.. to be disappointed that a racist received a standing ovation!

[NannaNoodleman]

Danny Baker: Standing ovation at first show since Twitter storm www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-48249637

What is wrong with people. He showed his true inherent racism but people still believe he's a top bloke!

Well don't worry folks, there will be another bandwagon along in a minute to be offended and outraged by

What a nasty thing to say. You don’t think people should be offended by racism then?

Wow.

I doubt he is a racist. He's very entertaining. I also expect many people smiled at the picture. We are just not allowed to say so. Still the mob need their public hangings

Anyone smiling at that photograph and what it was inferring must be at best stupid and at worst deeply racist. How you can this was amusing is beyond me.

Suiker but mocking the institution is very different from a racist tweet. I don't think he should be hung out to dry, I don't think he should be trolled or attacked any more, and I don't believe he should be made to feel like the most wicked person who ever lived.
But I would like to see more appreciated and acknowledgment that he did wrong (by DB and people on this thread) - whether it was intentionally racist or not.

If a person was made aware of the racism and still smiled at the image, there's something wrong with them.
We are just not allowed to say so
Damn pesky people calling out racism. Why can't we just be left alone to say what we like? PC Gawn Mad I tell ya.

I also expect many people smiled at the picture. We are just not allowed to say so.

You’re not allowed to be racist, that’s true. Those pesky equality laws, getting in the way of poor old bigots just wanting to have a good time.

^Suiker, you use statistical terms but you seem to know very little about it in practice. Your comment about a sample size of 1 said it all.*

Think about it again. Your claim is that Danny Baker used an image of a chimp to make a racist reference to the new Royal Baby. Let's say he never tweeted about Prince George, Princess Charlotte, etc. Ok, that's 6 babies he never tweeted about. Sample size of 7 if you're happy. Ok, but if you want to, you can add in all the other wealthy babies he has never tweeted about. Kim Kardashian's children, Serena William's baby, you can expand your sample size to as big as you want.

The point is, you're using one confirmatory point of this one tweet (a sample size of one tweet of a chimpanzee if you like, that was directed at the new baby) to prove that he must have meant in a racist way.

Racism absolutely does matter.

You know I didn't mean that.

He's very entertaining

Not to me he's not. Rather selfishly I am glad we are getting a chance of not having to listen to his drivel on Saturday mornings.

But I would like to see more appreciated and acknowledgment that he did wrong (by DB and people on this thread) - whether it was intentionally racist or not.

I think almost everyone on this thread, even Danny Baker and his supporters on this thread, recognise and admit that he made a big mistake.

'I also expect many people smiled at the picture. We are just not allowed to say so.'

By 'not allowed' do you mean someone will point out that you're finding a disgusting racist picture funny and tell you to wise up?

The picture itself isn’t racist, fgs.

Use in the context DB used it was regrettable; may or may not indicate racism on his part.

'Did anyone read TFBundys post? The mother of a mixed race child, who feels she now has to make an effort to no longer refer to him as a cheeky monkey. How sad is that.

But I guess it's the world we live in. Everyone desperate to be offended, if not for themselves, then virtue signalling by being offended on behalf of someone else.'

Maybe if daft fucking racists stopped calling black and mixed race people monkeys then the mother wouldn't have to avoid calling her child anything. It is not virtue signalling to call our racism for fuck sake.

Suiker, you said a sample size of one, which is clearly ridiculous. To add to your ridiculousness you're now extending the sample size to famous families when clearly the man Danny said it is go to thing for ROYAL babies not famous babies. Therefore, that's the population you should be sampling.

I think almost everyone on this thread, even Danny Baker and his supporters on this thread, recognise and admit that he made a big mistake.

Acknowledging it as a big mistake isn't the same as taking ownership of it. You can see how many comments (including yours) are calling it a mistake, but still defend him as being not TOO racist, or it wasnt intentional so it's fine.

.... And this thread shows why racism will never end.
Oh dear!

Exactly Pink/
Racism is here to stay. Too many apologist on this thread. So sad

Suiker, you said a sample size of one, which is clearly ridiculous

This discussion is about the one tweet he did send, not the thousands, millions, or billions of tweets he didn't send.

This is drastically off target, but it's only because I'm convinced you're making a thinking mistake.

Your sample size argument might have validity if he had sent tweets directed at all the royal babies, and they were in no way considered racist. But he didn't.

Think of it like the goal record of a football player who in his entire career, only takes one penalty, and only scores one goal against Manchester United, and someone comes along and claims he is a real penalty specialist against Manchester United, as he has a 100% success rate. You might say think of all the teams he could have taken and scored a penalty against, and didn't

To add to your ridiculousness you're now extending the sample size to famous families when clearly the man Danny said it is go to thing for ROYAL babies not famous babies. Therefore, that's the population you should be sampling.

No, he actually said "posh baby". Can we put Kim Kardashian's babies back in the sample?

Acknowledging it as a big mistake isn't the same as taking ownership of it. You can see how many comments (including yours) are calling it a mistake, but still defend him as being not TOO racist, or it wasnt intentional so it's fine.

I don't need to take ownership of the tweet - DB already has done that.

Secondly, I'm not saying that it wasn't too racist, or that it was fine.,

Think of it like the goal record of a football player who in his entire career, only takes one penalty, and only scores one goal against Manchester United, and someone comes along and claims he is a real penalty specialist against Manchester United, as he has a 100% success rate. You might say think of all the teams he could have taken and scored a penalty against, and didn't

No, it's actually not the same as that example - it's more like saying that he could have been selected many times, but was only chosen once. So a possible chance of 7, but it only happened once.

apologies for including you in that comment re saying it's not too racist.

But using the term "outrage mentality" about a racist tweet - regardless of how it was meant - is diminishing the issue and putting onus back on those how are rightfully outraged

No, he actually said "posh baby". Can we put Kim Kardashian's babies back in the sample?

There's a world of difference between 'posh' and 'monied'. Just sayin'.

But fwiw I'm erring on the side that nobody knows what, if anything, went through DB's mind. He removed it, but his initial apology fell well short and his childish reaction to being held accountable for his actions did little to help convince people he made a genuine error. I don't know if his intent was racist and nobody really does, everything is speculation and circumstancial. What his reaction did underline, whatever you believe, is the problem of white privilege.

Are you serious about including Kardashian in the posh baby? Given the context, I'm fairly sure he meant posh as in Upper class.

In any case, it only makes matters worse for Danny. Let's expand the sample wider, how many other babies in the circle of posh (excluding Kardashian or US celebrities) has he depicted as being a monkey? If you want to defend him, please show those examples and we can see how many of these babies are white and how many are not. Which other black well-known posh baby was he aware of and chose not to use the monkey analogy?

If you have to reach so far to include Kardashian then it clearly shows you are grasping at straws here.

Good god this thread has got worse from yesterday. So many apologists on here demonstrating a shining beacon for racism.

Good god this thread has got worse from yesterday. So many apologists on here demonstrating a shining beacon for racism.

Is that the way it works for all crimes? Discussing the possibility that someone may not be a racist makes one an apologist for racism?

So if I say "I don't thing X is guilty of murder, I'm an apologist for murderers. Are all the jury members in a trial apologists for the crime that's allegedly been committed?

Never heard such tripe.

It is perfectly possible to say "I don't think so and so is a racist" without being an apologist for racism.

Scarcely, I don't know how to explain it to you any more, but it is a logical point, but I'll try.

You cannot logically use the instance of the one case where a person tweets about a black baby, (in the one instance we have known him to tweet about the birth of a baby at all, posh, royal, or monied), and then use the counter example of all the cases where he hasn't tweeted about any white babies, as proof (or even significant evidence) he is racist towards mixed-race babies.

On the basis of that one tweet, it might be that he hates babies called Archie, or born on 6 May, or whatever.

"Scarcelyburnt Mon 13-May-19 23:25:22
The "I don't see or notice colour or that someone is mixed-race, black, Asian" is just downright ridiculous and insulting. How can you not see something so fundamental to a person and their identity?

Not seeing someone's race is deliberately trying to ignore who they are, their experiences and their future experiences. How can we ever move forward when there are people who want to literally ignore others' identity?

There is nothing wrong in seeing the colour of a person's skin or acknowledging their race. The problem is using the colour of their skin or race to denigrate them or say they are less than. It's not their race or skin colour that's the problem so why try to make them the problem by pretending they are invisible?

When will all this nonsense stop?

There is a lot written about this "I don't see colour/race". Thankfully ethnic minorities are fighting back at this age old attempt to make them, their history, experiences and likely experiences invisible. Enough already! The blindness of white privilege is truly astounding."
-----

I don't think that's what people intend when they say they are 'colourblind'.

When we meet new people, meet our friends, etc... thoughts enter our consciousness, shaping what we think, what we say, all that stuff.
I think people mean that skin colour is simply not one of those thoughts.

It doesn't mean they literally couldn't make some sort of vague guess as to your heritage if there was some reason to.
It doesn't mean they will put their fingers in their ears and ignore you if you the conversation turns to experiences of race or racism.
It doesn't mean they want to make you invisible.
It doesn't mean they are denying racism exists, or wouldn't stand by you to stand up against it.

It just means that in their mind their pal Kate is just 'Kate', not 'insert-racial-adjective-here Kate'.