Danny Baker sacked
- Thread starter The Geezer
- Start date
Because the mother isn't part of the royal family?
At the end of the day the only person who knows what he meant is Baker himself and I initially gave him the benefit of the doubt. But he is not naive or stupid enough to not know the connotation of that picture, especially as Megan's pregnancy has been a point of discussion from various sections of society.
So I am now struggling to see what benign reason he would have to tweet that, honestly. Would you have done it? And when you know the answer is no, you have to wonder why he did.
Maybe he meant to send it to one of the unsavoury whatsapp groups @robfosters dwells in and hit twitter by mistake
Man of Honour
That's not "taking your way of thinking to the extreme". That's ignoring a very important factor - intent.
In your scenario, the white supremacists were being racist.
In this case, Danny Baker was not being racist.
That's not one thing taken to a more extreme extent. It's a completely different thing. Or are you one of those people who think it doesn't matter what a person with a lower status group identity does or why they do it, only what a person with a higher status group identity decides to say about it?
You can't prove intent, either for or against. Because it's so easy to say 'its a joke' when it blows up in your face.
How do you know that?
Caporegime
Likewise, how does anyone know he was? Yet we've had many people declare it in here.
Exactly, I said that in my last post, but i'd like to now hear a persuasive arguement why it wasn't, because the ones being bandied around at the minute seem pretty flimsy.
Obvious racial connotations. As I've stated, where are his tweets comparing William and Kate's kids as chimps?
Has he made any comments on previous royal births?
That would at least lend some credence he has an interest in such things to comment on, but then again he said he didn't even know who's baby it was (BS), so why on earth did he just feel like randomly posting such a message....bit odd to be a random mistake, no?
That would at least lend some credence he has an interest in such things to comment on, but then again he said he didn't even know who's baby it was (BS), so why on earth did he just feel like randomly posting such a message....bit odd to be a random mistake, no?
Man of Honour
So how do you decide whether or not to presume guilt? Do you presume guilt solely on the basis of "race"? How about other physical traits? Nationality?
Comparing a media circus to a literal circus is definitely different to being a white supremacist and doing the "sig heil" thing.
Saying something racist and saying it was a joke if it blows up in your face is definitely different to saying something not racist and saying it was a joke. There's nothing inherently racist in comparing a human to a chimp - look at how often George Bush was depicted that way. In order for the depiction to be racist, it would have to be made specifically because of the "race" of the person. Which was not the case in this situation. There is no evidence of that at all. So it is not the same situation as someone saying something racist and then saying it was a joke, let alone the same situation as white supremacists doing the "sig heil" thing. Which I'm almost sure isn't spelt that way...sieg? seig? Anyway...my position is that it's wrong to presume someone guilty solely because of their "race", sex or whatever. Sadly common and become more so thanks to the horde of bigots promoting it in the name of "progress", but wrong. A person shouldn't be blamed for other people projecting their own racism onto them.
It's impossible for me to believe he had no idea what he was doing had racial connotations.
The whole "throwing bananas at black footballers", etc... if you're unaware of all of that, where have you been living these last xxx years?
The idea that he had no idea it could be considered racist is... well, just really, really implausible.
But let's say he did know (likely) - what then is his motive? To get fired very publicly? To get a lot of negative publicity?
It's bizarre whatever the reason. Bizarre that he wouldn't know; bizarre that knowing (as he should) he did it anyway.
The whole "throwing bananas at black footballers", etc... if you're unaware of all of that, where have you been living these last xxx years?
The idea that he had no idea it could be considered racist is... well, just really, really implausible.
But let's say he did know (likely) - what then is his motive? To get fired very publicly? To get a lot of negative publicity?
It's bizarre whatever the reason. Bizarre that he wouldn't know; bizarre that knowing (as he should) he did it anyway.
Man of Honour
Because there's nothing racist in what he said, there's no evidence of any racism in his intent and there is evidence that there was no racism in his intent.
In comparison, the only "evidence" people offer for him being guilty of racism is that he's the "wrong" race. The flaw in that argument really should be clear.
Soldato
I didn't know she wasn't White until Chris Wilson on here started grumbling about it. I don't pay much attention to the Royal Family or celebrity gossip. When Megan Markle has an opinion on Syria, I'll probably start paying attention. I would think a professional columnist / pundit who talks about these things would probably know but who can say?
Allegedly. But some days I wonder. :/
Caporegime
The problem is depending on your natural persuasion then the benchmark for persuasive argument can vary!
Maybe he was on holiday when the last royal was born..or taking a break from Twitter...or didn't know.
I'll probably say he didn't have any malicious intent, because back in the day he could take the mick out of 'darkies' without repurcusion
You can keep saying the comparison isn't racist until you're blue in the face. No other comparison has as much prejudicial and denigration associated with it.
You can keep saying the comparison isn't racist until you're blue in the face. No other comparison has as much prejudicial and denigration associated with it.
Man of Honour
The far less bizarre explanation of the two is that because he's not racist he doesn't automatically consider how some people obsessed with "race" might interpret every irrelevant tiny message he quickly plops out onto "social" media without thinking much about it. A big part of the point of "social" media is to discourage thought - you must post a few words now, now, now and now and now, right away, right away!
If I was thinking "image of media circus" (as he was), it certainly wouldn't have been at all obvious to me that some obsessed people might see it as racist. Not in the few seconds before plopping it on "social" media. Probably not if I looked at it carefully, proof-read it, thought about it for an hour. I'm aware that some people are racist, but that's not in the forefront of my mind at all times so why would I consider everything through that lens?
It's far more bizarre that he would deliberately harm himself for no reason at all, which is the other explanation.
Soldato
The problem I have with this, I guess we all pretty much know Danny Baker isn't a racist. Going after him like this on social media and causing a **** storm big enough to get him fired isn't going to make people come together, in fact it's going to do the opposite. It's crap like this that has enabled a lot of the things that we are putting up with now. People on social media really need to choose their battles, unless they want to entrench each side even further (and I imagine that is the case reading who some of the top posters yet again in this thread are).
Yep, very true. Though as I said I initially gave him the benefit of the doubt, it's the shifting narrative that has given me doubts. The truth doesn't generally change, so when he comes out with different explanations/excuses it makes me doubt their veracity