[News] POLL TIME - Danny Baker’s tweet

[Sorrel]

It's a summary of a new society of righteous indignation in which folk wish to publish their newly found perfection now they have the chance to do so.

The post he made is only racist if there was intent. Other than that it is clumsy- and the degree of its clumsiness (and it's very clumsy) is amplified by those who have a staple diet of said righteous indignation to sustain their purpose in life.

There's a whole generation primed to see the worst in every comment. They will see what's there: an old, white, male, football fan. They will genuinely think he's racist and also think everyone who defends him is racist too.

We know they are wrong, but it's very difficult to get that message across to people who a) don't want to listen and b) already know they are right.

 

[SockMonster]

I have no doubt that it was not intended as racist in any way but it could be interpreted that way and therefore it was wrong to put it out there. In this day if you are a public figure you have to think very carefully before you post anything. Nothing is missed anymore.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Look at what my original comment was about, not tippy toeing around people who may get upset. It was in response to another poster saying that we all need to think about how our comments may affect others. I believe DB was continuing his long running references to animals/chimps in clothing, I do not believe it was racist at all, but others have chosen to put their own interpretation upon his tweet to allow them to demonise him.

Right. OK. In which case I apologise.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Baa baa black sheep has not been banned.

The Sun used to phone Lambeth or Islington Council at 4.30 on a Friday afternoon during the 'loony left' era and ask the poor sap answering the phone whether they agreed with the council's new policy to, e.g., ban Ba ba black sheep. Poor sap would say something like 'well if it has been agreed by the policy committee then I'm sure there are reasons'.

Next day, headline 'Loony left ban baa baa black sheep'.

It hadn't been banned. It was all bollocks.

This tactic is well documented. Can't be arsed to seek the references.

I see that this trope is still doing the rounds among the left haters, though.

 

[portlock seagull]

Some very strange posts on this thread.

So let's get this right.

Danny Baker has been forced out of the BBC because Jeremy Corbyn's Marxist government, that owns and runs the BBC and the Guardian, are pretending to be outraged at the racist joke accidentally made by Danny Baker, and think they will gain more votes and popularity by throwing him under a bus?

Or is it:

Danny Baker has been forced out of the BBC because Jeremy Corbyn's Marxist government, that owns and runs the BBC and the Guardian, are genuinely outraged at the non-racist joke deliberately made by Danny Baker, and don't care about how stupid and unelectable they will look by throwing him under a bus?

Or none of the above?

Personally I have found the arguments in DB's defence compelling and reasonable. I have found some of the posts on here, however, deeply baffling, requiring the reader to second guess the writer's agenda before having a stab at making sense of their comments. Even moreso than on a typical thread.

That being the strangest interpretation of all!! No, nothing of the sort. I’m completely baffled by your post. Sorry. No offence.

 

[portlock seagull]

Baa baa black sheep has not been banned.

In several schools it was and apparently replaced by a Rainbow sheep...? But more so, I know parents who have asked whether it’s still allowed. Seems to be this fear of even saying the word sometimes in case misunderstanding. A paranoia if you like. Trouble is someone nearly always will be, you can’t allow that to dictate IMO but we often let in many situations eg 1 person throws a bottle and 30k other people can no longer be trusted despite years of no incidences.

 

[the right footed denilson]

There's a whole generation primed to see the worst in every comment. They will see what's there: an old, white, male, football fan. They will genuinely think he's racist and also think everyone who defends him is racist too.

We know they are wrong, but it's very difficult to get that message across to people who a) don't want to listen and b) already know they are right.

Yeah, on the flipside racism is ****ing shit and needs to be challenged, even if it is accidental.

 

[portlock seagull]

Yeah, on the flipside racism is ****ing shit and needs to be challenged, even if it is accidental.

Even when accidental? Think about that, how does that even make sense?!

 

[The Clamp]

Even when accidental? Think about that, how does that even make sense?!

I think even accidental racism should be challenged, then when it’s clear is accidental , like DB’s tweet, quick apology and back to normal. All this pillorying and a sacking is way over the top and makes a mockery of the issue of intentional racism.

 

[portlock seagull]

I think even accidental racism should be challenged, then when it’s clear is accidental , like DB’s tweet, quick apology and back to normal. All this pillorying and a sacking is way over the top and makes a mockery of the issue of intentional racism.

Sorry Clamp, misunderstood. I meant you can’t have something called accidental racism. Its an oxymoron. Illogical. There’s either intent or there isn’t. How it’s then received may perhaps be accidental. But even then I just think it’s a case of using the wrong words in combination.

 

[The Clamp]

Sorry Clamp, misunderstood. I meant you can’t have something called accidental racism. Its an oxymoron. Illogical. There’s either intent or there isn’t. How it’s then received may perhaps be accidental. But even then I just think it’s a case of using the wrong words in combination.

Ah I see, fairs.

 

[Gregory2Smith1]

he's an obnoxious **cker
who got to big for his boots

 

[Sorrel]

Yeah, on the flipside racism is ****ing shit and needs to be challenged, even if it is accidental.

We already have something that outlaws racism: the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. If someone does something that breaks the law they can be charged. Of course, that isn't the same as "challenged"; that has happened in this case and achieved an outcome.

 

[knocky1]

In his defence its easily done.

Back in 1990, Robert Codner was waging an almost constant battle with the Albion faithful, and long before social media was making his feelings clear via Messrs Vinicombe, Millard and Lees.


Someone sent Gulls Eye a postcard of a little chimpanzee dressed in a football kit doing a w***** sign, and had over printed Codner's name on the bottom.


When putting that week's issue together we all thought it was funny and deserved to be published, at no point did we ever think about the racist overtones, Codner had used the exact word to refer to sections of the Albion support so we thought it was apt.

UNTIL THAT IS...……

The late Steve Rooke phoned us on behalf of the club

Gary Nelson made contact on behalf of the PFA

And not before Robert himself had, through Kilo, made it clear he wasn't happy and was considering having us duffed up by 'geezers' he knew in The Smoke.

Needless to say we apologised, and ironically when I meet up with Robert now, we have a laugh about the good old days.


Storm in a teacup and rest assured Danny Baker will be back on the wireless in some guise or other within 6 months.

You seem to be proud of your action rather than sorry.

 

[Stato]

I think a lot of this is what we call confirmation bias.

Interesting point about confirmation bias. A lot of us look at this situation with a perspective of what can be referred to as white privilege. It is far easier for me as a white man to miss or dismiss racist connotation than it is for someone who has lived racial prejudice their entire life. Should I say 'nothing to see here', I can, if I choose, walk away and not give the subject another thought until the next time a social media furore arises. Black people don't get to walk away. The voices of those who have experienced deliberate or subconscious prejudice have to be listened to by those of us lucky enough not to have experienced it.

However, it is important to remember that we are all human, we are all fallible and we all have biases that can shape our interpretation of a situation. I read an exchange over this matter between Dara O'Briain and Gina Yashere. Gina's posts were understandably angry and allowed no room for nuance. She seemed pretty certain that Danny Baker had racist intent. O'Briain was questioning whether, considering his pretty immediate retraction and apology, he deserved sacking. I would fully support that Yashere's life experiences should give her voice priority in this kind of situation, but it needs to be said that, despite the societal power differentials of the two contributors, both are just as likely to have their opinions framed by their own experiences. Each of us have our own confirmation biases and each of us needs to challenge ourselves and consider how much of ourselves we are bringing to our understanding of a situation.

As others on Twitter pointed out, presumably in her anger, Gina gave creedence to another poster's suggestion that Baker being a Millwall fan gives some indication that his post was more likely to be racist than insensitive. This is obviously silly stereotyping. I don't mention her support of it it to denigrate Yashere, but instead to point out that whilst she as someone who has been on the receiving end of racism, is going to have more sensitivity to suggestion of racism, she has never been a Millwall fan and has less sensitivity to the prejudices around the labelling of people from Baker's background. Whilst there is obviously no parallel in the impact that these two prejudices have on individual's life opportunities, I mention it to indicate that we all have our individual antennae tuned by our own experiences and that our attempts at communicating with each other is going to be impacted by the resulting interference. An understanding of this seems essential if we are to try to predict the responses, and interpret the motives of others. Danny Baker's post was severely lacking in this, but so were those of many who responded to him. It would seem that more consideration in our statements and less certainty in our responses may make the foundations of the social media tower of Babel less likely to crumble, but then, I'm a white middle class bloke with too much liberal arts education and a couple of scotches inside me, so I would think that.

 

[Sheebo]

First off let me say I think Baker’s Tweet was poorly thought out, though clearly he says he didn’t think about it!

Next, my own experience!

I was at a well known theme park at the weekend, that has a nice collection of gorillas, we sat and watched the baby gorilla swinging around its cage - lovely!

We then went on to the children’s play area, where a couple of boys were swinging from the monkey bars, I innocently turned to my little one and said “look at the little monkeys swinging”.

It was at the point of saying it that I realised the two boys in question were black! Immediately felt shocked that I could have said something that could be misconstrued or taken offence at.

Guess what I am trying to say is sometimes it’s a case of intent and content. No one did take offence to my comment, but it may have been a different outcome if their father had heard me...

Racist.

For what it’s worth I always call kids monkeys, including my own. I think it’s from cheeky monkey. If they were black I’d still call them monkeys and not think twice about it. I’m not gonna tip toe around the PC brigade because the intention is 100% normal. That could well be exactly what Baker did. But we’ll never know for sure.

 

[indy3050]

Skipped the thread so unaware of the general theme. Danny Baker has a decent brain and I’m pretty sure he’s not stupid enough to casually insult the child of an Afro American woman.

 

[Springal]

Skipped the thread so unaware of the general theme. Danny Baker has a decent brain and I’m pretty sure he’s not stupid enough to casually insult the child of an Afro American woman.

Stupid enough to think people would believe ‘I didn’t even know the royal baby had been board’ though

 

[Iggle Piggle]

The interesting thing about this thread is that there are a lot of people that have given Danny Baker the benefit of the doubt. I incude myself in that.

When the next episode comes up with Dave, the telephone engineer from London where we have no idea what was said or the context depending on the incdient, will the same people hang the poor git out to dry who then loses his 30ka Yr Job with the associated consequences?

 

[Muzzy]

I don't consider myself to be a snowflake, so maybe someone can correct me. But my first reaction when I scrolled down to see the monkey picture was "ohhh, god".

Having listened to DB over a number of years on radio and pods, I'm absolutely certain he didn't intend this as being a racist jibe. But man alive (as he would say), given the fact that its a mixed race baby, the first in the history of the royal family, to then post a pic today of some people leading out a monkey...

I'll put it down to misjudgement. But bloody hell Danny.

With you on this one fella


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk