[Ammi]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and I want to say it in the gentlest way possible: it’s surprising that in 2026 we’re still seeing people argue that the n‑word is acceptable in everyday conversation simply because an actor used it in a script. That’s not really how context works.

When a word appears in a film, TV show, or play, it’s being used within a very specific framework — usually to reflect a time period, a character’s worldview, or a social reality the story is trying to explore. It’s not meant as a blanket endorsement for casual use, and it definitely doesn’t remove the weight the word carries outside that fictional setting.

If anyone isn’t sure why the word is so sensitive, I’d really encourage taking a bit of time to read about its history. It has a long, painful, and complicated background tied to racism, violence, and dehumanisation. Understanding that history makes it much clearer why people react strongly to hearing it used casually.

This isn’t about attacking anyone — it’s about recognising that language has power, and some words carry centuries of harm behind them. Learning that context helps all of us navigate these conversations with more care and awareness.

…I agree with all you say and I’ve also been thinking about it quite a bit today in terms of the word being said specifically by John Davidson in this instance who has lived with Tourette Syndrome through his life …and his use of…?…being fundamentally involuntary….the weight of the word as you say, would be the same on impact, as it were, I understand that and it was very visible in the two actors on the stage…but it is quite layered in terms of use/intention though…?…I’m interested in your views…

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Ammi

…I agree with all you say and I’ve also been thinking about it quite a bit today in terms of the word being said specifically by John Davidson in this instance who has lived with Tourette Syndrome through his life …and his use of…?…being fundamentally involuntary….the weight of the word as you say, would be the same on impact, as it were, I understand that and it was very visible in the two actors on the stage…but it is quite layered in terms of use/intention though…?…I’m interested in your views…

I hear what you’re saying about John Davidson and Tourette Syndrome, and I’m not disputing his condition or his intentions. But for me, that’s a completely separate issue from the impact of the word itself.

Tourette’s means he doesn’t have control over what comes out — that’s understood. But the effect of the word doesn’t change just because the speaker didn’t mean it. The people hearing it still feel the weight of it, and that was obvious from the reaction on stage.

What disappoints me is the way some people jump straight to, “Well, an actor said it in a script once, so it’s fine.” That’s the part I can’t get my head around. A scripted performance in a controlled context is not the same as everyday use, and it never has been. Pretending those two things are equivalent is just a way of dodging the uncomfortable truth about the word’s history and the harm it carries.

So yes — I understand the layers, and I’m not criticising someone with Tourette’s for something they can’t control. But I’m still disappointed that people are using that situation as an excuse to normalise a word that has caused generations of damage.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

I hear what you’re saying about John Davidson and Tourette Syndrome, and I’m not disputing his condition or his intentions. But for me, that’s a completely separate issue from the impact of the word itself.

Tourette’s means he doesn’t have control over what comes out — that’s understood. But the effect of the word doesn’t change just because the speaker didn’t mean it. The people hearing it still feel the weight of it, and that was obvious from the reaction on stage.

What disappoints me is the way some people jump straight to, “Well, an actor said it in a script once, so it’s fine.” That’s the part I can’t get my head around. A scripted performance in a controlled context is not the same as everyday use, and it never has been. Pretending those two things are equivalent is just a way of dodging the uncomfortable truth about the word’s history and the harm it carries.

So yes — I understand the layers, and I’m not criticising someone with Tourette’s for something they can’t control. But I’m still disappointed that people are using that situation as an excuse to normalise a word that has caused generations of damage.

…I think that we’re of the same mindset tbh, I do think that on this occasion, it has to be considered who used the slur because that does remove an intention and it becomes an involuntary vocal action but that doesn’t take away from the weight and power of it, as you say and that was very visible from the actors in their reaction…it’s an important thing to discuss I think…from both aspects of the history of the word and its impact and the struggle of Tourette’s in ‘acceptability’ and in society…

[Crimson Dynamo]

"craziest thing about this BAFTAs situation is that, that man was present bc they were honouring a film about him, that was so important bc it was showing how tourettes is so misunderstood and vilified, only for this to happen and everyone to react exactly like those in the film"

Ycmiu

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and I want to say it in the gentlest way possible: it’s surprising that in 2026 we’re still seeing people argue that the n‑word is acceptable in everyday conversation simply because an actor used it in a script. That’s not really how context works.

When a word appears in a film, TV show, or play, it’s being used within a very specific framework — usually to reflect a time period, a character’s worldview, or a social reality the story is trying to explore. It’s not meant as a blanket endorsement for casual use, and it definitely doesn’t remove the weight the word carries outside that fictional setting.

If anyone isn’t sure why the word is so sensitive, I’d really encourage taking a bit of time to read about its history. It has a long, painful, and complicated background tied to racism, violence, and dehumanisation. Understanding that history makes it much clearer why people react strongly to hearing it used casually.

This isn’t about attacking anyone — it’s about recognising that language has power, and some words carry centuries of harm behind them. Learning that context helps all of us navigate these conversations with more care and awareness.

Come on.

No-one feels the impact of the word's useage from long before living memory. It's so far removed from that, to just become an insult.

Like how "gay" never means happy anymore.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Come on.

No-one feels the impact of the word's useage from long before living memory. It's so far removed from that, to just become an insult.

Like how "gay" never means happy anymore.

I understand the argument that language evolves and that some words drift far away from their original meaning. I also recognise that in this particular situation, Tourette Syndrome means the word wasn’t spoken with intention or malice. That part is important, and I’m not criticising the individual for something they can’t control.

But for me, this specific word is in a completely different category from most examples of language change. Its history is extremely long, extremely violent, and tied to generations of racism and dehumanisation. That weight doesn’t just fade because time has passed or because some people now use it casually. The impact is still there, and the history is still there.

That’s why I struggle when people treat a scripted performance as if it somehow makes everyday use acceptable. A film or stage context is controlled and deliberate. Everyday use isn’t. And the truth is, the history of this word is simply too long and too complicated for me to ever feel comfortable with it being normalised in any setting.

So yes, meanings shift, and yes, Tourette’s removes intention. But the baggage attached to this particular word is so heavy that I’d honestly be fine if no one used it at all. It’s one of those cases where the past is too significant to separate from the present.

That’s where I stand.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Come on.

No-one feels the impact of the word's useage from long before living memory. It's so far removed from that, to just become an insult.

Like how "gay" never means happy anymore.

see you next tuesday is an age old insult that still holds the same venom that it did when it was originally introduced. People still feel the impact to this day, so your point makes no sense

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

That’s why I struggle when people treat a scripted performance as if it somehow makes everyday use acceptable. A film or stage context is controlled and deliberate. Everyday use isn’t. And the truth is, the history of this word is simply too long and too complicated for me to ever feel comfortable with it being normalised in any setting.

How do you feel about scripted performances where the N-word is used casually, not in the historic context?

In the film Sinners, the characters were using it amongst themselves as if it were nothing; I don't remember it being used as a slur in the film?

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Parmy

Jamie Foxx accusing him of saying it deliberately....

Or to put it another way. Jamie fox insults a disability.

[Ammi]

…just to add, as this has just been discussed on Newsnight and someone who was there at the event put it well in saying that it was a very sad situation all round for everyone…a black person doesn’t have to choose between the understanding and support of a disability and disabilities in themselves are complicated or ‘messy’ if you like…and the discomfort and shock they feel at a racial slur which has terrible historical connotations …/those two things can do-exist at the same time…it doesn’t have to be a choice…and I think that’s exactly how many feel about it…

[Crimson Dynamo]

News night is left wing propaganda

Ignore it at all costs

It's toxic

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

How do you feel about scripted performances where the N-word is used casually, not in the historic context?

In the film Sinners, the characters were using it amongst themselves as if it were nothing; I don't remember it being used as a slur in the film?

When it comes to scripted performances, I don’t have an issue with certain words being used if they genuinely fit the characters and the world they’re in. Some people really do speak that way, and film or theatre sometimes reflects that reality. In a controlled, intentional setting, it’s part of the storytelling rather than something thrown around casually.

I say that as someone who’s seen both sides of this in my own family. My dad treated that word as one of the worst insults you could ever direct at someone. He only used it at me a handful of times in my entire life, and always in anger. But on my mum’s side, it gets used constantly, almost casually, every other word when the family gets together. That contrast alone shows how divided people still are about what the word means and how it lands.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

News night is left wing propaganda

Ignore it at all costs

It's toxic

This is a strange take. We’re talking about the BAFTAs race issue, and somehow the big revelation is that Newsnight is left‑wing propaganda. I’m still waiting to hear what the supposed left‑wing position even is. And if there’s a left‑wing one, surely there must be a right‑wing one too. Tell us about it.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

I say that as someone who’s seen both sides of this in my own family. My dad treated that word as one of the worst insults you could ever direct at someone. He only used it at me a handful of times in my entire life, and always in anger. But on my mum’s side, it gets used constantly, almost casually, every other word when the family gets together. That contrast alone shows how divided people still are about what the word means and how it lands.

Interesting.

If I may ask, when your dad used the word did it feel worse, because of how he personally felt about the word? Or did your other relatives' casual use of it trivialise it as a weapon?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by bots

i've never encountered anyone with that affliction. I would imagine there is at least an 80% chance i would knock someone out if they shouted insults at me

A good friend of my brothers when we were younger had tourettes (as in he was good friends with him when we were younger, he still has tourettes ) such a lovely guy but its a horrible condition. My brother used to have cigerette burns and bruises from him because he'd get these jerky and violent ticks. I remember him being at a wedding one time and he was shouting ***** etc in the church, he had to leave, its so life limiting really

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

"craziest thing about this BAFTAs situation is that, that man was present bc they were honouring a film about him, that was so important bc it was showing how tourettes is so misunderstood and vilified, only for this to happen and everyone to react exactly like those in the film"

Ycmiu

That is exactly how I feel, they are all patting themselves on the back for giving the actor who played Davidson a Bafta but when actually faced with the reality of it they play the racism card, its a disgrace how he is being treated. I believe the BBC left it the word in as they had plenty opportunity to edit it out, as they believed people actually did understand how the condition can manifest itself, clearly people watched the movie as a work of fiction

[Parmy]

It's simple really. Jamie Foxx accused a man with touretttess of being a racist because Foxx didnt believe touretttess made him say it..

Foxx however would forget his outrage when he's being payed millions to allow a white man's screenplay and a white directors prompting to be used for him to be called the word.

Of course it's not acceptable for somene to shout the word out at 2 black men on stage, that would be ridiculous to think. But what's worse is that's not what happened. What happened was the word was shouted by someone with an uncontrollable condition, a disability and he has been torn to shreds for being disabled by 2 black men.

Then black saying the same word to another black is fine...no eyes blinking...why is that? Why is that acceptable? Especially when the film in question for Jamie Foxx is django...and the word is used in that film b6 one black man to insult another black man during slave times.


This story isn't the word, it's the illlnesss and people need to remember that.

[bots]

even if you are absolutely aware that someone has this. The "in the moment" reaction to it is wild outrage. It just cant be avoided. Maybe if there is sufficient distance between you and them there is a chance to rationalise, but if the person is within arm's reach, it's very likely not going to end well

[Oliver_W]

The whole "he meant it" and "he wouldn't have said the word if he didn't think it" thing...

Sometimes inappropriate thoughts cross my mind, like "ohh she's grown a moustache" or "he's podging out a bit" - if I had that variety of Tourette's, would those passing thoughts come bursting out?

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

The whole "he meant it" and "he wouldn't have said the word if he didn't think it" thing...

Sometimes inappropriate thoughts cross my mind, like "ohh she's grown a moustache" or "he's podging out a bit" - if I had that variety of Tourette's, would those passing thoughts come bursting out?

Not necessarily.

[Ray.]

I mean Sinners was bad, but it wasn't n-word level bad.

[Livia]

A bunch of people in the very top niche of their profession, which means they have excellent publicists, acting parents or they were in the right place at the right time, who rake in millions per film, get together to give each other awards and gush about each others' profound excellence.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

The whole "he meant it" and "he wouldn't have said the word if he didn't think it" thing...

Sometimes inappropriate thoughts cross my mind, like "ohh she's grown a moustache" or "he's podging out a bit" - if I had that variety of Tourette's, would those passing thoughts come bursting out?

I heard it explained beautifully by a mother whose son has Tourettes yesterday, the words get stuck in your head ... and you just have to blurt them out at times obviously there is a trigger

[bots]

can you imagine a sufferer calling a call centre for assistance. They would get disconnected almost immediately

[arista]

Day 3 a BAFTA Judge has resigned


Good on him


[February 24, 2026,
Jonte Richardson, a Black filmmaker
and member of the BAFTA
emerging talent judging panel,
resigned in protest following the handling
of an incident at the
2026 EE BAFTA Film Awards]

ref: LBC