Danny Baker's..

[Tony Moanero]

6 hours ago, Lizzie Birdsworths Wrinkled Chopper said:

Dubious, hipster-level claims of being completely unaware of probably the number 2 rolling 24-hour news story in the UK for the past 9 months - not totally indifferent to it, as the rest of us who couldn’t give a single fuck about the royal family are, but actually never having been exposed to it a single time even accidentally - aside, Baker was certainly aware of it.

 

He retweeted a comment requesting suggested names for this exact baby of this exact royal couple in the days before it was born, with his being ‘Homer Wallis Simpson’. You know, referencing the previous Anglo-US royal marriage, and coincidentally directly naming someone who’s in the now infamous photo.

 

Irrespective of anything else, he’s obviously caught himself out while trying to explain it away and is now making a bit of a tit of himself mixing up his stories.

 

I genuinely didn’t know Meghan Markle was pregnant, let alone had given birth until I opened and read this thread. Admittedly, I do tend to go around with my head up my arse nowadays and never watch or read the news. That said, I find it hard to believe, for the reasons stated above, that Danny Baker didn’t know.

[aRdja]

15 hours ago, Strontium Dog said:

I have thought about the claim that intent doesn't matter, and I now think it is objectively wrong rather than merely being something I disagree with.

 

Example: If you were to buy a ham sandwich for a starving homeless person as an act of kindness, but it transpired the homeless person was Muslim, then under "intent doesn't matter" rules, it would be a racist act, regardless of how it was intended. Which is patent nonsense. In my book it would only be racist if you gave a Muslim some ham with the full knowledge that he was Muslim and forbidden from eating it.

 

Intent matters.

Intent matters but not as much as you think, as Chomsky nicely puts here

“ ...benign intentions is the norm for those who carry out atrocities and crimes, perhaps sincerely... And that only the most abject apologists justify the actions on the grounds that perpetrators are adopting the normal stance of criminals.”

 

https://samharris.org/the-limits-of-discourse/

[Rico1304]

9 hours ago, VladimirIlyich said:

At least the Muslims are getting a night off.

I’ve told you, it’s unvaccinated Muslims. 

 

Although i I understand why you’re doing it of course.  That mural. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 09/05/2019 at 15:17, Rico1304 said:

It’s not as if he liked a racist mural is it? 

Classic snide helmetry from you and the derp who repped this.  (I don't even need to say who it was.)

 

As you both well know, Corbyn never liked a racist mural.  But, that's the beauty of doing shit like this in the form of snide digs, you don't have to concern yourselves with sticking to facts.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 09/05/2019 at 15:54, moof said:

I notice the bbc didn’t sack Alan Sugar for his contemptible Senegal national football team tweet. And Nigel Farage is on questiontime tonight so I guess it’s not entirely about racism 

Sugar and Farage are racist about poor people and commoners.  Baker was racist about royalty.  That's the difference.

 

They are, by the Grace of God, born better than us and therefore they deserve more respect.

[Rico1304]

8 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Classic snide helmetry from you and the derp who repped this.  (I don't even need to say who it was.)

 

As you both well know, Corbyn never liked a racist mural.  But, that's the beauty of doing shit like this in the form of snide digs, you don't have to concern yourselves with sticking to facts.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43523445

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 09/05/2019 at 16:49, Babb'sBurstNad said:

What if the person posting the image were unaware of the target's race?

 

What if the person posting was black?

 

Is it always defined as racist because of the image itself, with no regard for any other factors?

And what if you compare a white person to an albino gorilla, by giving him the gorilla's name as a nickname (as the Barcelona fans did to Ronald Koeman when he played there)?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

20 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43523445

Thanks, I couldn't be arsed googling the clear evidence that Corbyn never "liked" (in any sense of the word) that mural.  Good of you to post it.

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Thanks, I couldn't be arsed googling the clear evidence that Corbyn never "liked" (in any sense of the word) that mural.  Good of you to post it.

Ha ha ha. Yes. That’s exactly what it proves. 

 

Why on earth would he question its removal? He obviously hated it. 

[Dr Nowt]

The Jeremy Corbyn Tedious Twats Way.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Nice thoughtful take on all this nonsense from Billy Bragg.

 

************************************************************

Nobody should be surprised that Danny Baker has been sacked by the BBC from his job as a DJ on Radio 5Live for posting a photo of a posh couple holding a monkey dressed in human clothes captioned ‘Royal baby leaves hospital’. The use of such an obvious racist trope to comment on the birth of the first mixed race baby in the royal family has rightly cost him his job. Baker is a much-loved broadcaster and many are frankly surprised that he could be so insensitive. His style of humour isn’t malicious, but it clearly blinded him to the obvious connotations of using such an image in that context.

 

Baker’s shtick is based on banter with his audience. It was there in his reaction to being fired, when he tweeted ‘Just got fired from @bbc5live. For the record – it was red sauce. Always’. Any ideas why he mentioned the red sauce? No, me neither. Apparently it was a reference to the Sausage Sandwich Game, a popular feature on his Saturday morning radio show in which listeners are asked to guess what sauce Danny’s studio guest would put on a sausage sandwich. The guest then reveals their choice.

 

It’s a silly game that all involved treat with a mock seriousness that makes the whole thing even more silly. Danny, his guest and listeners are all in on the joke. It’s the kind of banter that Baker excels at; his free-association sense of humour can result in his live theatre show running for four hours. But the problem with banter is that it relies on everyone being in on the joke. When expressed outside of the initiated, as in his 'just got fired' tweet, it risks causing confusion or, in some extreme cases, offence.

 

Banter is a form of social lubricant. Among tight-knit groups who live or work together it offers a means of getting through what may be mundane or difficult situations. We banter a lot on the road. Five guys stuck in a van for hours each day travelling to gigs, we use it in conversation to keep ourselves entertained.

 

However, the key feature of banter is mock humiliation, ‘taking the mickey’ out of each other. Knowing that you can say things about the behaviour of a mate that would otherwise be hurtful – and being able to take the same treatment in response - has the effect of creating a bond among the group. Our friendship is so great that we can say these transgressive things about one another (I’m not talking about racism or sexism or other bigoted discourse – which is never acceptable, even among friends; I’m referring here to general piss-taking).

 

The trouble arises when that banter comes into contact with the outside world. Those not within the group, unaware of the permissive bond between members, can only take what’s being said at face value. As a result, statements that participants recognise as being in jest can sound hostile, derogatory, racist.

 

Apparently Baker has a running joke on his show about monkeys dressed in human clothes. It may be that he was making assumptions about how his tweet would be viewed based on that thread. Whatever it was that blinded him to the racist nature of his post, I don’t think it was intentional. Why? Because he has no previous.

 

Compare his reaction to being called out for a racist remark with that of Boris Johnson. Baker has spent the past days apologising profusely for the offence he caused, at first maybe a little begrudgingly, but the sincerity of his Twitter thread mea culpa on Friday was clear. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson has still not apologised for comparing Muslim women to letterboxes, a racist slur that was just the latest in a litany of bigoted statements about people of colour.

 

I’m willing to give Baker the benefit of the doubt, to recognise, that, although he made a racist statement, it was a massive error of judgement rather than the product of a racist mindset. I don’t have the same sympathies for Johnson, who clearly believes he can get away with his dog whistles to bigotry. Give me Danny’s embarrassed contrition any day over Boris’ entitled sense of impunity.

 

That said, Baker has no grounds for complaining that he has lost his job and should reflect that, for all his love of banter, it doesn’t matter what you intended with your remark, it’s how others, those from outside of your trusted group of initiates, perceive what you have said.

 

In the febrile discourse of online debate, it’s perception, not intention that must be considered when posting a comment. It is a lesson that we should all take on board.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Just now, Rico1304 said:

Ha ha ha. Yes. That’s exactly what it proves. 

 

Why on earth would he question its removal? He obviously hated it. 

We went through this ad nauseam at the time.  There's no real reason to believe he ever even took a proper look at the mural.  I can't be arsed getting into it again (especially not on a thread where it's completely irrelevant) when you're in one of your fuckwitted troll moods.

[Rico1304]

, it doesn’t matter what you intended with your remark, it’s how others, those from outside of your trusted group of initiates, perceive what you have said.

 

Really? Really? 

[Strontium]

4 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

, it doesn’t matter what you intended with your remark, it’s how others, those from outside of your trusted group of initiates, perceive what you have said.

 

Really? Really? 

 

There's an exception to every rule...

[Remmie]

22 hours ago, cloggypop said:

He did also kill Bob Marley of course. 

But he did not shoot the deputy

[AngryOfTuebrook]

20 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

, it doesn’t matter what you intended with your remark, it’s how others, those from outside of your trusted group of initiates, perceive what you have said.

 

Really? Really? 

(I’m not talking about racism or sexism or other bigoted discourse – which is never acceptable, even among friends; I’m referring here to general piss-taking)

 

Edit

I think the point is that stuff that you know will be understood one way by your mates can - reasonably - be understood differently by other people, so it's sensible to be aware of that.  (Obviously, once you get onto Twitter, there's always the possibility of people unreasonably misinterpreting what you say; there's not a lot you can do about that.)

[Rico1304]

5 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

(I’m not talking about racism or sexism or other bigoted discourse – which is never acceptable, even among friends; I’m referring here to general piss-taking)

 

Edit

I think the point is that stuff that you know will be understood one way by your mates can - reasonably - be understood differently by other people, so it's sensible to be aware of that.  (Obviously, once you get onto Twitter, there's always the possibility of people unreasonably misinterpreting what you say; there's not a lot you can do about that.)

Thats not what he says.  

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Thats not what he says.  

You don't think so?

 

What are you understanding by it, then?

[Captain Howdy]

“It doesn’t matter what you intended”,,,,,,fucking hell

[AngryOfTuebrook]

8 hours ago, Captain Howdy said:

“It doesn’t matter what you intended”,,,,,,fucking hell

Suppose, for example, a bunch of white lads refer to each other as "my nigga" (in a jokey way, intending to take the piss out of people who try to hard to be cool). There's no racist intent.

 

Now suppose they talk that way on a crowded tube train. There's still no racist intent, but they can't be unaware that the word is likely to cause legitimate offence to other people who link it to a completely different context to their banter. 

[Captain Howdy]

32 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Suppose, for example, a bunch of white lads refer to each other as "my nigga" (in a jokey way, intending to take the piss out of people who try to hard to be cool). There's no racist intent.

 

Now suppose they talk that way on a crowded tube train. There's still no racist intent, but they can't be unaware that the word is likely to cause legitimate offence to other people who link it to a completely different context to their banter. 

Your right they couldn’t be unaware that people would be offended so then there would be intent, babbsbustednad summed this up early on in the thread when he said fingers crossed to a girl with no hands and then, after the fact, realised the gaffe, that’s no intent.

[VladimirIlyich]

28 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Suppose, for example, a bunch of white lads refer to each other as "my nigga" (in a jokey way, intending to take the piss out of people who try to hard to be cool). There's no racist intent.

 

Now suppose they talk that way on a crowded tube train. There's still no racist intent, but they can't be unaware that the word is likely to cause legitimate offence to other people who link it to a completely different context to their banter. 

I don't think us whiteys have any reason to use the word 'n****' or however its spelt other than a direct quote without it being insulting or racist. The word itself can also be preceded by 'white' to still mean a useless person so is still wrong in my book given its connotations and origins. Black lads and men use it in a way to mock how it was previously used,and is still used,towards people of their communities and culture. Arabs were also called 'sand n*****s' too and it was a direct racial insult. You may have better examples than the one you used though.

[Rico1304]

It’s crazy to have to worry about possibly offending someone every time you speak.  

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Can't believe Billy Bragg's just called Woolster a massive racist. Harsh.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

23 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

Your right they couldn’t be unaware that people would be offended so then there would be intent, babbsbustednad summed this up early on in the thread when he said fingers crossed to a girl with no hands and then, after the fact, realised the gaffe, that’s no intent.

There's no intent in my example either. Just a crass disregard of other people. 

 

How often do you meet people with no fingers?

How often do you meet people who aren't white and who (It's reasonable to assume) have been subject to racist abuse at some point?

An unthinking slip of the tongue is more understandable in the former example than the latter. 

 

The Equalities Act has provisions to cover "indirect discrimination" specifically to deal with instances where harm is caused even in the absence of intent. The same principle applies here.