During the BAFTAS a member of the audience who suffers with Tourette's Syndrome shouted out what is being referred to as the "N word".
It seems to be creating a dreadful fuss with people attacking the BBC left right and centre.
This is what sufferers of Tourette's do. How far should we expect to be protected from reality? When does the aggression towards the BBC actually become a "hate" crime towards the sufferer since, presumably, Tourette's
is a protected characteristic?
During the BAFTAS a member of the audience who suffers with Tourette's Syndrome shouted out what is being referred to as the "N word".
It seems to be creating a dreadful fuss with people attacking the BBC
left right and centre.
On 24/02/2026 14:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The problem is that the BAFTAS were not broadcast live, but instead with
a 2-hour delay. According to reports, the BBC had edited the programme
to remove some comments about Palestine when they broadcast it. So why
did they not edit out the offensive remarks from the Tourette's
sufferer?
During the BAFTAS a member of the audience who suffers with Tourette's Syndrome shouted out what is being referred to as the "N word".
It seems to be creating a dreadful fuss with people attacking the BBC
left right and centre.
This is what sufferers of Tourette's do. How far should we expect to be protected from reality? When does the aggression towards the BBC
actually become a "hate" crime towards the sufferer since, presumably, Tourette's is a protected characteristic?
On 24/02/2026 02:09 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
During the BAFTAS a member of the audience who suffers with Tourette's
Syndrome shouted out what is being referred to as the "N word".
It seems to be creating a dreadful fuss with people attacking the BBC
left right and centre.
This is what sufferers of Tourette's do. How far should we expect to be
protected from reality? When does the aggression towards the BBC
actually become a "hate" crime towards the sufferer since, presumably,
Tourette's is a protected characteristic?
I don't know whether Tourette's is a protected characteristic, though I >suspect that it is not. After all, there are plenty of social situations >wherein someone exhibiting what are said to be the classic symptoms of
the condition could clearly not be welcome (anywhere in and during a
church service is an obvious one,
but there are plenty of others).
But... as I understand it, the film awarded all those accolades is
*about* someone with Tourette's. The film itself must be full of it,
surely? Are luvvies all so thick that they feel bound to take political >offence at the public behaviour of the person the movie is actually about?
During the BAFTAS a member of the audience who suffers with Tourette's Syndrome shouted out what is being referred to as the "N word".
It seems to be creating a dreadful fuss with people attacking the BBC
left right and centre.
This is what sufferers of Tourette's do. How far should we expect to be protected from reality? When does the aggression towards the BBC
actually become a "hate" crime towards the sufferer since, presumably, Tourette's is a protected characteristic?
On 24/02/2026 14:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
During the BAFTAS a member of the audience who suffers with
Tourette's Syndrome shouted out what is being referred to as the "N >>word".
It seems to be creating a dreadful fuss with people attacking the
BBC left right and centre.
This is what sufferers of Tourette's do. How far should we expect to
be protected from reality? When does the aggression towards the BBC >>actually become a "hate" crime towards the sufferer since, presumably, >>Tourette's is a protected characteristic?
I don't think people of colour are so fragile that they are deeply
wounded by a Tourettes person shouting "Nigger".
Actually I was impressed by Kemi Badenoch who appeared on one of the
morning chat shows to talk about student loans and was ambushed by the >presenters who wanted to talk about whether she thought Andrew should
be removed from the line of succession and whether she wanted to
complain about the terrible insult to all people of colour when the
N-word (obviously cannot be quoted on national tv) was spoken.
She rather courageously made light of the supposed offence and said she >preferred to talk about student loans and what the government itself
was doing wrong. This seemed to bother Susanna Reid who had a real
obsession with the royal succession and the need for grovelling
apologies for the N-word.
I wonder whether there would be the same fuss if the chap had shouted >"CUNT!" or "CUNNILINGUS". Perhaps there would have been the same >pearls-clutching.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:03:40 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 14:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The problem is that the BAFTAS were not broadcast live, but instead with
a 2-hour delay. According to reports, the BBC had edited the programme
to remove some comments about Palestine when they broadcast it. So why
did they not edit out the offensive remarks from the Tourette's
sufferer?
But surely it's the intent that makes words "offensive" ? That's the
Farage defence.
Or are we back to the fiction that there are context free words ?
On 24/02/2026 17:35, Jethro wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:03:40 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 14:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The problem is that the BAFTAS were not broadcast live, but instead with >>> a 2-hour delay. According to reports, the BBC had edited the programme
to remove some comments about Palestine when they broadcast it. So why
did they not edit out the offensive remarks from the Tourette's
sufferer?
But surely it's the intent that makes words "offensive" ? That's the
Farage defence.
If most black people consider the word itself offensive, then it does
not matter whether there is intent or not.
If someone who had never seen
the word before, and did not know what it meant, read it out in a
sentence to a black person would that make it not offensive to the black person?
Of course not, even though there was no intent to offend.
Or are we back to the fiction that there are context free words ?
Rather a lot of discussion on that here: <https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2019/10/11/ai_black_people/>
I don't believe that there is a consensus one way or the other.
On 24/02/2026 17:35, Jethro wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If most black people consider the word itself offensive, then it does
not matter whether there is intent or not. If someone who had never seen
the word before, and did not know what it
On 24/02/2026 02:09 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
During the BAFTAS a member of the audience who suffers with Tourette's
Syndrome shouted out what is being referred to as the "N word".
It seems to be creating a dreadful fuss with people attacking the BBC
left right and centre.
This is what sufferers of Tourette's do. How far should we expect to
be protected from reality? When does the aggression towards the BBC
actually become a "hate" crime towards the sufferer since, presumably,
Tourette's is a protected characteristic?
I don't know whether Tourette's is a protected characteristic, though I suspect that it is not. After all, there are plenty of social situations wherein someone exhibiting what are said to be the classic symptoms of
the condition could clearly not be welcome (anywhere in and during a
church service is an obvious one, but there are plenty of others).
But... as I understand it, the film awarded all those accolades is
*about* someone with Tourette's. The film itself must be full of it,
surely? Are luvvies all so thick that they feel bound to take political offence at the public behaviour of the person the movie is actually about?
The BBC made a documentary for their QED series in 1989 called "John's
Not Mad" which followed John Davidson - the subject of the more recent
film, "I Swear" - at a time when few people had even heard of Tourette's Syndrome, never mind understood it.
On 24/02/2026 17:35, Jethro wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:03:40 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 14:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The problem is that the BAFTAS were not broadcast live, but instead with >>> a 2-hour delay. According to reports, the BBC had edited the programme
to remove some comments about Palestine when they broadcast it. So why
did they not edit out the offensive remarks from the Tourette's
sufferer?
But surely it's the intent that makes words "offensive" ? That's the
Farage defence.
If most black people consider the word itself offensive
On 24/02/2026 17:01, JNugent wrote:
On 24/02/2026 02:09 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
During the BAFTAS a member of the audience who suffers with
Tourette's Syndrome shouted out what is being referred to as the "N
word".
It seems to be creating a dreadful fuss with people attacking the BBC
left right and centre.
This is what sufferers of Tourette's do. How far should we expect to
be protected from reality? When does the aggression towards the BBC
actually become a "hate" crime towards the sufferer since,
presumably, Tourette's is a protected characteristic?
I don't know whether Tourette's is a protected characteristic, though
I suspect that it is not. After all, there are plenty of social
situations wherein someone exhibiting what are said to be the classic
symptoms of the condition could clearly not be welcome (anywhere in
and during a church service is an obvious one, but there are plenty of
others).
The threshold for protection under the Equality Act 2010 is if the
condition has a long-term, substantial adverse effect on a person's
ability to carry out normal daily activities.
Not all those diagnosed with Tourette's Syndrome will meet this
threshold, but the gentleman in the instant case almost certainly does.
But... as I understand it, the film awarded all those accolades is
*about* someone with Tourette's. The film itself must be full of it,
surely? Are luvvies all so thick that they feel bound to take
political offence at the public behaviour of the person the movie is
actually about?
The BBC made a documentary for their QED series in 1989 called "John's
Not Mad" which followed John Davidson - the subject of the more recent
film, "I Swear" - at a time when few people had even heard of Tourette's Syndrome, never mind understood it.
The 1989 documentary was followed up by a second documentary in 2009
called "Tourettes: I Swear I Can't Help It" and looked at the changes in John's life since the previous documentary.
IMO, the whole thing was an accident waiting to happen.-a For reasons
known only to them, the BBC placed one of their crowd mics near to Mr Davidson meaning any vocal tics he experienced during the BAFTAS were
liable to be broadcast.
And, although there was a delay between the event and the broadcast, the editing was done in a suite in the back of a truck on-site at the BAFTAs meaning they missed editing out the vocal tic that has caused the
offence because the editing team didn't hear it, even though they are reported to have edited another tic out of the broadcast.
We live in a world of competing interests, rights and responsibilities.
It seems to me that the BBC has demonstrated that it is not fit to
inhabit such a world.
On 25/02/2026 09:35 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 17:35, Jethro wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:03:40 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 14:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The problem is that the BAFTAS were not broadcast live, but instead with >>>> a 2-hour delay. According to reports, the BBC had edited the programme >>>> to remove some comments about Palestine when they broadcast it. So why >>>> did they not edit out the offensive remarks from the Tourette's
sufferer?
But surely it's the intent that makes words "offensive" ? That's the
Farage defence.
If most black people consider the word itself offensive, then it does
not matter whether there is intent or not.
If a group took the words, "Thank you sir, a pint of Stella Artois...
that'll be -u5.75" to be "offensive", would bar staff have to stop
charging for drinks?
--If someone who had never seen
the word before, and did not know what it meant, read it out in a
sentence to a black person would that make it not offensive to the black
person?
One would hope not. It would mean that all black persons (in your
estimation) are unable to read register and context.
Of course not, even though there was no intent to offend.
Or are we back to the fiction that there are context free words ?
Rather a lot of discussion on that here:
<https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2019/10/11/ai_black_people/>
I don't believe that there is a consensus one way or the other.
On 2026-02-26, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
The BBC made a documentary for their QED series in 1989 called "John's
Not Mad" which followed John Davidson - the subject of the more recent
film, "I Swear" - at a time when few people had even heard of Tourette's
Syndrome, never mind understood it.
The irony is that that documentary made quite an impact, and led to Tourette's being widely thought of as "that disease that makes you
swear a lot". So *that* led to campaigners trying to get the public
to understand that no, Tourette's doesn't always lead to swearing,
which resulted in Tourette's being widely thought of as "that
disease that many people wrongly think makes you swear a lot".
So the original documentary, which explained how John involuntarily
swears, has eventually led to the situation that there has been
widespread disbelief that John was not deliberately swearing at the
BAFTAs.
On 2026-02-26, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
The BBC made a documentary for their QED series in 1989 called "John's
Not Mad" which followed John Davidson - the subject of the more recent
film, "I Swear" - at a time when few people had even heard of Tourette's >>> Syndrome, never mind understood it.
The irony is that that documentary made quite an impact, and led to
Tourette's being widely thought of as "that disease that makes you
swear a lot". So *that* led to campaigners trying to get the public
to understand that no, Tourette's doesn't always lead to swearing,
which resulted in Tourette's being widely thought of as "that
disease that many people wrongly think makes you swear a lot".
So the original documentary, which explained how John involuntarily
swears, has eventually led to the situation that there has been
widespread disbelief that John was not deliberately swearing at the
BAFTAs.
According to Wikipedia (with respectable-looking references):
"Although [coprolalia] is the most publicized symptom of Tourette's,
only about 10% of people with Tourette's exhibit it, and it is not
required for a diagnosis."
On 24/02/2026 14:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
During the BAFTAS a member of the audience who suffers with Tourette's
Syndrome shouted out what is being referred to as the "N word".
It seems to be creating a dreadful fuss with people attacking the BBC
left right and centre.
Quite.
I wonder if the same furore would be caused by someone actually shouting
out "N word".
If not, why not? Everyone knows what it stands for, and it seems
somewhat ludicrous for one to be offensive whereas the other seemingly isn't.
I do wish someone would try. We could all do with a laugh.
Then perhaps we could tackle the absurdity of newspapers publishing
articles with asterisked words like f*ck and c*nt.
Serious questions:
Those with TouretterCOs rCyrandomlyrCO shout out words which are generally deemed
rCyoffensiverCO.
However, they donrCOt, apparently shout out other random words.
Children who are deemed to have TouretterCOs magically have an rCyimpressiverCO
vocabulary of rCyoffensiverCO words. Are we expected to believe they are born knowing them?
On 2026-02-27, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
The BBC made a documentary for their QED series in 1989 called "John's >>>> Not Mad" which followed John Davidson - the subject of the more recent >>>> film, "I Swear" - at a time when few people had even heard of Tourette's >>>> Syndrome, never mind understood it.
The irony is that that documentary made quite an impact, and led to
Tourette's being widely thought of as "that disease that makes you
swear a lot". So *that* led to campaigners trying to get the public
to understand that no, Tourette's doesn't always lead to swearing,
which resulted in Tourette's being widely thought of as "that
disease that many people wrongly think makes you swear a lot".
So the original documentary, which explained how John involuntarily
swears, has eventually led to the situation that there has been
widespread disbelief that John was not deliberately swearing at the
BAFTAs.
According to Wikipedia (with respectable-looking references):
"Although [coprolalia] is the most publicized symptom of Tourette's,
only about 10% of people with Tourette's exhibit it, and it is not
required for a diagnosis."
Gotta love that if you say "talking shit" in Greek it becomes fancy
medical speak rather than vulgar abuse.
On 25/02/2026 21:35, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 17:35, Jethro wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:03:40 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 14:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The problem is that the BAFTAS were not broadcast live, but instead
with
a 2-hour delay. According to reports, the BBC had edited the programme >>>> to remove some comments about Palestine when they broadcast it. So why >>>> did they not edit out the offensive remarks from the Tourette's
sufferer?
But surely it's the intent that makes words "offensive" ? That's the
Farage defence.
If most black people consider the word itself offensive
Finding a word offensive is a choice, a means of control over others.
The word 'queer' is a good example. It is no longer considered a
derogatory word where used in isolation and embraced by most of the gay community.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 14:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
During the BAFTAS a member of the audience who suffers with Tourette's
Syndrome shouted out what is being referred to as the "N word".
It seems to be creating a dreadful fuss with people attacking the BBC
left right and centre.
Quite.
I wonder if the same furore would be caused by someone actually shouting
out "N word".
If not, why not? Everyone knows what it stands for, and it seems
somewhat ludicrous for one to be offensive whereas the other seemingly
isn't.
I do wish someone would try. We could all do with a laugh.
Then perhaps we could tackle the absurdity of newspapers publishing
articles with asterisked words like f*ck and c*nt.
Serious questions:
Those with TouretterCOs rCyrandomlyrCO shout out words which are generally deemed
rCyoffensiverCO.
However, they donrCOt, apparently shout out other random words.
Children who are deemed to have TouretterCOs magically have an rCyimpressiverCO
vocabulary of rCyoffensiverCO words. Are we expected to believe they are born knowing them?
On 2026-02-27, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Serious questions:
Those with TouretterCOs rCyrandomlyrCO shout out words which are generally deemed
rCyoffensiverCO.
Generally speaking, no they don't. A small minority do.
However, they donrCOt, apparently shout out other random words.
That's also false.
Children who are deemed to have TouretterCOs magically have an rCyimpressiverCO
vocabulary of rCyoffensiverCO words. Are we expected to believe they are born
knowing them?
What on earth are you on about?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-02-27, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Serious questions:
Those with TouretterCOs rCyrandomlyrCO shout out words which are generally >>> deemed rCyoffensiverCO.
Generally speaking, no they don't. A small minority do.
Exactly.
Others display rCyticsrCO, jerks, etc.
Some cough, grunt, ..
However, they donrCOt, apparently shout out other random words.
That's also false.
Is it?
IsnrCOt it strange how only rCyoffensiverCO words seem to feature.
Some people have rCyticsrCO, make other sounds, but when it comes to words, cases seem to be rCycolourfulrCO.
When I was training, an expert on TouretterCOs confirmed this was their experience.
Odd isnrCOt it.
Children who are deemed to have TouretterCOs magically have an rCyimpressiverCO
vocabulary of rCyoffensiverCO words. Are we expected to believe they are born
knowing them?
What on earth are you on about?
How do you think children learn their vocabulary?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-02-27, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Serious questions:
Those with TouretterCOs rCyrandomlyrCO shout out words which are generally deemed
rCyoffensiverCO.
Generally speaking, no they don't. A small minority do.
Exactly.
Others display rCyticsrCO, jerks, etc.
Some cough, grunt, ..
However, they donrCOt, apparently shout out other random words.
That's also false.
Is it?
IsnrCOt it strange how only rCyoffensiverCO words seem to feature.
Some people have rCyticsrCO, make other sounds, but when it comes to words, cases seem to be rCycolourfulrCO.
When I was training, an expert on TouretterCOs confirmed this was their experience.
Odd isnrCOt it.
--
Children who are deemed to have TouretterCOs magically have an rCyimpressiverCO
vocabulary of rCyoffensiverCO words. Are we expected to believe they are born
knowing them?
What on earth are you on about?
How do you think children learn their vocabulary?
On 2026-02-27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-27, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
The BBC made a documentary for their QED series in 1989 called
"John's Not Mad" which followed John Davidson - the subject of the
more recent film, "I Swear" - at a time when few people had even
heard of Tourette's Syndrome, never mind understood it.
The irony is that that documentary made quite an impact, and led to
Tourette's being widely thought of as "that disease that makes you
swear a lot". So *that* led to campaigners trying to get the public
to understand that no, Tourette's doesn't always lead to swearing,
which resulted in Tourette's being widely thought of as "that disease
that many people wrongly think makes you swear a lot".
So the original documentary, which explained how John involuntarily
swears, has eventually led to the situation that there has been
widespread disbelief that John was not deliberately swearing at the
BAFTAs.
According to Wikipedia (with respectable-looking references):
"Although [coprolalia] is the most publicized symptom of Tourette's,
only about 10% of people with Tourette's exhibit it, and it is not
required for a diagnosis."
Gotta love that if you say "talking shit" in Greek it becomes fancy
medical speak rather than vulgar abuse.
Of course! I only recently learned that "coprolith" is a medical term (compacted and stuck) as well an archaeological/palaeontological one (fossilized) --- but the coprolith I saw on display in York years ago
had the blunt sign "THIS IS THE FAMOUS LLOYDS BANK TURD".
On 26/02/2026 01:39, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2026 09:35 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 17:35, Jethro wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:03:40 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 14:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:broadcast it. So why did they not edit out the offensive remarks
[quoted text muted]
The problem is that the BAFTAS were not broadcast live, but instead >>>>> with a 2-hour delay. According to reports, the BBC had edited the
programme to remove some comments about Palestine when they>
from the Tourette's sufferer?
But surely it's the intent that makes words "offensive" ? That's the
Farage defence.
If most black people consider the word itself offensive, then it does
not matter whether there is intent or not.
If a group took the words, "Thank you sir, a pint of Stella Artois...
that'll be -u5.75" to be "offensive", would bar staff have to stop
charging for drinks?
Of course not, but that's not an example of an "offensive" word or statement.
Even being sworn at won't be considered too offensive by most people.
Let's face it, you've probably been called a dickhead sometime, and even
if you've done nothing to merit it, you won't be too worried. "Nigger", however, is in a different class.
But I assume you're not black, so won't understand the underlying insult always attached to the word. So let's try something else, with a word
which - unlike "Nigger" - is not in itself offensive.
You're in your local library, and other than the female assistant who happens to know you, you are the only one there. Libraries serve as
places for group meetings these days, and it so happens there is a
"mother and child" meeting about to take place for the first time. A
dozen mothers walk in; the last one to walk in has Tourette's, but
nobody else knows this as it's the first meeting. She looks at you and involuntarily shouts "paedophile!". All the eyes focus on you, including those of the library assistant who knows you. The woman with Tourette's
then apologises to you profusely, explaining that she didn't mean it as
she has Tourette's. But the damage is done. You're probably red in the
face with anger and embarrassment.
Are you going to tell me that you don't feel offended by being wrongly called a paedophile in public? No offence was intended, was it? So
there's no problem, and next time you go to the library and the mother
and child meeting is taking place, you'll have forgotten what happened
the first time. Or will you?...
If someone who had never seen
the word before, and did not know what it meant, read it out in a
sentence to a black person would that make it not offensive to the black >>> person?
One would hope not. It would mean that all black persons (in your
estimation) are unable to read register and context.
Of course not, even though there was no intent to offend.
Or are we back to the fiction that there are context free words ?
Rather a lot of discussion on that here:
<https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2019/10/11/ai_black_people/>
I don't believe that there is a consensus one way or the other.
On 2026-02-27, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Serious questions:
Those with TouretterCOs rCyrandomlyrCO shout out words which are generally deemed
rCyoffensiverCO.
Generally speaking, no they don't. A small minority do.
However, they donrCOt, apparently shout out other random words.
That's also false.
Children who are deemed to have TouretterCOs magically have an rCyimpressiverCO
vocabulary of rCyoffensiverCO words. Are we expected to believe they are born
knowing them?
What on earth are you on about?
On 27/02/2026 08:55 am, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 26/02/2026 01:39, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2026 09:35 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 17:35, Jethro wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:03:40 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 14:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:broadcast it. So why did they not edit out the offensive remarks
[quoted text muted]
The problem is that the BAFTAS were not broadcast live, but instead >>>>>> with a 2-hour delay. According to reports, the BBC had edited the
programme to remove some comments about Palestine when they>
from the Tourette's sufferer?
But surely it's the intent that makes words "offensive" ? That's the >>>>> Farage defence.
If most black people consider the word itself offensive, then it does
not matter whether there is intent or not.
If a group took the words, "Thank you sir, a pint of Stella Artois...
that'll be -u5.75" to be "offensive", would bar staff have to stop
charging for drinks?
Of course not, but that's not an example of an "offensive" word or
statement.
It doesn't matter.
People can - and sometimes (perhaps even often) do - purport to "take offence" at absolutely anything, for their own purposes. My example was
an exaggeration to make the point. After all, there's nothing to stop
someone taking "offence" at being charge for anything they want.
Even being sworn at won't be considered too offensive by most people.
Let's face it, you've probably been called a dickhead sometime, and even
if you've done nothing to merit it, you won't be too worried. "Nigger",
however, is in a different class.
But I assume you're not black, so won't understand the underlying insult
always attached to the word. So let's try something else, with a word
which - unlike "Nigger" - is not in itself offensive.
You're in your local library, and other than the female assistant who
happens to know you, you are the only one there. Libraries serve as
places for group meetings these days, and it so happens there is a
"mother and child" meeting about to take place for the first time. A
dozen mothers walk in; the last one to walk in has Tourette's, but
nobody else knows this as it's the first meeting. She looks at you and
involuntarily shouts "paedophile!". All the eyes focus on you, including
those of the library assistant who knows you. The woman with Tourette's
then apologises to you profusely, explaining that she didn't mean it as
she has Tourette's. But the damage is done. You're probably red in the
face with anger and embarrassment.
Are you going to tell me that you don't feel offended by being wrongly
called a paedophile in public? No offence was intended, was it? So
there's no problem, and next time you go to the library and the mother
and child meeting is taking place, you'll have forgotten what happened
the first time. Or will you?...
That's nonsense. No-one would take it seriously in the circumstances you describe.
Serious questions:
Those with Tourette's 'randomly' shout out words which are generally deemed >'offensive'.
On 27/02/2026 15:09, JNugent wrote:
On 27/02/2026 08:55 am, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 26/02/2026 01:39, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2026 09:35 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 17:35, Jethro wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:03:40 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 14:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:broadcast it. So why did they not edit out the offensive remarks
[quoted text muted]
The problem is that the BAFTAS were not broadcast live, but instead >>>>>>> with a 2-hour delay. According to reports, the BBC had edited the >>>>>>> programme to remove some comments about Palestine when they>
from the Tourette's sufferer?
But surely it's the intent that makes words "offensive" ? That's the >>>>>> Farage defence.
If most black people consider the word itself offensive, then it does >>>>> not matter whether there is intent or not.
If a group took the words, "Thank you sir, a pint of Stella Artois...
that'll be -u5.75" to be "offensive", would bar staff have to stop
charging for drinks?
Of course not, but that's not an example of an "offensive" word or
statement.
It doesn't matter.
People can - and sometimes (perhaps even often) do - purport to "take
offence" at absolutely anything, for their own purposes. My example was
an exaggeration to make the point. After all, there's nothing to stop
someone taking "offence" at being charge for anything they want.
Even being sworn at won't be considered too offensive by most people.
Let's face it, you've probably been called a dickhead sometime, and even >>> if you've done nothing to merit it, you won't be too worried. "Nigger",
however, is in a different class.
But I assume you're not black, so won't understand the underlying insult >>> always attached to the word. So let's try something else, with a word
which - unlike "Nigger" - is not in itself offensive.
You're in your local library, and other than the female assistant who
happens to know you, you are the only one there. Libraries serve as
places for group meetings these days, and it so happens there is a
"mother and child" meeting about to take place for the first time. A
dozen mothers walk in; the last one to walk in has Tourette's, but
nobody else knows this as it's the first meeting. She looks at you and
involuntarily shouts "paedophile!". All the eyes focus on you, including >>> those of the library assistant who knows you. The woman with Tourette's
then apologises to you profusely, explaining that she didn't mean it as
she has Tourette's. But the damage is done. You're probably red in the
face with anger and embarrassment.
Are you going to tell me that you don't feel offended by being wrongly
called a paedophile in public? No offence was intended, was it? So
there's no problem, and next time you go to the library and the mother
and child meeting is taking place, you'll have forgotten what happened
the first time. Or will you?...
That's nonsense. No-one would take it seriously in the circumstances you
describe.
Just like the first post in this thread saw no issues at all? <https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/ztfp0n/ i_was_called_a_paedophile_by_some_12yearolds_for/>
And dozens of the replies basically said "Don't worry, just ignore it".
So there's obviously nothing to worry about, is there?
Or maybe there is. From one of the comments: <https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/ztfp0n/comment/kk4eqve/>
"I experienced the rCyPEDO!rCO shout/s myself back in early September 2023. IrCOm in the UK in the midlands. I also happen to be autistic
spectrum...It was certainly horrible to experience though. And I donrCOt think IrCOll ever forget it, despite the incident only taking up all of 6 mins or so."
Does that look like one person "not taking it seriously" to you?
Just like the first post in this thread saw no issues at all? >><https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/ztfp0n/ >>i_was_called_a_paedophile_by_some_12yearolds_for/>
I'm not reading it. If is says something important or relevant, please
quote it verbatim and make whatever point you were thinking of making. It
is for you to make your points and not for me to guess what they might be.
On 28/02/2026 08:11 am, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 27/02/2026 15:09, JNugent wrote:
On 27/02/2026 08:55 am, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 26/02/2026 01:39, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2026 09:35 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 17:35, Jethro wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:03:40 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 14:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:broadcast it. So why did they not edit out the offensive remarks >>>>>>>> from the Tourette's sufferer?
[quoted text muted]
The problem is that the BAFTAS were not broadcast live, but instead >>>>>>>> with a 2-hour delay. According to reports, the BBC had edited the >>>>>>>> programme to remove some comments about Palestine when they>
But surely it's the intent that makes words "offensive" ? That's the >>>>>>> Farage defence.
If most black people consider the word itself offensive, then it does >>>>>> not matter whether there is intent or not.
If a group took the words, "Thank you sir, a pint of Stella Artois... >>>>> that'll be -u5.75" to be "offensive", would bar staff have to stop
charging for drinks?
Of course not, but that's not an example of an "offensive" word or
statement.
It doesn't matter.
People can - and sometimes (perhaps even often) do - purport to "take
offence" at absolutely anything, for their own purposes. My example was
an exaggeration to make the point. After all, there's nothing to stop
someone taking "offence" at being charge for anything they want.
Even being sworn at won't be considered too offensive by most people.
Let's face it, you've probably been called a dickhead sometime, and
even
if you've done nothing to merit it, you won't be too worried. "Nigger", >>>> however, is in a different class.
But I assume you're not black, so won't understand the underlying
insult
always attached to the word. So let's try something else, with a word
which - unlike "Nigger" - is not in itself offensive.
You're in your local library, and other than the female assistant who
happens to know you, you are the only one there. Libraries serve as
places for group meetings these days, and it so happens there is a
"mother and child" meeting about to take place for the first time. A
dozen mothers walk in; the last one to walk in has Tourette's, but
nobody else knows this as it's the first meeting. She looks at you and >>>> involuntarily shouts "paedophile!". All the eyes focus on you,
including
those of the library assistant who knows you. The woman with Tourette's >>>> then apologises to you profusely, explaining that she didn't mean it as >>>> she has Tourette's. But the damage is done. You're probably red in the >>>> face with anger and embarrassment.
Are you going to tell me that you don't feel offended by being wrongly >>>> called a paedophile in public? No offence was intended, was it? So
there's no problem, and next time you go to the library and the mother >>>> and child meeting is taking place, you'll have forgotten what happened >>>> the first time. Or will you?...
That's nonsense. No-one would take it seriously in the circumstances you >>> describe.
Just like the first post in this thread saw no issues at all?
<https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/ztfp0n/
i_was_called_a_paedophile_by_some_12yearolds_for/>
I'm not reading it. If is says something important or relevant, please
quote it verbatim and make whatever point you were thinking of making.
It is for *you* to make your points and not for me to guess what they
might be.
And dozens of the replies basically said "Don't worry, just ignore
it". So there's obviously nothing to worry about, is there?
Dunno. Didn't read it.
Or maybe there is. From one of the comments:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/ztfp0n/comment/kk4eqve/>
"I experienced the rCyPEDO!rCO shout/s myself back in early September
2023. IrCOm in the UK in the midlands. I also happen to be autistic
spectrum...It was certainly horrible to experience though. And I donrCOt
think IrCOll ever forget it, despite the incident only taking up all of
6 mins or so."
Does that look like one person "not taking it seriously" to you?
Quote the material upon which you seek to rely. I am not doing your
research for you and that's flat.
On 28/02/2026 08:11 am, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 27/02/2026 15:09, JNugent wrote:
On 27/02/2026 08:55 am, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 26/02/2026 01:39, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2026 09:35 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 17:35, Jethro wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:03:40 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 14:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:broadcast it. So why did they not edit out the offensive remarks >>>>>>>> from the Tourette's sufferer?
[quoted text muted]
The problem is that the BAFTAS were not broadcast live, but instead >>>>>>>> with a 2-hour delay. According to reports, the BBC had edited the >>>>>>>> programme to remove some comments about Palestine when they>
But surely it's the intent that makes words "offensive" ? That's the >>>>>>> Farage defence.
If most black people consider the word itself offensive, then it does >>>>>> not matter whether there is intent or not.
If a group took the words, "Thank you sir, a pint of Stella Artois... >>>>> that'll be -u5.75" to be "offensive", would bar staff have to stop
charging for drinks?
Of course not, but that's not an example of an "offensive" word or
statement.
It doesn't matter.
People can - and sometimes (perhaps even often) do - purport to "take
offence" at absolutely anything, for their own purposes. My example was
an exaggeration to make the point. After all, there's nothing to stop
someone taking "offence" at being charge for anything they want.
Even being sworn at won't be considered too offensive by most people.
Let's face it, you've probably been called a dickhead sometime, and even >>>> if you've done nothing to merit it, you won't be too worried. "Nigger", >>>> however, is in a different class.
But I assume you're not black, so won't understand the underlying insult >>>> always attached to the word. So let's try something else, with a word
which - unlike "Nigger" - is not in itself offensive.
You're in your local library, and other than the female assistant who
happens to know you, you are the only one there. Libraries serve as
places for group meetings these days, and it so happens there is a
"mother and child" meeting about to take place for the first time. A
dozen mothers walk in; the last one to walk in has Tourette's, but
nobody else knows this as it's the first meeting. She looks at you and >>>> involuntarily shouts "paedophile!". All the eyes focus on you, including >>>> those of the library assistant who knows you. The woman with Tourette's >>>> then apologises to you profusely, explaining that she didn't mean it as >>>> she has Tourette's. But the damage is done. You're probably red in the >>>> face with anger and embarrassment.
Are you going to tell me that you don't feel offended by being wrongly >>>> called a paedophile in public? No offence was intended, was it? So
there's no problem, and next time you go to the library and the mother >>>> and child meeting is taking place, you'll have forgotten what happened >>>> the first time. Or will you?...
That's nonsense. No-one would take it seriously in the circumstances you >>> describe.
Just like the first post in this thread saw no issues at all?
<https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/ztfp0n/
i_was_called_a_paedophile_by_some_12yearolds_for/>
I'm not reading it. If is says something important or relevant, please
quote it verbatim and make whatever point you were thinking of making.
It is for *you* to make your points and not for me to guess what they
might be.
And dozens of the replies basically said "Don't worry, just ignore it".
So there's obviously nothing to worry about, is there?
Dunno. Didn't read it.
Or maybe there is. From one of the comments:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/ztfp0n/comment/kk4eqve/>
"I experienced the rCyPEDO!rCO shout/s myself back in early September 2023. >> IrCOm in the UK in the midlands. I also happen to be autistic
spectrum...It was certainly horrible to experience though. And I donrCOt
think IrCOll ever forget it, despite the incident only taking up all of 6
mins or so."
Does that look like one person "not taking it seriously" to you?
Quote the material upon which you seek to rely. I am not doing your
research for you and that's flat.
On 01/03/2026 00:30, JNugent wrote:
On 28/02/2026 08:11 am, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 27/02/2026 15:09, JNugent wrote:
On 27/02/2026 08:55 am, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 26/02/2026 01:39, JNugent wrote:
On 25/02/2026 09:35 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 17:35, Jethro wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:03:40 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 14:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The problem is that the BAFTAS were not broadcast live, but >>>>>>>>> instead with a 2-hour delay. According to reports, the BBC had >>>>>>>>> edited the programme to remove some comments about Palestine >>>>>>>>> when they broadcast it. So why did they not edit out the
offensive remarks from the Tourette's sufferer?
But surely it's the intent that makes words "offensive" ? That's >>>>>>>> the Farage defence.
If most black people consider the word itself offensive, then it >>>>>>> does
not matter whether there is intent or not.
If a group took the words, "Thank you sir, a pint of Stella Artois... >>>>>> that'll be -u5.75" to be "offensive", would bar staff have to stop >>>>>> charging for drinks?
Of course not, but that's not an example of an "offensive" word or
statement.
It doesn't matter.
People can - and sometimes (perhaps even often) do - purport to "take
offence" at absolutely anything, for their own purposes. My example was >>>> an exaggeration to make the point. After all, there's nothing to stop
someone taking "offence" at being charge for anything they want.
Even being sworn at won't be considered too offensive by most people. >>>>> Let's face it, you've probably been called a dickhead sometime, and >>>>> even if you've done nothing to merit it, you won't be too worried. >>>>> "Nigger", however, is in a different class.
But I assume you're not black, so won't understand the underlying
insult always attached to the word. So let's try something else,
with a word which - unlike "Nigger" - is not in itself offensive.
You're in your local library, and other than the female assistant who >>>>> happens to know you, you are the only one there. Libraries serve as
places for group meetings these days, and it so happens there is a
"mother and child" meeting about to take place for the first time. A >>>>> dozen mothers walk in; the last one to walk in has Tourette's, but
nobody else knows this as it's the first meeting. She looks at you and >>>>> involuntarily shouts "paedophile!". All the eyes focus on you,
including those of the library assistant who knows you. The woman
with Tourette's then apologises to you profusely, explaining that
she didn't mean it as she has Tourette's. But the damage is done.
You're probably red in the face with anger and embarrassment.
Are you going to tell me that you don't feel offended by being wrongly >>>>> called a paedophile in public? No offence was intended, was it? So
there's no problem, and next time you go to the library and the mother >>>>> and child meeting is taking place, you'll have forgotten what happened >>>>> the first time. Or will you?...
That's nonsense. No-one would take it seriously in the circumstances
you describe.
Just like the first post in this thread saw no issues at all?
<https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/ztfp0n/
i_was_called_a_paedophile_by_some_12yearolds_for/>
I'm not reading it. If is says something important or relevant, please
quote it verbatim and make whatever point you were thinking of making.
It is for *you* to make your points and not for me to guess what they
might be.
Sorry to hear that it's too much effort to click on a link,
as it unnecessarily wastes a lot of news server space, but just for you:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/ztfp0n/ i_was_called_a_paedophile_by_some_12yearolds_for/>:
"I was called a paedophile by some 12-year-olds for some reason
I was walking into my town on Tuesday at around 3pm when some boys I
assume were around 12 started to yell at me and call me a "f*cking paedophile". I am as disgusted by paedophilia as anyone else, and I've
never met those kids before (I'm 20 and studying at the local
university). I suspect I look kind of weird (thick glasses, short, transgender man, mixed race in a predominantly white town), but I still
have no idea why they called me a paedophile. I always look down when I
walk because eye contact has never been a skill of mine, I try to avoid interacting with anyone and I just try to keep out of everyone's way.
They were probably just being stupid 12-year-olds, but everyone knows
that being called a paedophile can, in the worst case scenario, lead to vigilante attacks; I highly doubt any of this will happen to me because
I have never done anything so disgusting, but the fact they just said it
to me is somewhat hurtful."
Is that clear enough? Note in particular the last sentence, which
amplified by the final quote below which you couldn't be bothered to read.
And dozens of the replies basically said "Don't worry, just ignore it".
So there's obviously nothing to worry about, is there?
Dunno. Didn't read it.
Why not? Just because they disagree with your point of view?
Well, here
are a selection. Perhaps you can spend a couple of minutes reading
through them. But why do I doubt that you'll do that?
<https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/ztfp0n/comment/j1drqz9/>
"Yep thatrCOs all there is to it, they saw a person walking alone and decided to be little 12 year old assholes. Could have been anybody there
and it would have had the same result. Think nothing of it and move on,
I guarantee they did."
<https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/ztfp0n/comment/j1djnm3/>
"In the area I live, the kids just shout that at people because they
think it is hilarious. Please donrCOt worry about it, they are just being dipshits"
<https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/ztfp0n/comment/j1dit9h/>
"Kids tend to have rapidly expanding vocabularies, but very little sense
in how to use these new words. This can be as simple as lacking a
definition or lacking decorum in their use. I wouldn't take it
personally or to court; at most, I'd mention it to their parents if I
saw them."
<https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/ztfp0n/comment/j1eipsb/>
"typical 12 year old boy behaviour, just ignore them. they will learn
their lesson one day not to be so judgemental to others"
<https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/ztfp0n/comment/j1eu6xn/>
"don't let a 12 year old get you down, if you know in your heart you've
done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about."
<https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/ztfp0n/comment/j1ekj7o/>
"but the issue here is OP can be pushed into a dangerous corner, picked
up by the cops, just because stupid kids claim they're a pedo... thats DANGEROUS!!!!
teena needs to realize how dangerous it is to make a claim as bold as
that about an adult."
Or maybe there is. From one of the comments:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/ztfp0n/comment/kk4eqve/>
"I experienced the rCyPEDO!rCO shout/s myself back in early September 2023. >>> IrCOm in the UK in the midlands. I also happen to be autistic
spectrum...It was certainly horrible to experience though. And I donrCOt >>> think IrCOll ever forget it, despite the incident only taking up all of 6 >>> mins or so."
Does that look like one person "not taking it seriously" to you?
Quote the material upon which you seek to rely. I am not doing your
research for you and that's flat.
I've done all my own research, thank you, which you've carefully avoided reading. I've even quoted, which for some reason you don't seem to be
able to see.
You'll rarely see a post of mine without a link or even a referenced
quote where it is important.
<10nsp49$2au2b$2@dont-email.me>
<10nkllc$3o61e$3@dont-email.me>
<10nnpv7$10mr6$2@dont-email.me>
Brian wrote:Famously, the words may be inoffensive, such as "biscuit" or "hedgehog".
Those with Tourette's 'randomly' shout out words which are generally deemed >> 'offensive'.
That's not the case.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 19:30:30 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (21,017K bytes) |
| Messages: | 194,291 |