Danny Baker says he has been 'fired' over royal baby chimp tweet Watch

Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#381
Report 4 weeks ago
#381
(Original post by QE2)
He should know better than to make any kind of comment about anyone in case someone insists he is being racist. Yes, we understand.
Yes
(Original post by QE2)
Ah, so now you don't have to be aware of a person's ethnicity or actually make any comment about it to be branded a racist by some.
Your position makes less and less sense. You have clearly decided he is a racist, on the basis of mere speculation, and literally nothing will persuade you otherwise. Stalin would have been proud.
(Original post by QE2)
Of course it is. You are speculating that 1. He did know that the baby was of African American heritage, and 2. That he posted the picture with racist intent.
Not only do you have nothing concrete on which to base those two positions, but you also need to actively accuse Baker of lying.
All in all, a pretty flimsy case.

Personally, given that there is no suggestion of racism in his past and that to deliberately post a racist tweet does not make sense, and that he has a history of using such images (including ones featuring monkeys) to make points on Twitter - it is more reasonable to assume that he is not lying and that there was no racist intent.
It would appear that you have simply seen "man compares black baby to monkey" in the media and cried "racist!", and are now not prepared to change your position in light of evidence, logic and reason, simply repeating "he is a racist!".
While your position is not only repetitive but also unreasonable, I will not grow tired of refuting it while you continue to besmirch the reputation of a good man for no apparent other reason that it gains you a virtue badge, or perhaps you think that to not cry "racist!" is to appear racist yourself.

I do suspect that most of the people jumping on the media bandwagon have not been listening to him and reading his work for many years and their only knowledge of him is this cynically manufactured shitstorm.
Ok
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#382
Report 4 weeks ago
#382
(Original post by mgi)
By the way seeing a black person is not the same as knowing a black person. I used the word "knowing " deliberately. Also, you seem to be saying that Baker did something wrong but the consequences are unfair and that black people should believe Baker and ignore his merely stupid behaviour because it couldn't possibly be racist. So tell me- what do you think Baker did wrong and why do you think it was wrong?
I suppose Raheem Stirling and other black footballers should be eternally understanding and forgiving of the idiots who interestingly throw bananas at them on the pitch. Do you not find it interesting that out of all the fruits they could throw they decide on bananas in particular and only at black footballers? Of course they couldn't be racist could they ? only ignorant and foolish. The funny thing is that black people interpret your viewpoint as simply defending white racism. If they say so then they are being PC or "playing the race card"; its that shut down, shout down ,close down the racism debate technique yet again.
Markle doesn't look of African American heritage. The baby even less so. There are few mainstream media references to her ethnicity.
So, if Baker didn't know the baby had some African American heritage when he posted the image - how is it racist? You still haven't managed to answer that question. (Not interested in your opinions on whether you think he knew of not, only on whether his post was racist in that situation)
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#383
Report 4 weeks ago
#383
(Original post by Joinedup)
I'm not saying every offensive action or gesture is equally easily explainable as a mistake
Unlike Baker's tweet I don't think it's plausible that people throwing bananas at black players or monkey chanting when they get the ball are doing it by accident. I'm saying in the particular instance of Bakers tweet there's a very strong chance he didn't know there was going to be a racial way of looking at it when he hit the button.
And that's the difficulty with Baker in my view. How would he at his age apparently not know the racial origins of Meghan from since the time that Harry started dating her. He didn't know- even after the wedding- that Meghan's mum is black. Really? Honestly?
And would you say the banana throwers are racists or just ignorant? There are actually some people in Britain who are still unable to say the word racist even in this example as well.
Last edited by mgi; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#384
Report 4 weeks ago
#384
(Original post by mgi)
And that's the difficulty with Baker in my view. How would he at his age apparently not know the racial origins of Meghan from since the time that Harry started dating her. He didn't know- even after the wedding- that Meghan's mum is black. Really? Honestly?
And would you say the banana throwers are racists or just ignorant? There are actually some people in Britain who are still unable to say the word racist even in this example as well.
I didn't know till I heard someone talking on the radio about the gospel choir that sang at the wedding the day before ...
You hear a prince is getting married to an american actress - investigating her precise racial background like isn't something that occurs to normies.
I think it'd have been prevented if the mainstream media had made more of a thing about it... but that would have been a weird thing for the media to do - if the news media draws attention to something it can make it look as if the mainstream media thinks there's something wrong about it.

Don't think you'd get a unskewed answer to a survey now since Baker's monkey tweet blew up on the news, but I think you'd be surprised at the proportion of white people of Bakers age & background who didn't think Meghan was black or just hadn't thought about her racial origins... otoh probably everyone who's heard of her would know that she was an American Actress and had a difficult relationship with her father - because that's what the media has been talking about.
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#385
Report 4 weeks ago
#385
(Original post by Joinedup)
I didn't know till I heard someone talking on the radio about the gospel choir that sang at the wedding the day before ...
You hear a prince is getting married to an american actress - investigating her precise racial background like isn't something that occurs to normies.
I think it'd have been prevented if the mainstream media had made more of a thing about it... but that would have been a weird thing for the media to do - if the news media draws attention to something it can make it look as if the mainstream media thinks there's something wrong about it.

Don't think you'd get a unskewed answer to a survey now since Baker's monkey tweet blew up on the news, but I think you'd be surprised at the proportion of white people of Bakers age & background who didn't think Meghan was black or just hadn't thought about her racial origins... otoh probably everyone who's heard of her would know that she was an American Actress and had a difficult relationship with her father - because that's what the media has been talking about.
Yes. I am franklyamazed that a well known media man who tweets never ,apparently, heard of a black gospel preacher, black gospel choir, a black mother , a prince a mixed race royal marriage and the obviously sky high interest from the American and British media from a very wide range of cultures. Baker put the BBC in a very awkward position especially in multicultural Britain. What could they say to their viewers?- he is our very ignorant employee?, he is racist but not ignorant?, he is ignorant but not racist? Ignore it all and apparently endorse the behaviour? say how terrible it is but no punishment? what to do?
0
reply
username4499936
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#386
Report 4 weeks ago
#386
(Original post by mgi)
And that's the difficulty with Baker in my view. How would he at his age apparently not know the racial origins of Meghan from since the time that Harry started dating her. He didn't know- even after the wedding- that Meghan's mum is black. Really? Honestly?
And would you say the banana throwers are racists or just ignorant? There are actually some people in Britain who are still unable to say the word racist even in this example as well.
I would expect it's because some people in this country actually have lives and don't hang onto every snippet of news posted about an excessively rich once- relevant family.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#387
Report 4 weeks ago
#387
(Original post by mgi)
Yes. I am franklyamazed that a well known media man who tweets never ,apparently, heard of a black gospel preacher, black gospel choir, a black mother , a prince a mixed race royal marriage and the obviously sky high interest from the American and British media from a very wide range of cultures. Baker put the BBC in a very awkward position especially in multicultural Britain. What could they say to their viewers?- he is our very ignorant employee?, he is racist but not ignorant?, he is ignorant but not racist? Ignore it all and apparently endorse the behaviour? say how terrible it is but no punishment? what to do?
So like Wired, your argument essentially rests on your personal incredulity that someone else isn't aware of something you are aware of.
And on those flimsy grounds you are screeching "RACIST!" from the rooftops.
Well done you.

The response is very simple. As it was a genuine mistake due to Baker not being aware of the baby's ethnicity, with no racist intent, Baker and BBC apologise, Baker is reprimanded, the world moves on. Kinda like what happened with Aggers and the BBC recently (his Twitstorm was far more blatantly offensive and unequivocally intentional, yet he only received a reprimand)
However some people aren't happy until there is a head on a spike somewhere.
0
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#388
Report 4 weeks ago
#388
(Original post by mgi)
Yes. I am franklyamazed that a well known media man who tweets never ,apparently, heard of a black gospel preacher, black gospel choir, a black mother , a prince a mixed race royal marriage and the obviously sky high interest from the American and British media from a very wide range of cultures. Baker put the BBC in a very awkward position especially in multicultural Britain. What could they say to their viewers?- he is our very ignorant employee?, he is racist but not ignorant?, he is ignorant but not racist? Ignore it all and apparently endorse the behaviour? say how terrible it is but no punishment? what to do?
His Saturday morning show is a phone-in... I think it would have needed to be suspended temporarily otherwise it would have driven off the usual lighthearted atmosphere with callers wanting to talk about the offending Tweet.

Baker allowed back on air after getting some professional guidance on social media use.

BBC is probably going to bring in some social media clauses to it's contracts going forward (if it hasn't already) given how dangerous twitter and the like are turning out to be.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#389
Report 4 weeks ago
#389
(Original post by QE2)
So like Wired, your argument essentially rests on your personal incredulity that someone else isn't aware of something you are aware of.
And on those flimsy grounds you are screeching "RACIST!" from the rooftops.
Well done you.

The response is very simple. As it was a genuine mistake due to Baker not being aware of the baby's ethnicity, with no racist intent, Baker and BBC apologise, Baker is reprimanded, the world moves on. Kinda like what happened with Aggers and the BBC recently (his Twitstorm was far more blatantly offensive and unequivocally intentional, yet he only received a reprimand)
However some people aren't happy until there is a head on a spike somewhere.
The person who commits the offence has no right to determine whether it was offensive. It is the recipient that determines that fact. Also, there is something called objective reasoning. People are using subjective reasoning based on their own moral compass.

For example, if a person calls a black person the N word or Jew the Jewish slur, the person can say that he did not intend it to be offensive. However, that does not matter because there is objective reasoning. If we go down the road of people deciding whether what they say or do should be considered offensive, then we descend to chaos.

As a society, we have collective responsibility and socially acceptable ways of engaging with one another. That is why it was okay to call a black person the N word, 60 years ago but it is not okay today. Or the idea that women should remain in the kitchen was a 1950s idea, but ridiculous today.

I have told you my position on Danny’s particular case, but I am quite surprised how you seem to argue that people should not be held responsible for their utterances or actions. It is simply ridiculous IMO.
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#390
Report 4 weeks ago
#390
(Original post by QE2)
So like Wired, your argument essentially rests on your personal incredulity that someone else isn't aware of something you are aware of.
And on those flimsy grounds you are screeching "RACIST!" from the rooftops.
Well done you.

The response is very simple. As it was a genuine mistake due to Baker not being aware of the baby's ethnicity, with no racist intent, Baker and BBC apologise, Baker is reprimanded, the world moves on. Kinda like what happened with Aggers and the BBC recently (his Twitstorm was far more blatantly offensive and unequivocally intentional, yet he only received a reprimand)
However some people aren't happy until there is a head on a spike somewhere.
No. Do you actually believe that someoneYou would need to re read my posts. I never said i believed Baker's explanation or indeed yours. You have decided for reason that he made a mistake and everyone should move on despite the racist connotations. I disagree with that opinion or the one that says that Baker had no idea that what he did could be construed as racist when he sent it. You have decided to believe his account. He should not be let off for sending such a tweet. Too many people give obvious racism the benefit of the doubt no matter what.
Last edited by mgi; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#391
Report 4 weeks ago
#391
(Original post by Wired_1800)
you seem to argue that people should not be held responsible for their utterances or actions. It is simply ridiculous IMO.
To be clear, you think it ridiculous that anyone should argue that people should not be sacked when people take offence to what they say, with the person taking offence being the arbiter? You aren't a believer in free speech and due process, are you?
Last edited by Good bloke; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#392
Report 4 weeks ago
#392
(Original post by Wired_1800)
The person who commits the offence has no right to determine whether it was offensive. It is the recipient that determines that fact. Also, there is something called objective reasoning. People are using subjective reasoning based on their own moral compass.

For example, if a person calls a black person the N word or Jew the Jewish slur, the person can say that he did not intend it to be offensive. However, that does not matter because there is objective reasoning. If we go down the road of people deciding whether what they say or do should be considered offensive, then we descend to chaos.

As a society, we have collective responsibility and socially acceptable ways of engaging with one another. That is why it was okay to call a black person the N word, 60 years ago but it is not okay today. Or the idea that women should remain in the kitchen was a 1950s idea, but ridiculous today.

I have told you my position on Danny’s particular case, but I am quite surprised how you seem to argue that people should not be held responsible for their utterances or actions. It is simply ridiculous IMO.
*sigh*
Let me try and explain. Again.
Baker did not "commit an offence". He posted a tweet with content that could be interpreted, given certain conditions, as racist.
Those conditions have not been established before the fact, only after. You call him racist because you see a picture of a monkey and think "he must mean the black person". That is mere speculation (as we have already established). You are using subjective rather than objective reasoning.

the idea that women should remain in the kitchen was a 1950s idea, but ridiculous today.
My mother is a professional chef. She remains in the kitchen most of the day. You have been deliberately insulting, not only to my mother and her chosen career but to all women who strive against misogyny and patriarchy to fashion a career of their own, without having to put up with the kind ignorant and prejudiced comments that you have just made. Your intent was clear. I demand an apology, as does my mother and perhaps you should withdraw from TSR.

Oh, and please don't try and use the excuse that "it wasn't what you meant". I know what you meant and any attempt by you to deny it is both disappointingly expected and ridiculous.
1
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#393
Report 4 weeks ago
#393
(Original post by Good bloke)
To be clear, you think it ridiculous that anyone should argue that people should not be sacked when people take offence to what they say, with the person taking offence being the arbiter? You aren't a believer in free speech and due process, are you?
No, I don't believe in free speech but “regulated speech”. There is no such thing as free speech. There are things people are allowed to say or do and things that aren't allowed. That is how life works.

When you step beyond the mark, there should be consequences, which is my point. I believe these consequences should be progressive. That is why there are things like “three strikes and you are out” or “warning for small misconducts”. I don't think there should be a summary dismissal unless the person really messed up.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#394
Report 4 weeks ago
#394
(Original post by Wired_1800)
No, I don't believe in free speech but “regulated speech”. There is no such thing as free speech.
Speech is regulated by the law. You are proposing that punishments are meted out for entirely legal publication.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#395
Report 4 weeks ago
#395
(Original post by QE2)
*sigh*
Let me try and explain. Again.
Baker did not "commit an offence". He posted a tweet with content that could be interpreted, given certain conditions, as racist.
Those conditions have not been established before the fact, only after. You call him racist because you see a picture of a monkey and think "he must mean the black person". That is mere speculation (as we have already established). You are using subjective rather than objective reasoning.


My mother is a professional chef. She remains in the kitchen most of the day. You have been deliberately insulting, not only to my mother and her chosen career but to all women who strive against misogyny and patriarchy to fashion a career of their own, without having to put up with the kind ignorant and prejudiced comments that you have just made. Your intent was clear. I demand an apology, as does my mother and perhaps you should withdraw from TSR.

Oh, and please don't try and use the excuse that "it wasn't what you meant". I know what you meant and any attempt by you to deny it is both disappointingly expected and ridiculous.
That is your interpretation of what you think happened.

To the point about your mother, that is your business. I was pointing out shifts in attitude that women have fought for many years. Maybe you should speak with your mother on that point and get back to me.

It is really depressing to see how some people think. This is why we are not progressing as we should, because there are people who decide to draw us back.
1
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#396
Report 4 weeks ago
#396
(Original post by Good bloke)
Speech is regulated by the law. You are proposing that punishments are meted out for entirely legal publication.
Hence the point that there is no such thing as free speech. That is why I laugh at people who stupidly say “Oh, free speech is my right. I can say or do whatever I like”. No you cannot, we are civilised society and are governed by both legal and moral structures that evolve with time.
0
reply
jameswhughes
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#397
Report 4 weeks ago
#397
(Original post by Wired_1800)
The person who commits the offence has no right to determine whether it was offensive. It is the recipient that determines that fact. Also, there is something called objective reasoning. People are using subjective reasoning based on their own moral compass.

For example, if a person calls a black person the N word or Jew the Jewish slur, the person can say that he did not intend it to be offensive. However, that does not matter because there is objective reasoning. If we go down the road of people deciding whether what they say or do should be considered offensive, then we descend to chaos.

As a society, we have collective responsibility and socially acceptable ways of engaging with one another. That is why it was okay to call a black person the N word, 60 years ago but it is not okay today. Or the idea that women should remain in the kitchen was a 1950s idea, but ridiculous today.

I have told you my position on Danny’s particular case, but I am quite surprised how you seem to argue that people should not be held responsible for their utterances or actions. It is simply ridiculous IMO.
What should be the punishment if you think women belong in the kitchen?
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#398
Report 4 weeks ago
#398
(Original post by Wired_1800)
we are civilised society and are governed by both legal and moral structures that evolve with time.
Ah! You think it is civilised for the mob to lynch people!
1
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#399
Report 4 weeks ago
#399
(Original post by jameswhughes)
What should be the punishment if you think women belong in the kitchen?
I think it is sexism and should be treated the same way as prejudice and discrimination against women. Obviously, women who want and choose to be in the kitchen do it out of their own choice and not the decisions of the man whether it is their husband, father or son.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#400
Report 4 weeks ago
#400
(Original post by Good bloke)
Ah! You think it is civilised for the mob to lynch people!
There is no mob lynching anyone.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Biology Paper 2 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (413)
18.6%
The paper was reasonable (1054)
47.46%
Not feeling great about that exam... (493)
22.2%
It was TERRIBLE (261)
11.75%

Watched Threads

View All