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.

[–] BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

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".