UK Politics: Awaiting MV3

[mormont]

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Not thinking like a racist makes people racist then? Sure.

No, but not thinking about race at all can lead people to do racially insensitive things.

Baker wanted this to be his defence from the start, with his comment about not having a 'diseased mind'. But it doesn't wash. In fact, it compounds the offence: it says 'if you see racism, you're a racist'. The logical extension of this is that if a black person complains about racism, they're a racist, but if a white person posts an egregiously racist image (as here) they only have to play the ignorance card. And that's utterly ridiculous.

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

This is absolute bollocks. I do not buy, for one second, that Baker is unaware of the racial connotations of comparing a mixed-race child to a chimpanzee. No fucking way. The guy has been a journalist for decades. He supports a notorious football team supported by thugs and racists, who regularly engage in monkey chanting.

In order to get that image, he's had to google for a monkey in a suit. Do you seriously believe he is unaware that Meghan is black? It's been all over the tabloids for years.

 

 

 

So your conclusion is that he knowingly posted an overtly racist image on twitter.

What possible reason would anyone working for the BBC have for doing that. Please explain what you think his reasoning for doing that would be, knowing that it would be a life destroying event for him? 

 

[Heartofice]

7 minutes ago, mormont said:

No, but not thinking about race at all can lead people to do racially insensitive things.

Baker wanted this to be his defence from the start, with his comment about not having a 'diseased mind'. But it doesn't wash. In fact, it compounds the offence: it says 'if you see racism, you're a racist'. The logical extension of this is that if a black person complains about racism, they're a racist, but if a white person posts an egregiously racist image (as here) they only have to play the ignorance card. And that's utterly ridiculous.

There is a difference because this is all a matter of interpretation and intent. Whoever dressed the kid up in a monkey jumper at Benetton wasn’t consciously trying to make a racist statement, they simply hadn’t considered that some people might make a racial connection. They had been pretty oblivious to this. It might be considered racially insensitive by some and by others it isn’t. But the intent wasn’t to be racist. We can’t just exclude intent from all these discussions. 

[Spockydog]

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

So your conclusion is that he knowingly posted an overtly racist image on twitter.

What possible reason would anyone working for the BBC have for doing that.

 

You think the BBC is a racist-free Utopia? Come the fuck on. 

I have no idea what he was thinking. Maybe he was pissed - I mean, he certainly posts enough images of himself with a drink in hand. 

 

[Heartofice]

Just now, Spockydog said:

You think the BBC is a racist-free Utopia? Come the fuck on. 

I have no idea what he was thinking. Maybe he was pissed - I mean, he certainly posts enough images of himself with a drink in hand. 

 

Really dodged that question didn’t you. So you think he purposely posted a racist image knowing full well the damage it would cause to his life?

[Spockydog]

Maybe. The right wing nutter gravy train is in full flow right now... 

[Heartofice]

Well from what you are saying it seems you genuinely believe this is what he has done. So he wants to sabotage his career and life for the sake of a weak twitter joke? 

 

[BigFatCoward]

19 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

 

I have no idea what he was thinking. Maybe he was pissed - I mean, he certainly posts enough images of himself with a drink in hand. 

 

Weirdly that's the only plausible thing I can think of to explain this. 

[Spockydog]

16 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well from what you are saying it seems you genuinely believe this is what he has done. So he wants to sabotage his career and life for the sake of a weak twitter joke? 

 

No. You are asking me to explain the mindset of a 60 year old British journalist who posted a racist image in relation to a newborn baby. I cannot explain why he would do such a thing. One can only guess.

The way I see it, the choices are:

a) He's a closeted racist, got drunk, and made an epic boo boo.

b) 

[Spockydog]

23 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Really dodged that question didn’t you. 

Got that link yet....?

 

[mormont]

41 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

There is a difference because this is all a matter of interpretation and intent. Whoever dressed the kid up in a monkey jumper at Benetton wasn’t consciously trying to make a racist statement, they simply hadn’t considered that some people might make a racial connection. They had been pretty oblivious to this. It might be considered racially insensitive by some and by others it isn’t. But the intent wasn’t to be racist. We can’t just exclude intent from all these discussions. 

What you seem to be missing is that I've conceded, right from the start, that this doesn't seem likely to have been intentional. And that I have drawn, and do draw, a distinction between intentional racism and unintentional racism. 

However, unintentional racism is still racism. And, even within that category, there are definitely degrees. It's like car accidents. Some might be caused by a momentary loss of attention. Others are caused by drivers speeding towards a blind curve while trying to read a map and talk on the phone. Neither involve intent. But they're not the same. 

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

 However, unintentional racism is still racism. And, even within that category, there are definitely degrees. It's like car accidents. Some might be caused by a momentary loss of attention. Others are caused by drivers speeding towards a blind curve while trying to read a map and talk on the phone. Neither involve intent. But they're not the same. 

I agree there are degrees and the punishment should fit the crime. An honest mistake, where someone has inadvertently said or done something that could be taken in a way other than intended should be treated with an appropriate punishment. 

I don’t think we are there as a society however , the urge to take everything in the worst possible faith and to delight in the destruction of others is strong.

[BigFatCoward]

I'm sure that Harry can see the funny side.

[Impmk2]

In 2019 if you don't know that publicly posting that picture would considered racist you're a liability and probably too stupid to be employed. At least certainly not in any kind of high profile position.

[Heartofice]

 

[HelenaExMachina]

I don’t see colour man...

[Spockydog]

12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

 

[Nevarfeather]

well that's a nice demo of what a PR team can do for you....
cynical?
moi?

[mormont]

I'll say this, though: one argument I do accept is that it's hypocritical for the BBC to fire Baker on the same day they have Farage on Question Time. 

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

I'll say this, though: one argument I do accept is that it's hypocritical for the BBC to fire Baker on the same day they have Farage on Question Time. 

I’d say Alan Sugars joke about the Cameroon football team is far worse than Bakers because there is no possibility of misinterpreting it and it was clearly racist. He still seems to be employed by them.