Richard Irvine

Funny how those who use the word "colleague" the most frequently and gratuitously in work communications are usually the worst colleagues.

See also "collegial".

This is going to be a really important book. I won't be able to join the zoom link for the talk as I have training at the time, but I'm looking forward to getting the book when it comes out.

What's this from/ the context of it?

Sure I think the harm can be acknowledged (plus asking why did the broadcast, in spite of a time delay, include it? There's an intentional action that should be apologised for) without putting the burden specifically on the person with Tourettes to be the one doing that work.

That's your presumption to make; I simply want a world in which we're better educated about neurological conditions and where we're not expecting those who have them them to hide away or apologise for their existence because they make us uncomfortable.

And if they're having constantly to apologise, at what point does that become "I have to apologise for my existence as somebody with a condition"? Placing a burden of shame on people for a neurological condition is eugenic logic and something society needs to move beyond.

While I can understand the theory of apologising for harm even in the case of unintentionality (e.g. I apologise if I step on someone's foot unintentionality),when someone's tics are so frequent, how much of their life should they dedicate to saying sorry? How much burden does that place on someone?

This is probably the most ignorant thing I've read in the context of this whole situation, and that's saying something given a crowded field.

How Indigenous ideas about non-linear time can help us navigate ecological crises Māori, for instance, do not place the present at the centre; as some researchers put it, ‘there is no centre’.

Philip McKibbin on time "recurring, spiralling, and recalling itself". theconversation.com/how-indigeno...

BAFTA and BBC Let the N-Word Air on Tape Delay — Michael B. Jordan, Delroy Lindo, the Tourette’s Community and Viewers Deserve an Apology A Tourette’s-related outburst of the N-word aired during the BAFTAs despite tape delay. Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo are owed an apology.

I think this is the best thing I've read on it - there was a tape delay on the broadcast and the BBC didn't see fit to bleep out the word, which (unlike the tic) IS a active decision to do harm. variety.com/2026/film/aw...

and people with Tourettes shouldn't have to hide away at home because of their disability. They especially shouldn't be excluded from an event where a film is being nominated about them!
There should have been much better explanation before and after, and there needs to be much more education.

Absolutely

What is the bad decision here? His involuntary tic isn't a decision.

The event was the BAFTA film awards; he was because the BAFTA-nominated film I Swear is based on his life story. His attendance was not hijacking the awards; he had every right to be there.

I'm wondering if you've misunderstood the nature of the event - it was the BAFTA Film Awards and John Davidson was there because he is part of the BAFTA-nominated film I Swear. He deserved to be there as a nominee. And it is incorrect to surmise from a tic that he has anti-Black sentiment.

You're obviously a troll

The gross ignorance about Tourettes syndrome that's been demonstrated in the last 24 hours is truly sad. There's a eugenic logic about it: implying that neurodivergence is a moral failing to be apologised for, suggesting they shouldn't be in public if they can't control themselves, etc. etc.

"My AI summary of Tourettes doesn't say anything about racist slurs so he must be racist" - fucking hell
"If he was going to shout something offensive he shouldn't be at a public event" - fucking hell, how can people not see that 'hide the disabled' is eugenic logic?

I'm actually pretty shocked to see how many people are so openly discriminating against people with disabilities on this platform. It's pretty disgusting and upsetting in all honesty.

That's not to say anthropologists wouldn't have gone - I'm pretty sure loads would have jumped on the opportunity! But the discipline wasn't deemed important enough.

Indeed. Also interesting to see what kind of disciplines he sought to cultivate - the fact that brought so many cognitive science/evolutionary psychology people into his circle came up in my class on Thursday. Genetics too. Big "how to justify inequalities through evolutionary just-so stories" feel.

Not the nature writing we need, but the nature writing we deserve etc.

(Chomsky, Tooby, Pinker, and Baron-Cohen, in case anybody's wondering.)

Hard to know how to frame the fact that 4 of the scholars whose perspectives I taught today appear in the Epstein papers. The big question is: what was it about the "cognitive revolution" & evolutionary psychology that meant Epstein was so focussed on cultivating this circle of academics?

I share your suspicion of Novara media in general.

I'm interested in Chris Knight's perspective here because this is obviously part of a much longer engagement he's had with both Chomsky's linguistic work and his activism.

Today Rousay* lost 11-7 after taking clawing back to 7-7 against Firth in the semi final. Heartbroken.

* (Technically Rousay, Egilsay, and Wyre; and probably our best performer today was from Wyre)

There Are Two Noam Chomskys. The One You Love, and the One That Was Friends With Jeffrey Epstein | Chris Knight Those shocked at the celebrated leftist’s close friendship with Epstein should recall his university department’s close ties to the Pentagon. Chomsky has always been working simultaneously for and aga...

I've found Chris Knight's perspective on the "Two Noam Chomskys" well worth reading - not least as I'm teaching about the cognitive revolution and its relation to anthropology from next week & it feels like a strange time to do that.

They're not overlooked - they're embraced and are one of the reasons he's such a compelling option for (potentially a plurality?) of people. It's the imported psychology of "own the libs".

And then he was allowed to undermine any attempt within the Labour party to restore its principles. And then Starmer, the inept fool, decided to give him a job. Probably on the very grounds that he went to the same parties as Trump. And we now know clearly what kinds of parties those were.

A traitorous associate of paedophiles was allowed to sit at the heart of the Labour government for so long - and happened to be the man who was instrumental in its pivot away from being a party for the working classes! The amoral architect of Labour's abandonment of its heartlands.