.. 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!

The whole attitude of the media to Meghan since she married Prince Harry has had racist undertones IMO. Not overtly racist; as Thymeout has said, Meghan’s racial background has scarcely been mentioned, but that doesn’t mean the hostility isn’t there. For example, there has been endless speculation about her rumoured feud with Kate, for which she has been entirely blamed for making ‘poor Kate’ cry.

There’s always been a racial stereotype of black women as being angry and aggressive, which I think is at play here, so if there’s a feud between Meghan and Kate, it must be Meghan who is to blame. You only need to consider the treatment of Serena Williams in the press when she argues with the umpire. We see men do far worse with impunity.

The attitude towards Meghan in the media has always had racism underlying it, sadly; it’s been very unpleasant to witness it and I’m not even a particular fan.

And then along comes DB with that chimpanzee tweet in relation to baby Archie. I’m sorry, but if he didn’t realise the racist connotation behind his tweet, then the only alternative possible interpretation is that he’s completely stupid.

But that's about it and there's not been any serious discussion. Or I've missed it

My recollection is there was a lot of discussion along the lines of how far the Royal family and society had progressed as it simply wasn't a concern now.

I’m sorry, but if he didn’t realise the racist connotation behind his tweet, then the only alternative possible interpretation is that he’s completely stupid

Indeed.

If you tweet something racist (which it is, regardless of intent or that that the picture meant something else) , then you are a racist.

Utter piffle. What makes someone a racist is posting something racist in a context that's racist. Context and intent are everything. If I tweet a picture of the KKK and a burning cross and say "Nigel Farage is having a bonfire" then I'm not a racist just because I tweeted the image. You have to put it in the context it was meant. And it was meant as a piss take of Farage.

Now someone else might get very upset that I even posted that image. They could even call me a racist for using it. That's up to them. I might even have a rethink and agree that I shouldn't have used that image to get my point across and apologise. It doesn't alter the fact that I'm not a racist.

Really, I can't believe I'm having to explain this to a grown adult.

Anyway, just to confuse things further, I've saw today a thing about the black MMA fighter, Jared Carrionair, who calls himself the Killer Gorilla.

I love fighter names. Some people in Australia got sniffy about the Chaser Shaun Wallace calling himself The Dark Destroyer, I recall

Reminds me of ‘Villa Gorilla’. Going to be humming that all night now!

I'm going to see Danny on tour next week, he's brought nothing but joy to my life. I'm in a dark place at the moment and can feel for him. He's not a racist. He's a daft arse at the absolute worst. Call off your dogs. I hope none of you ever have to endure a wrongful accusation, it can happen to anyone.

Is Toots and the Maytals’ Monkey Man off limits now?

Or the Amy Winehouse cover?

Lifecraft - I didn't say anything about context, just intent. Your example is laughable, it doesnt compare at all. As I said, when someone says something racist, maybe it's because they are.

Intention does not matter when it comes to racism, sexism, homophobia etc. We have been taught that racists are consciously prejudiced and thier intent is to be hurtful. So when someone states their intention was not to be racist, it gives us a 'get out clause'. "Oh well, you can only be a racist if your intent was to be hurtful, so your tweet is ok"

I get it, it's difficult to be called a racist. We like to think of ourselves as kind, non-prejudiced people. This means every time someone is called a racist, you can be sure there will be outrage, minimising and excuses.

I have another example. After the mass shooting in the cinema in Aurora, a journalist tweeted

"I hope the girls whose boyfriends died to save them were worthy of the sacrifice"

The journalist said that the intent of the tweet was to be thought provoking and they actually meant that these girls owed thier lives to these men and would never be able to repay the debt.
I dont give a shit what his intent was, to me his sexism is showing. If he wasnt sexist he would have said "I hope people whose friends died to save them were worthy of the sacrifice". In my view, he is a nasty, sexist, misogynistic arsehole.

It's a pretty atrocious sentiment, given how common a phenomenon 'survivor's guilt' is anyway, that's for sure.

No one said the tweet was ok, but when it comes to losing ones job and being publicly vilified intent is important.

Interesting discussion on Sky news last night. Greg Dyke said he didn't think he should have been sacked. Intent and motive were crucial. He's known DB for years. He said if DB had been on the staff of the BBC, instead of a free-lancer, there would have been a proper enquiry before dismissal. Maji Nawaz - recently beaten up for 'being brown' agreed. But Afua Hirsch thought toughest line should be taken because people didn't realise how much casual racism affected the victims. (Sorry if I've mis-spelled names.)

Accident or design/intent is recognised as a principle in law. Accidental/criminal damage, murder/manslaughter. If you're going to apply serious consequences - summary dismissal - to an offence, then it should be taken into account then, too.

Well, the BBC have form... and are running out of decent broadcasters IMO

stairway why? Why should his intent be important when facing the consequences of his actions?

You've agreed the tweet was not ok, what should be the consequence?

He is being publically vilified because the tweet was public.

If you were the boss at the BBC, how would you handle this? Would you let it go, suspend them, send the on a diversity training course?

@minou123

I think because most people would agree, while the intent does not alter the consequence of the action (a manslaughtered person is still dead), it does normally affect the punishment

suiker - I agree. But that doesn't mean there is no punishment. Just because your intent wasnt to kill the person, doesn't mean you dont get a harsh sentence, such as a prison sentence.

On the intent thing, I think there are two scenarios and people are talking at cross purposes.

1. He didn’t intend for any offence to be caused at all, because he didn’t make (or intend that anyone else made) the association between a mixed race baby and the picture. He didn’t intend it how it looks.

2. He did know / intend it how it looks but didn’t intend to upset people.

(I believe it’s the former. )

Intention does not matter when it comes to racism

Yes it does. If I walk down the road waving a Nazi flag, you may call me a racist. Most people doing that would be racist. But if it turns out I'm an extra in a film about Germany in the 30s that's being made, that changes the intent. My intent isn't to support the Nazis, it's to do my job, as an extra on a film.

Now there's a chance onlookers might not realise a film is being made, and might accuse me of racism. They might be upset at what they've seen. None of that makes me a racist. They've misunderstood the point of what they've seen.

Once explained to them, they might still be unforgiving, and say "only a racist would agree to do that job." That's entirely their prerogative, but it still doesn't make me a racist. Regardless of what they choose to believe.

Maji Nawaz said it absolutely does matter. The fact that his assailants called him revolting names while beating him up made it different and worse than a mugging or drunken assault. And obviously it wasn't accidental like receiving the same injuries as a result of someone's carelessness.

He thought it was a dangerous road to go down - calling non-racists and, in this case, lifelong anti-racists, racists doesn't further the anti-racist cause. We are all at risk of making ill thought-out remarks about racism, homophobia, sexism. Intent absolutely does matter. We would be living in a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany, North Korea, Stalin's USSR.

lifecraft - why do you keep bringing up 'context' . The context of something is different to the intent of something. The example you give is about the context of how something is percived. A real life example is when the press went a bit crazy stating Oprah Winfrey said "white people just have to die". Did she really say that, of course not, but out of context it looks really bad.

I'm not sure how your example relates to danny bakers tweet? Off the top of my head, the only way for your example to apply, in DB case, is if he tweeted the picture and then said "isn't it awful when people compare mixed race children to chimpanzees". Now, if people said that DB was a racist for tweeting the picture, I would argue that the context in which he was posting it may not have been racist.

minou123, I can't understand what it is you find so difficult to grasp. You said intent isn't important. It's very important. As my example proves. Intent and context can often be intertwined.

If I were to tweet a picture that I intend to be a racial slur, because I'm a racist, but no one realised I was being racist, then I'm still a racist. I was trying to be racist, but failed.

In the same way, if I tweet a picture that isn't meant to be racial slur, but is taken to be one but many people, if I had no intention of being racist, then I'm not a racist. I may be an idiot for not realising how it might be taken.

Please think about it, it's not hard.

Thymeout - I've listened to Maajid Nawaz on LBC and that is not what he said at all. You have either completely misunderstood what he was saying or he has made these statement somewhere else, that I have missed. If so, please could you link of point me me in the direction of where he said that calling a non racist, a racist, doesn't further the anti-racist cause.

On LBC, Maajid said "(DB) sends out funny joke, that wasn't funny. Yes, everyone has a right after that moment to analyse whether the tweet was a racist tweet, or not, and whether that indeeds makes Danny Baker a racist, or not."

Then he says "But as for the police to get involved, that takes it to the next level.......".

The 'dangerous road' he is talking about is the police investigation into the tweet. His point was about the witchhunt to get Danny Baker criminally charged for the tweet. He said "you have the right to say things that are absolutley stupid and for everyone else to roast you for them. You don't go to jail for saying silly things". He compared it to holocaust deniers. He said that if you deny the Holocaust, you don't deserve civil societies respect, but you don't belong in prison. His whole point was that if violent racism and stupid tweets are equated and we make them both criminal offences, then this will dimish the overall impact of racism.

As far as I can see, unless you can quote, Maajid did not say that intent absolutely does matter.

minou123. If you're seriously saying intent does not matter..... do, say or send something taken to be racist, that means you're a racist, then we are all on the verge of being labelled racists. Anyone can do something without any racist thought or intent, and be called a racist for reasons they didn't even consider at the time.

Surely you don't think that's true. You go out with your Asian friend, and she's very westernised, wears short skirts, not religious etc. It's a hot day so you decide to pop into the shop to buy her and yourself a choc ice. You have no idea (like many people have no idea) that "choc ice" is a racial slur used against Westernised Asians (brown on the outside, white on the inside). She gets upset by this kind gesture, thinks you did it to taunt her and storms off.

You have no idea what you did wrong, but according to you, you're a racist. The lack of intent doesn't matter you say, buying her the choc ice was enough to make you guilty of racism.

Seriously, you can't really believe that! It's complete nonsense. You aren't a racist, you just did something that's been misinterpreted.

I’d like to think that he was highlighting that the royal family are a bit dim. Comes across as racist though.

Minou I said at the beginning of my previous post that I was referring to a discussion on the Sky News channel. It's a regular programme called The Pledge.

I heard what MN said on LBC on one occasion. I don't think he said anything fundamentally different last night. He thinks over-reaction is a bad thing. He doesn't think DB should have been sacked.

I think over-reaction is a bad thing, too, as exemplified on this thread when pps with no discernible racist agenda got flamed for using the 'wrong' terminology and numerous posts saying anyone who disagreed with OP was an apologist for racism.

I’d like to think that he was highlighting that the royal family are a bit dim

Really? If his fangirl apologists on here are to be believed DB isn't racist- just too thick to join the dots.