about the situation.
Second time I'm telling you this, which is a great example of you not actually engaging with what people are writing: Disengage does not function like a "get the last word" button. It was actually implemented to protect our neurodivergent users - Both from getting into a viscious cycle of continuing a pointless argument, like we are doing, and from before we had the block function. Kinda fitting that you are misusing something originally intended for ND people.
I'll show you how to properly use it by your next reply - See how polite I am, I'm even letting you know so you can get the last word! Call me cracker all you want! Continue to read something I didn't write and argue against that!
You want to continue yapping? Go yell at him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgaqKIxS4Hs we're one-to-one on the assessment of the situation. Go weasal out on his page so I don't have to deal with your
hysterics
lmao yeah like me dumbass
disengage
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Sir, this an incredibly reasonable, well thought-out, and visibly good faith reply, so I hesitate to even speak to one such as yourself, but, if I may, disengage must be the only word in your reply. It is not a spell you can trigger upon using other abilities. Mind the technicalities.
Fair enough, in this case I was following the lead of other users, but I've been around long enough I should know the in-and-outs of the technicalities
Thanks for the heads up
We must cherish these moments and opportunities.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
there are black folks with tourettes, some of them are on social media
There sure is https://x.com/OGBlackRedGuard/status/2026149263692976615
Oh, the guy with Tourette’s, too, has to deal with the slur, as is evidenced by the massive backlash he’s facing.
What backlash, he's drowning in an ocean of white sympathy
You are aware you are also an individual and part of public discourse, right? Why are you being this obtuse, pretending like he isn't receiving any backlash. If there were no backlash none of us would be arguing right now. And you know this. Why do you insist on making this discussion so much more difficult than it already is?
Because there's a racial dimension to the discourse which I'm acknowledging exists, if you want to debate in a hypothetical vacuum where the race element is absent, then find someone else
Noone is arguing there isn't a racial dimension to this. You are however arguing he isn't facing backlash, when he is. Talk about arguing in a vacuum lol. You keep picking and choosing what it is you want to engage with.
Here's a basic question so we can cut through the bullshit and obtuseness; Does backlash from Black people carry the same weight as backlash from White people?
Like as in "do I think it should" or "how does the world treat people"?
I think the world weighs backlash from white people much higher than any other group. I don't think it should.
But I also don't think backlash in and of itself should be valued any which way in a vacuum.
Backlash in and of itself says nothing about the situation. A bunch of people got mad at the Dixie Chicks for opposing war in Iraq in the 00's. I don't think that backlash should carry any weight. I would imagine most backlash from white people fits within that spectrum. The
affair seemed like a bunch of white people freaking out and that wasn't fitting either.
I'm not ingrained in black culture, so I don't know what there have been backlashes about otherwise, but I'm sure there's situations there where I would feel the same. On the other hand the whole "oscars so white" was a time I thought backlash was good.
In this situation? I don't think backlash against a man with tourettes is valid. I think backlash against the broadcaster for not censoring it or doing anything about it is, because saying a bunch of slurs on public television is harmful.
In general? I think backlash from any marginalised group should carry a lot more weight than it does. Certainly more than backlash from white people. I do however find it despicable how you try to make this into a "black vs. white" thing, when it is about ableism as much as it is about racism. That is part of what I mean when I talk about you picking and choosing what you want to argue. That is you trying to create a vacuum where the argument solely fits you.
strangely your reply is not only ableist but also racist again black people and it's ironic you dont see that
I love how you don't dispute the fact I stated, just vaguely accuse me of ableism and racism as if that stands on its own without explanation
There is a racial divide in this discourse, because dense white people who are selective in how seriously they take marginalization forget basic concepts like intent =/= impact when it comes to Black people
you also dont dispute the accusation of racism or ableism
and for the record im saying what you said was anti-black racism, to be clear, and you STILL dont see it
but im not interested in arguing with you as you clearly have no interest in doing better
I have disputed it multiple times with multiple essays worth of words and paragraphs in this thread and sorry but I'm not gonna repeat myself ad nasaucum because some weasal wants to twist my words and play dumb, at a certain point ignoring
bullshit is the correct course of action
Pretending like that's not actually your take lmao
At least you're honest
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.