[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…