Danny Baker fired for racist tweet about Royal baby

[Archied]

1 hour ago, StivePesley said:

Yes it does, but you can't mention that and not point out that it is also driving the edge-lords and genuinely racist to even greater heights too. The two extremes do not exist in vacuums. They exacerbate each other - hence I am wary of people who imply only one of them is the problem

It's actually more than that. Saying "without  fear of retribution" suggests some sort of impunity. In some ways it makes more sense to say  we should be able to discuss issues WITH the consideration of potential retribution. If both sides held a truce and agreed to think a bit more about what they are posting it would be a good start.

The Danny Baker thing being a great example - one guy who didn't stop to think what he was posting and internet hell breaks loose. It has to stop. Neither side will "win"

Sensible balanced post , for what it’s worth I think bakers sacking and the speed it was done at is the wrong way to go ,much like people being crucified for ancient comments when they were very much younger and dafter also the whole prosecution of bakers for not baking the cake with the gay marriage slogan , I think what we are doing is taking away people’s much more powerful right to choose how to react to this stuff ,

me I think baker was a twit to post that and as such would view him very differently and make point of not listening to his shows as I’m sure many others would to , I’m the same with frankie Boyle ,I just wont watch his stuff ,the whole crack about Katie price s son was disgusting to my mind 

I would not patronise a business that discriminated against race ,creed sexual bias ,  there’s just a feeling that these issues are being policed by a fervent minority rather than trusting the majority to show this kind of stuff is not acceptable

 

[maxjam]

4 hours ago, StivePesley said:

Yes it does, but you can't mention that and not point out that it is also driving the edge-lords and genuinely racist to even greater heights too. The two extremes do not exist in vacuums. They exacerbate each other - hence I am wary of people who imply only one of them is the problem

I'd agree that both sides are a fault, but my concern is that only one side seems to get banned from facebook/twitter etc creating an echo chamber than is being driven by the extremes.

4 hours ago, StivePesley said:

It's actually more than that. Saying "without  fear of retribution" suggests some sort of impunity. In some ways it makes more sense to say  we should be able to discuss issues WITH the consideration of potential retribution. If both sides held a truce and agreed to think a bit more about what they are posting it would be a good start.

I'm thinking along the lines of wanting to discuss islam without being called islamophobic for merely suggesting it, discussing the trans movement without being called transphobic etc.  Conversations need to be had without instantly being called a bigot, a nazi or whatever and they aren't at the moment, they are being shut down by amongst others, the twitter outrage mob.  Fear of being called racist lead to the Rotherham grooming gangs not being investigated for decades.  As much as I'd like to criticise both sides, it is the left that is currently preventing progress.

4 hours ago, StivePesley said:

The Danny Baker thing being a great example - one guy who didn't stop to think what he was posting and internet hell breaks loose. It has to stop. Neither side will "win"

It is a good example, one guy with no previous made a mistake, immediately removed the tweet and apologised.  Everyone makes mistakes from time to time, either innocently or through not engaging their brain.  Unfortunately the world we live in today cares little for context or contrition and instantly demands 'blood'.  Accidentally commit one minor offence once and you're lumped in the same group as some of the most hateful characters in history.  You're either not a racist or you're a goose stepping nazi.

[maxjam]

Well at least nothing he did was criminal, although why Scotland Yard felt the need to investigate it in the first place is bizarre

https://news.sky.com/story/police-drop-investigation-into-danny-bakers-racist-royal-baby-tweet-11719846

 

[Sith Happens]

21 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Well at least nothing he did was criminal, although why Scotland Yard felt the need to investigate it in the first place is bizarre

https://news.sky.com/story/police-drop-investigation-into-danny-bakers-racist-royal-baby-tweet-11719846

 

I just dont get how the BBC considered this any more racist than Alan Sugars comments not too long ago.

Surely Baker has cause to sue them for unfair dismissal as a precedent was set with Sugar.

[Stive Pesley]

23 hours ago, maxjam said:

I'm thinking along the lines of wanting to discuss islam without being called islamophobic for merely suggesting it, discussing the trans movement without being called transphobic etc. 

Most of us are quite happily going about our business having no need to discuss these things and the trouble is that those who want to "discuss it" aren't always doing so in good faith. If someone's idea of "discussing it" is to post inflammatory statements on social media to no one in particular, and in doing so display needless prejudice, aggression and abuse then that should rightly be called out.

I agree though that anyone feeling the need to discuss it in good faith should be allowed to do so, but equally should not adopt the victim status if people disagree with them.

That's what I mean about personal responsibility. If you feel the need to "discuss" these things then have a think about 1) why you need to air your thoughts on the matter and 2) where you choose to do so. Is the best place to do so a) public social media or b) face to face with the people who might be open to a rational conversation?

[maxjam]

7 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Most of us are quite happily going about our business having no need to discuss these things and the trouble is that those who want to "discuss it" aren't always doing so in good faith. If someone's idea of "discussing it" is to post inflammatory statements on social media to no one in particular, and in doing so display needless prejudice, aggression and abuse then that should rightly be called out.

I agree though that anyone feeling the need to discuss it in good faith should be allowed to do so, but equally should not adopt the victim status if people disagree with them.

That's what I mean about personal responsibility. If you feel the need to "discuss" these things then have a think about 1) why you need to air your thoughts on the matter and 2) where you choose to do so. Is the best place to do so a) public social media or b) face to face with the people who might be open to a rational conversation?

Normally I'd agree with a lot of that however numerous studies have shown the left wing outrage mob are pushing their social media agenda to extreme lengths - which impacts on ordinary citizens.  A prominent example of this is the Rotherham grooming gangs cover up that was due in part to people afraid of being called racists.

I'm all for owning what you say and personal responsibility, but the progressive left agenda, increasing censorship and social media bans are becoming more frequent.  Dangerous precedents are being set and they are only going to get worse unless challenged.  There is an excellent video on youtube, Tim Pool on the Joe Rogan podcast interviewing Jack Dorsey talking about twitter bias and the problems it causes - it is several hours long but well worth a watch if you can find it.

[AndyinLiverpool]

2 hours ago, Paul71 said:

I just dont get how the BBC considered this any more racist than Alan Sugars comments not too long ago.

Surely Baker has cause to sue them for unfair dismissal as a precedent was set with Sugar.

It isn't more racist; it's more royal.

[Rev]

2 hours ago, maxjam said:

Normally I'd agree with a lot of that however numerous studies have shown the left wing outrage mob are pushing their social media agenda to extreme lengths - which impacts on ordinary citizens.  A prominent example of this is the Rotherham grooming gangs cover up that was due in part to people afraid of being called racists.

I'm all for owning what you say and personal responsibility, but the progressive left agenda, increasing censorship and social media bans are becoming more frequent.  Dangerous precedents are being set and they are only going to get worse unless challenged.  There is an excellent video on youtube, Tim Pool on the Joe Rogan podcast interviewing Jack Dorsey talking about twitter bias and the problems it causes - it is several hours long but well worth a watch if you can find it.

Are you suggesting social workers covered up child abuse because of the impact of social media?

I can't remember a social media movement to excuse paedophilia on the grounds of race, so I've always assumed that wasn't the case?

 

 

[maxjam]

15 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

Are you suggesting social workers covered up child abuse because of the impact of social media?

I can't remember a social media movement to excuse paedophilia on the grounds of race, so I've always assumed that wasn't the case?

I forget the name of the report, 'Jay Report' iirc but could be mistaken.  There is some info in this BBC link however;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28939089

The report found: "Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."

I'm not saying there is a social media movement to excuse paedophilia more the fact that if you blow every little hint of racism out of proportion online, crucifying people for the slightest mistake, people become nervous around the subject in the real world which in this case led to horrific crimes being allowed to continue over a prolonged period.

We're probably getting a bit to close to the edge for this forum though so better left alone.

[Stive Pesley]

13 hours ago, maxjam said:

Normally I'd agree with a lot of that however numerous studies have shown the left wing outrage mob are pushing their social media agenda to extreme lengths - which impacts on ordinary citizens.

Well we probably have to leave it then. I'm trying to point out that the extremes on both sides are the problem, but you keep bringing it back to the "lefties" being the only problem - which kind of makes it obvious to everyone where your sympathies perhaps lie.

Break down your sentence above:

the left wing outrage mob are pushing their social media agenda to extreme lengths (eg twitter pile-ons) - which impacts on ordinary citizens (people lose jobs, no one can make an honest mistake and show remorse/receive forgiveness)

now replace the words

the right wing free speech mob are pushing their social media agenda to extreme lengths (eg stoking racial tension with constant divisive rhetoric, exploiting people's fears) - which impacts on ordinary citizens (minorities being physically/verbally abused, MPs being killed, innocent people outside mosques being run over etc)

The solution to all this doesn't come from admitting that only one of these is a problem

 

[maxjam]

14 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Well we probably have to leave it then. I'm trying to point out that the extremes on both sides are the problem, but you keep bringing it back to the "lefties" being the only problem - which kind of makes it obvious to everyone where your sympathies perhaps lie.

Break down your sentence above:

the left wing outrage mob are pushing their social media agenda to extreme lengths (eg twitter pile-ons) - which impacts on ordinary citizens (people lose jobs, no one can make an honest mistake and show remorse/receive forgiveness)

now replace the words

the right wing free speech mob are pushing their social media agenda to extreme lengths (eg stoking racial tension with constant divisive rhetoric, exploiting people's fears) - which impacts on ordinary citizens (minorities being physically/verbally abused, MPs being killed, innocent people outside mosques being run over etc)

The solution to all this doesn't come from admitting that only one of these is a problem

 

If wanting a return to unbiased media (both social and mainstream) makes it obvious as to where my sympathies lie, then so be it.

Rewriting my arguments does not make your point of view any more valid.  The post above yours is an example of over zealous anti-racism directly impacting 'normal' people.  There are also many studies that show the right has remained relatively static during the past few years but the left has significantly shifted further left. 

I will call out overt bias wherever I see it but currently the far right is small and fragmented, the far left is ubiquitous, mainstream and causing a lot of damage.

[ronnieronalde]

On 09/05/2019 at 13:11, StivePesley said:

Meanwhile at the BBC - who is on Question Time tonight? Oh it's well known "definitely not a racist enabler" Nigel Farage...

Go figure

If Farage ever gets in I'm leaving the country. Now considering I'm out of work, penniless, don't have a passport and have big front teeth, my options are limited. I'd honestly prefer to walk the streets in a third world country than be part of a society who see this person as a credible option.

I'm literally disgusted there are people in this country trying to champion this man as having changed.

Dangerous times.

[ronnieronalde]

On 13/05/2019 at 19:21, maxjam said:

I'd agree that both sides are a fault, but my concern is that only one side seems to get banned from facebook/twitter etc creating an echo chamber than is being driven by the extremes.

I'm thinking along the lines of wanting to discuss islam without being called islamophobic for merely suggesting it, discussing the trans movement without being called transphobic etc.  Conversations need to be had without instantly being called a bigot, a nazi or whatever and they aren't at the moment, they are being shut down by amongst others, the twitter outrage mob.  Fear of being called racist lead to the Rotherham grooming gangs not being investigated for decades.  As much as I'd like to criticise both sides, it is the left that is currently preventing progress.

It is a good example, one guy with no previous made a mistake, immediately removed the tweet and apologised.  Everyone makes mistakes from time to time, either innocently or through not engaging their brain.  Unfortunately the world we live in today cares little for context or contrition and instantly demands 'blood'.  Accidentally commit one minor offence once and you're lumped in the same group as some of the most hateful characters in history.  You're either not a racist or you're a goose stepping nazi.

I may be wrong but I think you'd enjoy listening to Jordan Peterson. 

He's been labelled both a racist and a goose stepping nazi. I don't think he's any of those. He is however super intelligent.

The left is certainly stifling a lot of meaningful debate and long before it gets the chance to become meaningful.

[1of4]

On 15/05/2019 at 09:32, maxjam said:

If wanting a return to unbiased media (both social and mainstream) makes it obvious as to where my sympathies lie, then so be it.

Rewriting my arguments does not make your point of view any more valid.  The post above yours is an example of over zealous anti-racism directly impacting 'normal' people.  There are also many studies that show the right has remained relatively static during the past few years but the left has significantly shifted further left. 

I will call out overt bias wherever I see it but currently the far right is small and fragmented, the far left is ubiquitous, mainstream and causing a lot of damage.

As the centre ground politically is moving more and more to the right. Making the far right look less extremist, while at the same time making the moderate left look the extreme left.

[maxjam]

30 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

As the centre ground politically is moving more and more to the right. Making the far right look less extremist, while at the same time making the moderate left look the extreme left.

Massively disagree.

The left is moving so far to the left and normalising it that centre is being labelled alt-right.

[Comrade 86]

Those at whom these types of post are aimed always seem to be left behind in the stampede to protect the right to make crass and (at very least) superficially bigoted commentaries. I really despair at this never ending cycle of self-denial and the equally weak argument about folk being  'professionally offended'. Baker had to be sacked, a point with which he takes no issue himself. The debate as to whether it was racism or simply the mindless outpourings of someone too stupid to understand the likely ramifications of their actions is entirely moot. The defence that there is no evidence to 'prove' intent can also be easily countered using the same spurious and glib thinking if one chooses, as there is no evidence proving there was no intent either. The fact he's never done it before tells us the square root of FA I'm afraid. Whether he intended to be racist, I have no idea. Is comparing someone's child to a monkey racist, however? Quite possibly. That said, only Mr Baker himself can be categorical about his intent or lack thereof.

As for this supposedly binary outlook forced upon us by social media, I find this kind of thinking equally troubling. Social media gives us the opportunity to engage in balanced dialogue at least as much as it affords us the means to be a Bamford. How we choose to use the platform is our personal choice, always has been, always will be. To suggest otherwise is weak, disingenuous and highly divisive in itself. For me, it's the lamest of lame excuses. More to the point, if folk are intent on assuming the role of the victim, when they are anything but, there can never be a truly meaningful dialogue. The cynical side of my nature leads me to think that this scenario suits some of the protagonists rather nicely. For balance, I should point out that this occurs on BOTH sides of the argument.

I fully appreciate that most folk on here will not agree with my stance and that's fine. Each to their own. I would simply ask that those who do not come from an ethnically diverse background and have never themselves been subjected to racial abuse take ONE MOMENT to try and understand why comments, irrespective of the intent behind them, can be unnecessarily hurtful and demeaning. If one simply accepts this as fact, is it then unreasonable for people of colour to hope that change might one day be forthcoming? Equally, will there ever be a time where the discomfort of those who are subject to bigotry (or mere thoughtlessness) on the basis of race, sex, faith et al is not seen as threatening to those who are not? For the very little it's worth, I just can't see it. For every bleeding heart liberal (because that's how folk like me are labelled these days), there is at least one loud voice howling that their right to free speech is being eroded. It does make me wonder, would those who fear this erosion of their rights be OK with the attention seeking gimp that is Carl Benjamin making jokes about (not) raping their daughters and wives? If things were personal to them, would they be equally dismissive?

Anyway, it's nice to see these matters debated without the slanging matches of old and I shall now politely recuse myself from the debate and bid you gentlemen a pleasant evening whilst I retreat to the calmer waters of the football threads.

[Boycie]

No podcast from him this week I see.

[eddie]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

Massively disagree.

The left is moving so far to the left and normalising it that centre is being labelled alt-right.

Where would you place me on the political spectrum?

Difficulty - maximum of just three words.

[maxjam]

9 minutes ago, eddie said:

Where would you place me on the political spectrum?

Difficulty - maximum of just three words.

Haven't the foggiest (3 words)

Just had a quick look at the posts on the first page of your profile and its mostly football with no others that give any political leanings away and I'm not that interested to go back and check any further.

[Stive Pesley]

12 hours ago, maxjam said:

Massively disagree.

The left is moving so far to the left

Really - what sort of examples are you talking? I mean for me society moving "so far to the left" would be - implementing communism