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

Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#81
Report 2 weeks ago
#81
(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.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#82
Report 1 week ago
#82
(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!.
So lets say...

You walk out to the street this afternoon and you say:

"I want to eat a sandwich"

A Mongolian person walking past, stops you and says 'mate, did you know, that sandwich is a racist term against mongolian people?'

... now your a racist. simple as that, congratulations you can join the club with all the other racists.

---

Does that seem like a fair and just world that you want to live in?

Obviously that example is made up - but its the logical conclusion of the arguement you said. To be considered a racist you must only say something that someone else deems as racist, even if there is no intent and you don't know what it means.. just by saying something, anything, that someone else considers racist - you are now a racist, done a dusted, case closed.

---

Its a ridiculous way to expect the world to function. Societies at large would collapse, if they functioned on such a poor set of ideas and judgements and extrapolated them out to wider issues not just racism. We have a moral and legal system that both take intent into account for a very important reason. There is a reason why us having a car crash, and you dying, won't get me in as much trouble as me actively looking for you, and running you over on the street. Both end up with you dead, but to any rational person one is significantly worse, and should be dealt with differently.
Last edited by fallen_acorns; 1 week ago
1
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#83
Report 1 week ago
#83
(Original post by harrysbar)
Paragraphs I beg you
Have you read his latest comments today? You are just wasting time, defending obvious racism, playing games. It is difficult to deal with your comments because you are clearly not interested in being honest or objective. Read in detail the latest admissions that Danny Baker himself makes. He does not say that he shouldn't have been sacked. Worrying times when people try to defend the indefensible. Are you defending him because maybe his race and your race are the same?
1
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#84
Report 1 week ago
#84
(Original post by QE2)
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.
Perhaps because that would have made the racism completely overt and obvious and the idea was to attempt a subtly racist joke that could be defended as non-racist? Or am I being too cynical.
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#85
Report 1 week ago
#85
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
So lets say...

You walk out to the street this afternoon and you say:

"I want to eat a sandwich"

A Mongolian person walking past, stops you and says 'mate, did you know, that sandwich is a racist term against mongolian people?'

... now your a racist. simple as that, congratulations you can join the club with all the other racists.

---

Does that seem like a fair and just world that you want to live in?

Obviously that example is made up - but its the logical conclusion of the arguement you said. To be considered a racist you must only say something that someone else deems as racist, even if there is no intent and you don't know what it means.. just by saying something, anything, that someone else considers racist - you are now a racist, done a dusted, case closed.

---

Its a ridiculous way to expect the world to function. Societies at large would collapse, if they functioned on such a poor set of ideas and judgements and extrapolated them out to wider issues not just racism. We have a moral and legal system that both take intent into account for a very important reason. There is a reason why us having a car crash, and you dying, won't get me in as much trouble as me actively looking for you, and running you over on the street. Both end up with you dead, but to any rational person one is significantly worse, and should be dealt with differently.
.".' even if there is no intent and you don't know what it means.." You need to check your race discrimination law facts. "Intent " is not considered to be relevant- and quite rightly so! Otherwise the law should exonerate me if i drive at 110 miles per hour on the grounds that i say that i hsd no idea about speed limits on the motorway. So ignorance is no defence and does not automatically exonerate people like Danny Baker from blatantly racist behaviour. It depends on whether you take racism seriously or not!
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#86
Report 1 week ago
#86
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Perhaps because that would have made the racism completely overt and obvious and the idea was to attempt a subtly racist joke that could be defended as non-racist? Or am I being too cynical.
Ah, the old "of course a bigot would claim they were not a bigot" argument. Denial is an admission of guilt. Stalin would have been proud.
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#87
Report 1 week ago
#87
(Original post by mgi)
.".' even if there is no intent and you don't know what it means.." You need to check your race discrimination law facts. "Intent " is not considered to be relevant- and quite rightly so! Otherwise the law should exonerate me if i drive at 110 miles per hour on the grounds that i say that i hsd no idea about speed limits on the motorway.
But you are comparing hoes with spades (see what I did there? ).
Your analogy would only work if the speed limit was not fixed and signposted but determined by individual police officers depending on their personal position on speeding.

So ignorance is no defence and does not automatically exonerate people like Danny Baker from blatantly racist behaviour. It depends on whether you take racism seriously or not!
His behaviour was not "blatantly racist". That is the whole point! It is merely the opinion of those who necessarily make a connection between monkeys and black people.

Would you consider casting a black actor to portray any simian character in a Planet of the Apes film to be "racism"?
Last edited by QE2; 1 week ago
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#88
Report 1 week ago
#88
(Original post by mgi)
.".' even if there is no intent and you don't know what it means.." You need to check your race discrimination law facts. "Intent " is not considered to be relevant- and quite rightly so! Otherwise the law should exonerate me if i drive at 110 miles per hour on the grounds that i say that i hsd no idea about speed limits on the motorway. So ignorance is no defence and does not automatically exonerate people like Danny Baker from blatantly racist behaviour. It depends on whether you take racism seriously or not!
I take it very seriously - that's why I want to make sure it only applies to actual racist cases and people. The over-use of a word, weakens its power and ability. Call everyone a racist, and you loose the ability to distinguish the real racists.

Your other part conflates ignorance with intent. two things which I made sure to keep separate in my reply to you.

Ignorance of a law is no defense, true, but that's not because morally and philosophically it wouldn't make a difference (it does), its because its an impossible thing to prove in practice, and its more functional for legal systems to take it out of the equation rather than have to prove that every criminal knew the law before committing their crime.

Intent however does matter legally, because it is far more provable and demonstrable, whilst still holding conferable moral and philosophical weight when determining the severity of someones actions, either positively or negativity.

Your point about racial discrimination laws is irrelevant, as if we are to discuss this using our legal system as moral framework, then his tweets wouldn't fall under discrimination laws, they would fall under hate speech/crime laws, as there is no single victim or individual who has been directly or indirectly discriminated against by his tweet. The hate speech laws are meant to take intent into account, look at the language used in section 19 of the public order act 1986.

In summery, the moral case for including intent and ignorance when discriminating between peoples actions is very strong and established, but you can make a piratical case against including ignorance in legal decisions due to the burden of proof being to demanding. When it comes to hate crimes, they are no different from any other criminal or morally wrong action we take against another person, and should be judged accordingly - by both the severity of the outcome, and the intent of the perpetrator.
Last edited by fallen_acorns; 1 week ago
1
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#89
Report 1 week ago
#89
(Original post by mgi)
Have you read his latest comments today? You are just wasting time, defending obvious racism, playing games. It is difficult to deal with your comments because you are clearly not interested in being honest or objective. Read in detail the latest admissions that Danny Baker himself makes. He does not say that he shouldn't have been sacked. Worrying times when people try to defend the indefensible. Are you defending him because maybe his race and your race are the same?
No, I’m not defending him just because we are the same race, that would be racist
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#90
Report 1 week ago
#90
(Original post by harrysbar)
No, I’m not defending him just because we are the same race, that would be racist
its also quite racist an accusation to make. To presume your intent just based on the color of your skin.
0
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#91
Report 1 week ago
#91
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
its also quite racist an accusation to make. To presume your intent just based on the color of your skin.
Yes I did think that....
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#92
Report 1 week ago
#92
(Original post by mgi)
Otherwise the law should exonerate me if i drive at 110 miles per hour on the grounds that i say that i hsd no idea about speed limits on the motorway. So ignorance is no defence a
You are spouting nonsense. Intent is a very important element of criminak law. You are confusing intent with ignorance of the law, which are two entirely different matters.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#93
Report 1 week ago
#93
(Original post by Good bloke)
You are spouting nonsense. Intent is a very important element of criminak law. You are confusing intent with ignorance of the law, which are two entirely different matters.
hes not even right in the case of employment or other non-inter-personal discrimination. For example the law is very clear that indirect discrimination, the type often found in institutions, that discrimination laws only apply if: "'A' cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.". E.g. the intent of the action that caused the discrimination, may justify its purpose and make it legal.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#94
Report 1 week ago
#94
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
its also quite racist an accusation to make. To presume your intent just based on the color of your skin.
Those that are easily outraged by supposed racism are often extremely racist themselves.
0
reply
SMEGGGY
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#95
Report 1 week ago
#95
Had he done it for William, it would not have mattered but chimps etc are affiliated with black people in insults, he's a big footie fan how can he not know this. ****
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
2
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#96
Report 1 week ago
#96
(Original post by Good bloke)
You are spouting nonsense. Intent is a very important element of criminak law. You are confusing intent with ignorance of the law, which are two entirely different matters.
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
hes not even right in the case of employment or other non-inter-personal discrimination. For example the law is very clear that indirect discrimination, the type often found in institutions, that discrimination laws only apply if: "'A' cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.". E.g. the intent of the action that caused the discrimination, may justify its purpose and make it legal.
You are both in fact talking nonsense. Firstly, criminal law is not race discrimination law. Lets get that straight first. Second, the Danny Baker case is not about indirect race discrimation. It is about direct race discrimination . Check out the legal rules on direct race discrimination. " Intent" is not the test in this part of the law. And we are not talking about criminal law either which is a whole other branch of law outside of race discrimination law. Show me where intent fits into current race discrimination law without making up your own ideas about what racism in law actually means.
Last edited by mgi; 1 week ago
0
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#97
Report 1 week ago
#97
(Original post by SMEGGGY)
Had he done it for William, it would not have mattered but chimps etc are affiliated with black people in insults, he's a big footie fan how can he not know this. ****
I think his argument would be that he could just as easily have done it for William and Kate and no one would have thought anything about it. But he made the mistake of doing it forMeghan and Harry instead.... not thinking of her racial heritage
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#98
Report 1 week ago
#98
(Original post by mgi)
You are both in fact talking nonsense. Firstly, criminal law is not race discrimination law. Lets get that straight first. Second, the Danny Baker case is not about indirect race discrimation. It is about direct race discrimination . Check out the legal rules on direct race discrimination. " Intent" is not the test in this part of the law. And we are not talking about criminal law either which is a whole other branch of law outside of race discrimination law. Show me where intent fits into current race discrimination law without making up your own ideas about what racism in law actually means.
I think you should do a bit more research before coming here and and purporting to correct people with a lecture on the law. You are spouting even more nonsense and looking very foolish now.
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#99
Report 1 week ago
#99
(Original post by Good bloke)
Those that are easily outraged by supposed racism are often extremely racist themselves.
And your empirical objective documented evidence for such a statement is what exactly?
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#100
Report 1 week ago
#100
(Original post by mgi)
And your empirical objective documented evidence for such a statement is what exactly?
It was a personal observation based on a lifetime of observing such people.
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 Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (42)
15.85%
The paper was reasonable (131)
49.43%
Not feeling great about that exam... (59)
22.26%
It was TERRIBLE (33)
12.45%

Watched Threads

View All