snowychap Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 13 minutes ago, Chindie said: Punching is rarely not bad. Punching up isn't as bad as punching down, but neither is good. As an aside, I differ. Punching up is, in my view, most definitely a good thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post jackbauer24 Posted May 10, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted May 10, 2019 It's all about equality and where you draw that line. Is it based on now, human to human, or is it based on how your parents behaved, your grandparents, your ancestors. Me personally, I'm of the view equality should be immediate and now, not some element of righting past wrongs with new wrongs. Discrimination is discrimination. Why try and redress the balance with almost an element of "now you know what it feels like". Should women be treated more lightly if they attack an innocent man due to historic gender power? Should using racial language towards a white person be forgiven/excusable because of history? I just can't get my head around any inequality. I couldn't care less if someone is white, black, female, male or transgender. Whether they are rich, poor, European or American. If they're gay, straight, bisexual or other. They're all human so they should all have the same rights today, not based on anything from the past. It may require some element of idealism, even naivity, but surely you have to try to start from that standpoint? Anything, from any direction (up, down or whatever phrase you use) that discriminates based on race, age, gender, religion, sexuality is wrong and equally unacceptable. If we keep legislating for certain groups to have some moral high ground then divisions will remain forever. In fact, like mentioned above, you actually feed the real racist viewpoints. A quick example being jobs; introduce 'positive discrimination' to encourage more ethnic minorities to join and despite the good intentions, it creates division as the job availability is not equal. But make them 'blind' applications (no identifying markers) to weed out any element of racial profiling (concious or subconcious according to some articles) dictating hiring and the job automatically becomes fairer, equal and doesn't fuel division. It's how you go about things and how it's presented. I genuinely find this is fascinating subject and don't for one second think I can understand, answer or rationalise every viewpoint but I do find it scary how easily people can be offended, how little discussion can take place, how debate is dying. Even if I wholeheartedly disagree with a viewpoint, I still try to understand it, try to explain it or, maybe, even try to 'correct' it. Brexit is a good example, I struggle to understand anyone voting for Leave but in the VT thread I asked, I listened, I challenged. I probably badly tried to educate. But what I don't do is dismiss others views, questions or understanding with insult or superiority, it doesn't do anyone any favours. If you genuinely think every view you have is right and unmoveable on every facet of a discussion it honestly scares me; that's almost extremism to me!! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 Bigots gonna bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 On 17/02/2019 at 19:23, Demitri_C said: Just because an actor chooses to wear big cheap plastic hoopy earrings in his free time will have no impact on the films I choose to see. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCDAN Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 8 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said: The context is that it is a racist trope to compare people of colour to monkeys. I mean this isn't rocket science to be fair. Just don't compare black people to monkeys and you're set. I don't buy his excuse or the excuses being made on his behalf either, to be honest. It's up there with Wayne Hennessey claiming he doesn't know who Hitler is. Obviously I agree with you, if he genuinely posted that picture comparing the child to a monkey then yes its offensive and he should be sacked. In my opinion what's happened is that the picture wasn't related to race (which seems to be backed up based on the fact he has posted said picture before in some sort of satire against the circus act of the rich and famous). So his offence is not considering the connotations that picture could conjure up, again this depends if you believe him or not but if race didn't even enter his mind and its other people making that link for him then is it fair to hold him responsible. Its hard to put this into words on a football message board, its a bigger discussion than that of course. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCDAN Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 6 hours ago, jackbauer24 said: I just can't get my head around any inequality. I couldn't care less if someone is white, black, female, male or transgender. Whether they are rich, poor, European or American. If they're gay, straight, bisexual or other. They're all human so they should all have the same rights today, not based on anything from the past. It may require some element of idealism, even naivity, but surely you have to try to start from that standpoint? Anything, from any direction (up, down or whatever phrase you use) that discriminates based on race, age, gender, religion, sexuality is wrong and equally unacceptable. If we keep legislating for certain groups to have some moral high ground then divisions will remain forever. In fact, like mentioned above, you actually feed the real racist viewpoints. A quick example being jobs; introduce 'positive discrimination' to encourage more ethnic minorities to join and despite the good intentions, it creates division as the job availability is not equal. But make them 'blind' applications (no identifying markers) to weed out any element of racial profiling (concious or subconcious according to some articles) dictating hiring and the job automatically becomes fairer, equal and doesn't fuel division. It's how you go about things and how it's presented. Well summed up! I think Ricky Gervais stand point on being able to joke about anything kind of touches on the same point. You should be able to joke about everything, as soon as you say something or someone is off limits all it does is highlight that thing as being different, how can it ever be inclusive while also being singled out as different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 8 hours ago, tonyh29 said: As it was me that quoted that picture ...that wasn’t what was said I used them both as an example of where the BBC weren’t being seen to be consistent with their actions , I didn’t comment on whether or not either post was racist , I was asking others to decide “are these more / less racist than what Baker posted “ I don’t see that as pandering to Y- L types So out of the dozens of examples or racism at the BBC, probably in the last week, you chose a comment by a brown man as one of them, completely at random? I imagine your intentions were to bring some kind of quasi-liberal notion of balance to the debate? Like, even the actual racists can't disagree with this. I don't think you're a racist btw Tony. Though you are a Tory so, fine margins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 8 hours ago, Chindie said: Punching is rarely not bad. Punching up isn't as bad as punching down, but neither is good. I'm about as white as white gets in pretty much every way. Another race using derogatory racist language against me (which surprisingly has happened) cannot carry the impact that the reverse would (which for absolute clarity, I wouldn't do), but still is unpleasant, shouldn't be done and I'd rather they didn't. If another race were to use derogatory language against me, which unsurprisingly (given I'm a complete dick) has happened, I don't feel racially abused. I might feel abused generally, but as a white male I'm basically immune from racial intersectionality. So it resonates completely differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 1 hour ago, AVFCDAN said: Obviously I agree with you, if he genuinely posted that picture comparing the child to a monkey then yes its offensive and he should be sacked. In my opinion what's happened is that the picture wasn't related to race (which seems to be backed up based on the fact he has posted said picture before in some sort of satire against the circus act of the rich and famous). So his offence is not considering the connotations that picture could conjure up, again this depends if you believe him or not but if race didn't even enter his mind and its other people making that link for him then is it fair to hold him responsible. Its hard to put this into words on a football message board, its a bigger discussion than that of course. So the defence is ignorance? I'm just not buying it. The bit in bold is the most interesting line of discourse to me though and I wanna know more. What you are essentially leaning towards is saying that the people with the issue here are those who interpret it as racist, not the person making the blatantly racist comment. That our answer to this problem is to just stop being so bloody offended by everything? What that fails to address is the fact that these racial power structures exist, so in this case that far too many people use tropes such as 'black people = monkeys' in order to reaffirm the idea that they are somehow subhuman. You reach a point, like with this Baker thing, where intention no longer matters and rather than inventing an angle with which to defend them you are better off saying absolutely nothing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCDAN Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 27 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said: So the defence is ignorance? I'm just not buying it. The bit in bold is the most interesting line of discourse to me though and I wanna know more. What you are essentially leaning towards is saying that the people with the issue here are those who interpret it as racist, not the person making the blatantly racist comment. That our answer to this problem is to just stop being so bloody offended by everything? What that fails to address is the fact that these racial power structures exist, so in this case that far too many people use tropes such as 'black people = monkeys' in order to reaffirm the idea that they are somehow subhuman. You reach a point, like with this Baker thing, where intention no longer matters and rather than inventing an angle with which to defend them you are better off saying absolutely nothing at all. I'm not here to defend Danny Baker as I have zero interest in the man, I'm also not a racist so I'm not here to defend racist behaviour either, I just think this Danny Baker thing is open to interpretation. If we are happy to decide a persons intentions for them now and then fire them on the spot for it then we're all good and there's nothing more to be discussed here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, AVFCDAN said: I'm not here to defend Danny Baker as I have zero interest in the man, I'm also not a racist so I'm not here to defend racist behaviour either, I just think this Danny Baker thing is open to interpretation. If we are happy to decide a persons intentions for them now and then fire them on the spot for it then we're all good and there's nothing more to be discussed here. I'm saying his intentions are a moot point. He did something racist and has paid for it, his actions from the point of the tweet onwards are what have let him down in reality. If he had copped up and shown a bit of humility then he might get a bit of sympathy from me. As it is, f**k him. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 1 hour ago, dont_do_it_doug. said: I don't think you're a racist btw Tony. Though you are a Tory so, fine margins. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 52 minutes ago, AVFCDAN said: If we are happy to decide a persons intentions We can't know his intentions. We can take a view on his actions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 22 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said: So out of the dozens of examples or racism at the BBC, probably in the last week, you chose a comment by a brown man as one of them, completely at random? I imagine your intentions were to bring some kind of quasi-liberal notion of balance to the debate? Like, even the actual racists can't disagree with this. I don't think you're a racist btw Tony. Though you are a Tory so, fine margins. I wasn't citing racism at the BBC , I was discussing the approach the BBC have taken with Baker v the actions they have taken with other people for comparable actions Ranganathan has a reputation for speaking about race and racism as part of his act so I picked him as his tweet , without context , could be interpreted 2 ways .. a) he's a racist or b ) he's mocking racists ... the answer is in the eye of the beholder , so In the context of the Baker discussion I felt it was the perfect example interestingly , Ranganathan then follows up someone quoting the BBC's own code of conduct to him about his the "crazy white bastards" tweet with "some white bloke wrote it so I ignored it " ** .. is that comedy brilliance that he can zing a heckler / detractor / racist with a quick put down .. or is Ranganathan an outright racist ? in my view at least , Ranganathan isn't a racist ... but neither is Danny Baker ** taken with context , it's a brilliant retort fwiw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 Quote blatantly racist comment That's ridiculous. No one denies the connotations in the context sure, but using language like that, as 'blatantly racist' is ridiculous, like you're putting it on a par with aggressively intended words of hate. There is a spectrum. Not everything is black and white. Accidental mistakes and errors of judgement and aggravatingly hostile statements and actions are in completely different ballparks from one another but commentary like that, and those on twitter who get monumentally outraged create a perception that they are all the same. People should have room in their lives to er and apologise, be forgiven and move on, before firings and the like start happening. Tangent to this is with all the outrage, we end up a perpetual state of Aesop's boy who cried wolf. What actually does deserve anger? My default position now is to assume everyone is over-reacting. I guess that risks me underplaying some genuinely offensive moments, but when everything is OFFENSIVE, The word loses all meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 10, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted May 10, 2019 10 hours ago, snowychap said: As an aside, I differ. Punching up is, in my view, most definitely a good thing. I should have been clearer (read - dropped the analogy...). By punching here I'm specifically talking about derogatory actions. Looking to level the playing field, by simultaneously chipping at the 'privileged' (for want of a better term) position and countering the positions that have held others low, I'm completely ok with. I don't think trying to achieve this through discourteous, bad faith, whatever means is helpful though, hence talking about punching up being rarely a good thing, whereas talking up, seeking parity in good faith - rarely not a good thing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 10, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted May 10, 2019 1 hour ago, dont_do_it_doug. said: If another race were to use derogatory language against me, which unsurprisingly (given I'm a complete dick) has happened, I don't feel racially abused. I might feel abused generally, but as a white male I'm basically immune from racial intersectionality. So it resonates completely differently. I think we're basically discussing here whether the severity of something makes it a different thing. I would argue that racism is racism, that abusive action based on racial background is racism regardless of its direction, but that some directions carry a context that makes them far worse. You would argue that the context is so important that it defines racism itself, to the extent that something I would call racist but weakly so, say a black guy calling a white guy cracker or something, you would argue isn't racist as its context is one of a historically weak actor going up against a strong one who isn't harmed by connotation of the slur. I can see where that line of thought comes from, and I understand it, I just wouldn't go so far as to say that the level of harm abuse is capable of makes it a different thing. It IMO just alters (significantly) the severity of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 I think we can all probably find some common ground about the point being made about poverty/economic slavery/empire and the effect that still has on our functioning society today. As others have said though, trying to use that as a reason to diminish racism is a little perverse. I would personally argue that as methods of division based upon abstract concepts they are inevitably going to share some common characteristics. Quote “Overcoming poverty is not a task of charity, it is an act of justice. Like Slavery and Apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings. Sometimes it falls on a generation to be great. YOU can be that great generation. Let your greatness blossom.” - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted May 10, 2019 Author Share Posted May 10, 2019 3 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said: So out of the dozens of examples or racism at the BBC, probably in the last week, you chose a comment by a brown man as one of them, completely at random? I imagine your intentions were to bring some kind of quasi-liberal notion of balance to the debate? Like, even the actual racists can't disagree with this. I don't think you're a racist btw Tony. Though you are a Tory so, fine margins. I think it's wrong to label everyone A tory as racist that's like saying all Labour are anti semitic. Not all are just a group of that particular party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted May 10, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted May 10, 2019 5 hours ago, AVFCDAN said: Obviously I agree with you, if he genuinely posted that picture comparing the child to a monkey then yes its offensive and he should be sacked. In my opinion what's happened is that the picture wasn't related to race (which seems to be backed up based on the fact he has posted said picture before in some sort of satire against the circus act of the rich and famous). So his offence is not considering the connotations that picture could conjure up, again this depends if you believe him or not but if race didn't even enter his mind and its other people making that link for him then is it fair to hold him responsible. Its hard to put this into words on a football message board, its a bigger discussion than that of course. Yeah I'm with Dave, you can't claim ignorance here. It's not an excuse. Again I said in my first post on the matter that I don't believe he was being racist when he posted it. But that doesn't mean it's ok that he posted it. As Dave said, it's not rocket science. It's not some obscure reference that someone would have to research hard to find the offence. It's comparing a black person (or a person of black ancestry) to a monkey. You just can't do that, accident or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts