Danny Baker says he has been 'fired' over royal baby chimp tweet
Scroll to see replies
Original post by mgi
You are not serious are you? Study his actions and the evidence carefully and look at your ' good previous character' argument. He is a racist. His previous behaviour is irrelevant. Its like saying that a person who shoplifts has never done so before; he is still a thief!
I am serious - I legitimately can't tell what was in his mind when he wrote that tweet but apparently he has a history of replacing celebrities with chimps. He claimed that "My go-to photo when any posh people have a baby is this absurd chimpanzee in a top hat leaving the hospital. I didn’t know which of our royal princesses had given birth.”
Original post by mgi
You don't think he is a racist? why? was he sacked for being ignorant do you think? I suspect you are just refusing to admit that such ignorant behaviour is ,in fact, racist! Why? because 'good white media personalities and white people who have nice jobs and know some black people 'could never be racist? It is the standard reflex reaction given by too many white people when another white person is suspected of a racist action. Have you met Danny Baker? If you haven't, then how did you decide, against the blatant admitted evidence, that he isn't racist?So if " racist connotations" of her person's behaviour doesn't make them a racist what on earth does?
1. Is he a racist? I dont believe so.
2. How much of his radio show have you listened to and over what period?
3. He was sacked for making an error of judgement over something which could be construed as racist. That doesnt make him a racist if he there was no intention and as soon as it was pointed out he apologised and withdrew it.
4. The photo of itself wasnt racist.
5. If he had intended to be a racist and that was the purpose of the post then why suddenly destroy your career?
6. Why dont I believe he is a racist or at least that was the underlying motive, just through listening to his show, never a whiff of anything to do with race over many years. His show is fast paced and a bit zany, always cracking jokes, light hearted and irreverent. I would give him the benefit of the doubt due to that.
7. If I had never heard of him, then its easy to see why you would think that would be the conclusion.
Nope the black friends argument you introduced doesnt work, but I dont see how that is relevant here. Will just agree to differ as have been through all this with the previous poster.
Original post by 999tigger
1. Is he a racist? I dont believe so.
2. How much of his radio show have you listened to and over what period?
3. He was sacked for making an error of judgement over something which could be construed as racist. That doesnt make him a racist if he there was no intention and as soon as it was pointed out he apologised and withdrew it.
4. The photo of itself wasnt racist.
5. If he had intended to be a racist and that was the purpose of the post then why suddenly destroy your career?
6. Why dont I believe he is a racist or at least that was the underlying motive, just through listening to his show, never a whiff of anything to do with race over many years. His show is fast paced and a bit zany, always cracking jokes, light hearted and irreverent. I would give him the benefit of the doubt due to that.
7. If I had never heard of him, then its easy to see why you would think that would be the conclusion.
Nope the black friends argument you introduced doesnt work, but I dont see how that is relevant here. Will just agree to differ as have been through all this with the previous poster.
2. How much of his radio show have you listened to and over what period?
3. He was sacked for making an error of judgement over something which could be construed as racist. That doesnt make him a racist if he there was no intention and as soon as it was pointed out he apologised and withdrew it.
4. The photo of itself wasnt racist.
5. If he had intended to be a racist and that was the purpose of the post then why suddenly destroy your career?
6. Why dont I believe he is a racist or at least that was the underlying motive, just through listening to his show, never a whiff of anything to do with race over many years. His show is fast paced and a bit zany, always cracking jokes, light hearted and irreverent. I would give him the benefit of the doubt due to that.
7. If I had never heard of him, then its easy to see why you would think that would be the conclusion.
Nope the black friends argument you introduced doesnt work, but I dont see how that is relevant here. Will just agree to differ as have been through all this with the previous poster.
You have completely misunderstood the meaning of racism. It is not to do with intent! One can be an unintentional racist! One racist act makes you a racist!. Your other point about how he behaves on his program is also irrelevant. Jimmy Saville was in the public eye on Top of the Pops for years as a "normal "person. So what? Does that mean he couldn't have been abusing other people. A lot of ridiculous excuses are made for even the most blatant forms of racism ; usually based on a type of defensive denial of the obvious.
Original post by mgi
You have completely misunderstood the meaning of racism. It is not to do with intent! One can be an unintentional racist! One racist act makes you a racist!. Your other point about how he behaves on his program is also irrelevant. Jimmy Saville was in the public eye on Top of the Pops for years as a "normal "person. So what? Does that mean he couldn't have been abusing other people. A lot of ridiculous excuses are made for even the most blatant forms of racism ; usually based on a type of defensive denial of the obvious.
It is relevant because the photo of itself wasnt racist.
How he behaves is important. You obviously havent listened to his program. I can form my own opinion of him.
Care to produce any evidence of him being a racist?
Carry on frothing or provide some actual evidence. If you do then I might change my mind.
Mind you, the BBC will only be too glad to see the back of him and his type. Too much of a lad for the Strategic Guardianista vision emanating from the control tower, he's more of a lager type than prosecco and the sooner they're all out of the door the better. Within a decade, there will be nothing left but an anodyne generation of bright young people, all very educated and committed to implementing the 'ethos and values' we can find in the front page of the Grauniad. Blokes drinking beer and burping are definitely out of season, specially if white and middle-aged.
Original post by 999tigger
It is relevant because the photo of itself wasnt racist.
How he behaves is important. You obviously havent listened to his program. I can form my own opinion of him.
Care to produce any evidence of him being a racist?
Carry on frothing or provide some actual evidence. If you do then I might change my mind.
How he behaves is important. You obviously havent listened to his program. I can form my own opinion of him.
Care to produce any evidence of him being a racist?
Carry on frothing or provide some actual evidence. If you do then I might change my mind.
What other evidrnce do you require apart from what Danny Baker himself provided?The evidence is there and is clear. You dodged my point about intent as well! Its not about 'how he behaves is important' on his program. You also dodged the Jimmy Saville point i made as well didn't you? You saw the chimp stuff right? then you say that it is" not of itself racist". Of course not- that's why every action has a context - if you separate something from its context it will not make sense! You have a mixed race couple's baby being likened to a chimp! Do you think that if Danny Baker had sent an image of a smiling happy human baby that anyone at all would have had a problem with him? Unlikely. Yet you quickly decide that he isn't racist. You have just made up your own version of what British race laws say is racist behaviour. Try doing something similar in your work place even if you are a "nice good funny worker". Would you be surprised if you ended up in a race discrimination tribunal? 'Why don't you define in law what racism is? It certainly has nothing to do with 'intent' otherwise in similar incidents in a workplace for example you could simply dismiss these actions as unintentional and therefore not racist! I would respectfully suggest that because the term 'racist' can be so emotive for, frankly, many white people that they leap to the defence of any white person accused of racism whether they have met the person or not! Do you remember the proven racist case of John Terry/Ferdinand? The conclusion of some people in social media was that Terry could not be racist becsuse he was a good British footballer from a reasonable background. They even sent in images of Terry training with fellow black footballers in the Chelsea football team as so called proof! How ridiculous.
But it yet again demonstrates the phenomenon of white privilege in British society - to shut down at will any suggestion/debate that another white person could be racist in order to perpetuate racist ideologies (consciously or unconsciously) to keep certain other races in their "place".
What a snowflake world we live in. 
While it was clearly not intended to be racist (as anyone familiar with Baker would know) and it was logically not racist as why would he depict the offspring of a POC and a white person as a monkey, but not the POC themselves - Baker should have realised that people would insist on finding it racist.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Circus performers? Puh-leaze. Let's call a racist a racist when he's a racist. /
If Baker is a racist (which no one familiar with his work could claim) and the cartoon was meant to be racially offensive - why was Markle portrayed as a white person?
Even the professionally offended should be expected to use at least a modicum of intelligence before hitting the outrage button.
The interesting thing is the reaction of the BBC - an instant sacking - and the resulting joy among the complainants over such justifed retribution for the henous crime.
But let's stop to think. If he is too nasty to be employed by the supposedly inclusive and diverse (but, obviously, not that inclusive) BBC (and any nice organisation should obviously take the same view), who can employ him? After all, this was so heinous a crime it merited no process and an instant dismissal, even before the ink had dried on his words.
The corrolary is that anyone who expresses unpopular or transgressive humour or personal opinions will be unemployable. I hope the wowsers are happy to pay the financial costs of having half the population unemployable.
But let's stop to think. If he is too nasty to be employed by the supposedly inclusive and diverse (but, obviously, not that inclusive) BBC (and any nice organisation should obviously take the same view), who can employ him? After all, this was so heinous a crime it merited no process and an instant dismissal, even before the ink had dried on his words.
The corrolary is that anyone who expresses unpopular or transgressive humour or personal opinions will be unemployable. I hope the wowsers are happy to pay the financial costs of having half the population unemployable.
Original post by LeapingLucy
This is what I had the biggest issue with - he's saying that that the people who recognise racist tropes such as African/monkey have "diseased minds."
He's suggesting that in order to realise it is racist, you have to be racist yourself. When in reality, you just have to not be ignorant.
He's suggesting that in order to realise it is racist, you have to be racist yourself. When in reality, you just have to not be ignorant.
No, he is saying that anyone who automatically assumes that references to monkeys are necessarily referring to black people have diseased minds.
Original post by Anotheranon
OMG why am I 'unhinged' because I think there should be consequences for racist comments about children?
But this is the key issue. The post itself was not racist. The racism has to be inferred by the viewer.
If he had said, "The new royal baby looks like a monkey, as does his mother", you may have a point. But he didn't. The picture can be taken a variety of ways. You choosing to take it one way doesn't mean that it was therefore the way Baker meant it.
You are perfectly entitled to assume that Baker meant is as a racial insult, just as I am to assume that he didn't. Neither of us can claim the truth with any certainty. Only Baker can do that and he claims it wasn't meant as a racist comment. Of course, he could be lying but then what would be the point of deliberately posting a racist message if he always meant to deny it, knowing the shitstorm that would obviously ensue?
Original post by Surnia
How is posting a picture of a man, woman and chimp captioned 'Royal baby has arrived' a comment on class or the media? Thats was Danny Baker said, but with mothing to support that view.
Performing chimp = circus = media circus is so tenuous as to be a ridiculous link.
Performing chimp = circus = media circus is so tenuous as to be a ridiculous link.
Have you seen the picture? There are clear connotations of class and privilege, and performing animals. Those are the two things I assumed when I saw it. I also cringed because I knew that the professionally offended would claim it was racist.
Original post by mgi
You don't think he is a racist? why? was he sacked for being ignorant do you think?
He was sacked because of the media/public response to the post, not because of the post itself.
Original post by mgi
What other evidrnce do you require apart from what Danny Baker himself provided?The evidence is there and is clear. You dodged my point about intent as well! Its not about 'how he behaves is important' on his program. You also dodged the Jimmy Saville point i made as well didn't you? You saw the chimp stuff right? then you say that it is" not of itself racist". Of course not- that's why every action has a context - if you separate something from its context it will not make sense! You have a mixed race couple's baby being likened to a chimp! Do you think that if Danny Baker had sent an image of a smiling happy human baby that anyone at all would have had a problem with him? Unlikely. Yet you quickly decide that he isn't racist. You have just made up your own version of what British race laws say is racist behaviour. Try doing something similar in your work place even if you are a "nice good funny worker". Would you be surprised if you ended up in a race discrimination tribunal? 'Why don't you define in law what racism is? It certainly has nothing to do with 'intent' otherwise in similar incidents in a workplace for example you could simply dismiss these actions as unintentional and therefore not racist! I would respectfully suggest that because the term 'racist' can be so emotive for, frankly, many white people that they leap to the defence of any white person accused of racism whether they have met the person or not! Do you remember the proven racist case of John Terry/Ferdinand? The conclusion of some people in social media was that Terry could not be racist becsuse he was a good British footballer from a reasonable background. They even sent in images of Terry training with fellow black footballers in the Chelsea football team as so called proof! How ridiculous.
But it yet again demonstrates the phenomenon of white privilege in British society - to shut down at will any suggestion/debate that another white person could be racist in order to perpetuate racist ideologies (consciously or unconsciously) to keep certain other races in their "place".
But it yet again demonstrates the phenomenon of white privilege in British society - to shut down at will any suggestion/debate that another white person could be racist in order to perpetuate racist ideologies (consciously or unconsciously) to keep certain other races in their "place".
Paragraphs I beg you
Ironic that many of the outraged give a genuine racist (the baby's great-grandfather) a free pass. But these are all just jolly old gaffes, aren't they.
"If you stay here much longer you'll all be slitty-eyed" (to a group of British students during a royal visit to China).
"You can't have been here that long, you haven't got pot belly" (to a Briton he met in Hungary).
"Aren't most of you descended from pirates?" (to a wealthy islander in the Cayman Islands).
"How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test" (to a Scottish driving instructor).
"It looks as if it was put in by an Indian" (referring to an old-fashioned fuse box in a factory near Edinburgh).
"Still throwing spears?" (question put to an Aboriginal Australian during a visit).
"There's a lot of your family in tonight" (after looking at the name badge of businessman Atul Patel at a Palace reception for British Indians).
"The Philippines must be half-empty as you're all here running the NHS" (on meeting a Filipino nurse at Luton and Dunstable Hospital).
"If you stay here much longer you'll all be slitty-eyed" (to a group of British students during a royal visit to China).
"You can't have been here that long, you haven't got pot belly" (to a Briton he met in Hungary).
"Aren't most of you descended from pirates?" (to a wealthy islander in the Cayman Islands).
"How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test" (to a Scottish driving instructor).
"It looks as if it was put in by an Indian" (referring to an old-fashioned fuse box in a factory near Edinburgh).
"Still throwing spears?" (question put to an Aboriginal Australian during a visit).
"There's a lot of your family in tonight" (after looking at the name badge of businessman Atul Patel at a Palace reception for British Indians).
"The Philippines must be half-empty as you're all here running the NHS" (on meeting a Filipino nurse at Luton and Dunstable Hospital).
Original post by QE2
Ironic that many of the outraged give a genuine racist (the baby's great-grandfather) a free pass. But these are all just jolly old gaffes, aren't they.
What they are is witty comments that rely on stereotypical 'knowledge' to succeed. They are just like the 'An Englishman, a Scotsman and an Irishman walked into a bar ...' jokes. No racism or harm is intended, and only the professionally offended see a problem. They poke fun at the stereotype just as much as they do the butt of the joke. However, I'm not sure that the professionally outraged do, in fact, give a free pass the Phil the Greek (see what I did there?). They give no free passes.
Original post by Good bloke
What they are is witty comments that rely on stereotypical 'knowledge' to succeed. They are just like the 'An Englishman, a Scotsman and an Irishman walked into a bar ...' jokes. No racism or harm is intended, and only the professionally offended see a problem. They poke fun at the stereotype just as much as they do the butt of the joke. However, I'm not sure that the professionally outraged do, in fact, give a free pass the Phil the Greek (see what I did there?). They give no free passes.
The Sun and the Mail certainly do.
And I'm invoking Poe's Law.
Original post by QE2
And I'm invoking Poe's Law.
The fun, of course, is in seeing Poe's law at work. A signal would spoil that.
Original post by Joinedup
I think this shows the paradoxical nature of twitter... people seem to want the spontaneous and unmediated thoughts of celebrities, but then they want to dissect them and hold them to the same standards as a bland corporate press release that's been cleared by a team of lawyers, deliberated over for a couple of hours and redrafted multiple times.
Arguably Twitter is nothing but a cynical trap for the unwary run by a monster corporation that knows full well how vulnerable its users are to egregious harm due to the nature and context of the system (it feels easy, spontaneous and fun yet can have dire consequences) and not only fails to warn them of that, but thrives off the resulting devastation.
Not to mention that a good percentage of the stuff on Twitter is now written by expert teams working in PR companies and only appears to be the real thoughts of the famous tweeter - thereby helping to further spread the fantasy that tweets are somehow spontaneous, whilst further leaving the ill prepared and informed to be more exposed.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Great British Bake Off 2023 discussion thread
- Want to hear a joke?
- FIFA Women's World Cup 2023
- what's the most useless job?
- ✨All Things Royal✨ Spam!
- The Short Poem Thread
- Can't get over break up
- I don’t know if I should tell my ex I’m pregnant
- Muslim grouping OIC says measures needed to prevent Quran desecration
- Some poems I have written about the helath service
- Princess of wales reveals cancer diagnosis
- Pregnant & no partner
- Can someone please grade this for me?
- King Charles III diagnosed with cancer [Official thread]
- The Coronation of His Majesty the King [TV Discussion Thread]
- Possibly pregnant with my exes baby
- Fiancé (M21) won’t change job to support us (F21).
- Pls help me mark my answer
- I hate my sister , dads dead.
- My boyfriends family hate me.
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 3 minutes ago
Official Veterinary Medicine Applicants thread 2024 entryLast reply 5 minutes ago
Home Office: Immigration Enforcement Casework Support AO 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 15 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2926
Last reply 22 minutes ago
Woodhouse College applicants 2024Last reply 24 minutes ago
LSE anthropology and law 2024Last reply 24 minutes ago
What games did everybody play on their computers at school or when they were youngerGaming
10
Last reply 26 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 31 minutes ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Trending
Last reply 9 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 12 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 15 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 9 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 12 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 15 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
