Jump to content

Twitter/Kiss/Ten


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:



It’s the ultimate case study in white privilege for me (or indeed the majority of Pie and Bovril, I would guess) to sit here and determine racial intent. Victims of racist aggression aren’t given that freedom. Whether I think it’s racist or not is neither here nor there.

What? I can't speak for anyone else but this has got very little to do with racism for me and everything to do with the dangerous echo chamber of social media and the phenomenon of public shaming. This time it was an accusation of racism but it could just as easily have been any other subject matter which gathered enough critical mass of offence to set the ball rolling.

Maybe I'm only saying that as a middle aged, middle class, straight, CIS, able-bodied white man. Perhaps I just shouldn't comment about allegations of offensive behaviour against a particular group unless I'm a part of that group. Unless I'm condemning that behaviour. Presumably that's okay. That strikes me as a rather dangerous road to go down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

In this case, we aren’t talking about criminal intent. 

No, but I refer to the criminal standard because it has been developed separately by societies around the world, guided by logic and in pursuit of justice, in a manner sought to reflect natural justice, by multi-disciplinary communities, and the intent standard is one aspect of criminal law about which there is little debate. In other words, it's an illustration of an approach to guilt which makes sense.

Quote

It’s the ultimate case study in white privilege for me (or indeed the majority of Pie and Bovril, I would guess) to sit here and determine racial intent. Victims of racist aggression aren’t given that freedom. Whether I think it’s racist or not is neither here nor there.

Sorry, the idea that white people are somehow less well positioned than others to determine racist intent is a nonsense.  It's another fudge, popularised on social media, to avoid evidential inquiry and create an apparent justification for cancelling people without evidential basis. Anybody can survey the evidence and determine intent. (Equally, anybody can consider whether the facts meet a particular definition and thus determine if something is racist). If you disagree with that and somehow believe it's a subjective rather than objective exercise, then white people are subjectively more able to determine intent since (in this situation) it's a white person what's done it.

Also, in relation to victims, there's no direct victim here, but a guy has directly lost his job, been publicly shamed, been subjected to abuse and become stigmatised. And we can't allow people who feel they are victim to determine whether they in fact are a victim, or we will all very quickly end up bankrupt and imprisoned.

Don't you see how illogical and unfair the popular approaches to these issues are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has always had a section on his radio show about chimps dressed as famous people. That's where he was coming from. The racist inference was not from him, as @Margaret Thatcher eloquently states above. 

I had really thought that in this country we were not seeing skin colour as much any more. Seeing some US films can be quiet shocking when there are jokes that we've not found acceptable here since the 70s. Pitch Perfect 2 for example, as well as being gash, spends two hours pretty much pointing and laughing at Indians, Native Americans and a few others. It goes completely with comment despite the intent being to mock people based on race. 

Like the post from ICT Chris with the copy of the news article, journalists can get a very skewed sense of reality by spending so much time on Twitter. People on there are seeking attention. Are they genuinely offended for the newborn reptileoyal or are they vying for attention from peers? 

Of course there can be the vile appropriation of "chimp" to mean "black person". No way was Danny Baker inferring this but maybe it should have set alarm bells ringing in his head that this is exactly what would happen if he posted the pic. I don't wear a poppy any more. It doesn't mean I don't care about the sacrifices of our great grandparents but it does mean I don't want anyone to ever mistake me for a raving right wing simpleton. Danny should have known that things that create a stir on Twitter get reported as actual news now and just not bothered posting that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It’s not a contradiction to say that at the same time Danny Baker had no racist intent, and to say that it was a racist joke.

 

It was clearly a stupid mistake, but the result was racially offensive. As, presumably, a highly paid, high profile BBC presenter you don’t get the (white?) benefit of the benefit of the doubt.

 

It’s really sad, and he’s not helping his cause by complaining about 5Live. They had no other option, and it’s an incredibly serious issue.

They had no other option? They had the option of not sacking him, giving him a telling off, and moving on.

 

You also suggest it's an 'incredibly serious issue'? Again, I strongly disagree. Racism is complicated and has many forms. A man posting a picture of a chimp in a suit is not one of the serious forms that exists in the world today.

 

It was pointed out that some people could take it to be racist, which is true, he removed it and apologised.

 

I'm shocked but not surprised by the actions of the BBC high heid yins, and I think he's spot on by calling them cowards.

 

If he had something in his past that clearly suggested racist intent, or if he refused to take it down because racism wasn't his intent, then sack him. Neither of those two things apply.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, throbber said:

Why did he post that picture with that caption in it? What could the joke possibly have been?

Mild ridicule of the powerful / famous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, throbber said:

Why did he post that picture with that caption in it? What could the joke possibly have been?

Apparently he's the only person on the planet that didn't know that wee Archie has a black granny. And thinks that people throw bananas at black footballers because they look a bit peckish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gnash said:

If the intent was racist, why didn't he also depict Meghan as a chimp or other racist caricature?

I don't think he really thought it through, just thought it was funny and a bit edgy. Probably a bit pished watching the football.

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:
3 minutes ago, Gnash said:
If the intent was racist, why didn't he also depict Meghan as a chimp or other racist caricature?

Dont think he actually knocked up the picture m8

I think there are other pictures in the world m8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are other pictures in the world m8.
Twitter is a sea of people firing stuff up from google images. He got what he wanted after a brief search and knocked it in there.

At this point I really dont know what Bakers intentions were but lets be clear. If he didnt know how it woukd be interpreted he is a moron.

I am not sure any other context that has been offered up as an explanation actually even makes any sense and is certaibly nit as credible as the context many have chosen, which is that its a racist dig.

Hmdies he have any previous for maming pictorial tweets when other posh folk have babies? Maybe someone of similiar staure thats had kids recently?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not unknown for comedians to misjudge a joke, even if they're basically sound people. This one went over the line by miles, and I'm sure he regrets it massively, but at the time he posted it some part of him must have been aware of what he was doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Danny Baker is a twat, but I would have believed him until the "I didn't know whose baby it was" part. You don't work for the BBC and manage to avoid this shite.
Given that Wayne Hennessy got away with his one by claiming to be a moron of incomprehensible levels, we appear to be in post post truth era for pishy excuses/insincere apologies too....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:


I am not sure any other context that has been offered up as an explanation actually even makes any sense and is certaibly nit as credible as the context many have chosen, which is that its a racist dig.
 

We'll have to disagree.  I think the most plausible explanation is that he genuinely didn't think of a racist connotation when he posted it. 

But the only person that really knows is Danny Baker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...