Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

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

Scroll to see replies

Sorry, but you should have known better, given the context. In my view, your failure to denounce him earlier is a clear sign of your support for his racism. You may claim otherwise but I don't believe you and therefore you are guilty.
QED.

And my mother is still waiting for your apology for your sexist insults.

You really don't understand what's going on, do you?

This is getting hilarious. We never spoke about the Duke until recently. When you brought him up, I denounced and distanced myself.

Reply 441

Wired_1800

Original post by Retired_Messiah

based and redpilled

Reply 442

Wired_1800

Original post by Good bloke

Your kind of progess is actually regression to the seventeenth century.

It actually isn't.

Reply 443

QE2

Original post by Wired_1800

This is getting hilarious. We never spoke about the Duke until recently. When you brought him up, I denounced and distanced myself.

Yeah, but I don't believe your claims. Of course a racist will claim that they are not one. In this context you should have known better and denounced him without having to be cajoled.

Reply 444

jameswhughes

Original post by Wired_1800

It actually isn't.

What do you think should happen to people who don't come under your perception of 'progressive'? Re-education camps? Burning at the stake? Firing squads?

Reply 445

Wired_1800

Original post by QE2

Yeah, but I don't believe your claims. Of course a racist will claim that they are not one. In this context you should have known better and denounced him without having to be cajoled.

Action has to have a consequence. In this case, there was no action.

Just to avoid future accusations, I reject racism from anyone whether a celebrity, clergyman, royal or any random person. I hope this helps.

Reply 446

Wired_1800

Original post by jameswhughes

What do you think should happen to people who don't come under your perception of 'progressive'? Re-education camps? Burning at the stake? Firing squads?

Why do you have to escalate this to extreme levels? Nobody is supporting or expecting any extreme methods. I think people have to evolve, if they refuse to do so, they will be left behind.

Reply 447

jameswhughes

Original post by Wired_1800

Why do you have to escalate this to extreme levels? Nobody is supporting or expecting any extreme methods. I think people have to evolve, if they refuse to do so, they will be left behind.

I'd say forcibly removing people from society because of their opinions is extreme.

Reply 448

Wired_1800

Original post by jameswhughes

I'd say forcibly removing people from society because of their opinions is extreme.

No, it means the moral framework for our society has evolved.

Reply 449

Retired_Messiah

Original post by Wired_1800

No, it means the moral framework for our society has evolved.

You say that but I'm pretty sure forcible removal from society for their opinion has been an activity at least since the dark ages

Reply 450

Wired_1800

Original post by Retired_Messiah

You say that but I'm pretty sure forcible removal from society for their opinion has been an activity at least since the dark ages

Yes, it does happen, hence why I am not a big fan of the far left.

Reply 451

QE2

Original post by Wired_1800

Just to avoid future accusations, I reject racism from anyone whether a celebrity, clergyman, royal or any random person. I hope this helps.

So we are supposed to just accept your statement that you are not a racist and a sexist, are we?
Why do you not afford this same privilege to Baker?

Reply 452

Wired_1800

Original post by QE2

So we are supposed to just accept your statement that you are not a racist and a sexist, are we?
Why do you not afford this same privilege to Baker?

I have afforded Baker the same privilege. I have given him another chance. Everyone deserves a second chance, not unlimited chances.

It is a bit foolish in my opinion to just take a person’s word for it after repeated offences. Imagine someone called John posts a picture that referred to homosexuals in a negative light. They tell him, “John, that is homophobic”. He said it was not his intent. Then John posts another picture or does something that is viewed as homophobic. John is then sacked. John’s response is that he is a victim of “PC gone mad”.

Of course not, John’s repeated actions show that he has bigoted views against homosexuals. Yes, John will deny that he is homophobic, but his actions/words prove otherwise.

That is my point. Please stop accusing me of saying or supporting actions different to what I have been clearly stating on this thread.

Reply 453

Good bloke

Original post by Wired_1800

I have given him another chance.

You obviously have a long career ahead of you as the Witchfinder General.

Reply 454

Wired_1800

Original post by Good bloke

You obviously have a long career ahead of you as the Witchfinder General.

I don't agree.

Reply 455

Good bloke

Original post by Wired_1800

I don't agree.

Let's hope you are right. The last one's career was mercifully short. But brutal and unjust.

Reply 456

Wired_1800

Original post by Good bloke

Let's hope you are right. The last one's career was mercifully short. But brutal and unjust.

We hope for real progress in society. Hopefully, people don't suffer harshly for their errors. We should give everyone a second chance. Now, I hope people learn from Baker and think before posting things on social media.

Reply 457

jameswhughes

Original post by Wired_1800

Oh how very progressive. It's good to know that people hopefully won't suffer too much in the concentration camps.

Reply 458

Wired_1800

Original post by jameswhughes

Oh how very progressive. It's good to know that people hopefully won't suffer too much in the concentration camps.

Concentration camps? Why the extremism? We just want people to be considerate of others. I doubt you would want to be at uni or work with a racist, homophobe or anti-semite.

Reply 459

QE2

Original post by Wired_1800

I have afforded Baker the same privilege.

So you no longer claim that he is a racist.
My work here is done.

Imagine someone called John posts a picture that referred to homosexuals in a negative light.

Oh, apparently not...
But Baker didn't post "a picture that referred to black people in a bad light", so I'm not sure why you've brought this John fella into the argument.

That is my point. Please stop accusing me of saying or supporting actions different to what I have been clearly stating on this thread.

But you have presented two different scenarios. In Bakers case he posted a perfectly innocent, humorous image with a caption meant to poke fun at the class, privilege and media circus surrounding the royals. You saw a monkey and thought "ooh look, it's a black person" (which is where Baker's "diseased mind" comment comes from). Baker didn't. You made that connection.
In John's case, he posted an image that, in your words "portrayed homosexuals in a bad light".
If you think that a picture of a monkey "portrays black people" in any way, shape or form, then I would suggest that the problem is with you. I definitely don't think "black person" when I see a picture of a monkey. Shame on you!