[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.