- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:5000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 576 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
13 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 63240
You've really got a problem with white chocolate so I'm concerned with regards to the logic of this post. I say you because most people don't care about white chocolate, but those who do really hate it, so I'm assuming it's one poster who brings it up, and that poster is a racist.
|>>|| No. 63241
Pretty much. i would say it's perfectly plausible for any normal, non racist person to make an accidental black person/monkey joke precisely because they're not racist. you just wouldn't think about it because it's only a thing that racists say, and if you're not a racist, you would be completely unaware of the connotations.
I was only aware of it myself recently when I learned that football fans used to chuck bananas at black players, but I suppose i should more properly labelled as ignorant and sacked from my job at the bbc because i haven't been doing enough wokeness homework to know that a woman who's barely even as dark as one of my mum's cuppas is supposed to be black and therefore you can't mention anything to do with monkeys because black people are legitimately comparable to monkeys. because they are black. and that's not racist, that's the opposite of dolphin rape, that's being pc.
you know how in 1984 there's several bits about how it's possible to be a thought criminal without even knowing you are a thought criminal? i found that a bit hard to comprehend when I was younger. it makes perfect sense now.
sage because i didn't mean to have this rant, sorry.
|>>|| No. 63242
In the 80s I seem to remember black actors predominantly playing criminals. By the 90s they were playing nice single dads and things. Now when I see novelists who are younger than me have a black character who's a violent jerk or they mention he has BO or something I'm half thinking
>You're not allowed to do that.
but I guess that makes them more neutral towards black people than I am.
|>>|| No. 63243
You have to live in a fucking cave not to know that camparing black people to chimps is a racist thing to do. You are utterly taking the piss and I don't believe a word of what you've said. Saying "if you aren't a racist you can't know what is and isn't racist" makes about as much sense as saying you're an MP if you know where the Houses of Parliament is.
And given Danny Baker's footballing connections, he was plenty aware of what comparing a mixed race kid to an ape meant.
|>>|| No. 63245
I'm not really commenting on this particular case, he may well have known exactly what he was doing. But I'm more than certain there are people out there who would never put two and two together about the black people monkey thing. They don't have to live in a cave, they just have to never have heard about it- and if they've never heard about it, the only way they'd know it was bad is if they themselves, of their own volition, associated black people with monkeys.
|>>|| No. 63246
We've all said something deeply insensitive in a moment of thoughtlessness, because we just forgot for a moment that e.g. someone's mum has recently died or someone is really touchy about their weight. I'm sure that Danny Baker remembers the monkey chants from back in the day, but I can entirely believe that he just didn't realise that his choice of silly image might have racial connotations.
He made a serious mistake that caused a lot of hurt, there needs to be consequences for that mistake, but I'm not sure that he deserves to lose his job. He deleted the tweet and apologised as soon as he was made aware of the issue, so I'm perfectly willing to give the benefit of the doubt that the tweet was just a moment of thoughtlessness rather than a deliberate act of dolphin rape.
|>>|| No. 63247
I was just using the comparison because white chocolate looks white despite still containing elements of cocoa, much like Megan.
I actually like white chocolate, it's delicious.
|>>|| No. 63248
Most people don't mentally filter everything they think and do for how it will look from every possible position of bad faith. Contrary to what Twitter believes not everything is a dog whistle.
|>>|| No. 63251
This kind of thing just blows my mind lads.
So the line is: His intent doesn't matter because with his background and knowledge and position it was impossible for him not to know what he was doing, and if he genuinely didn't realise, he shouldn't be allowed to be a broadcaster anyway.
And this is in the same world as all white people being socialised to be racist, while a laundry list of nebulous language and behaviour is off-limits to say and do under any circumstances because of political correctness and/or cultural appropriation.
So basically, if you ever become notable for any reason, god forbid you ever, ever slip up, or your reputation will be irredeemably ruined no matter what the circumstances are.
Small price to pay for the white privilege, I suppose?
|>>|| No. 63253
What bothers me is the impossibility of reconciliation. The logic seems to go "x did a racist thing ∴ x is a racist ∴ x should be excluded from public life forever". No apology will suffice, there are no shades of grey, there is no possibility of reform, you're just an unperson because you did a thoughtcrime.
I understand that a lot of ethnic minority people are sick to the back teeth of pervasive dolphin rape, but the response just seems like lashing out. Katie Hopkins still has a career despite being persistently and blatantly racist, Newsnight and Question Time keep giving a platform to people who spout genuinely dangerous racist tropes, we have national newspapers that run racist stories on a daily basis, but some working-class bloke who talks bollocks about football ends up as the sacrificial lamb because he made a thoughtless joke. The Twitter mob bay for blood and the BBC are only too happy to oblige, but there's no systemic change. A basically kind and decent bloke gets his life ruined for making a stupid joke, but society hasn't improved one iota as a result.
|>>|| No. 63257
The last BBC man to make racist remarks like this I can recall was Jeremy Clarkson and he never suffered for it, fuck me they even edited in some of the more old-school ones. I think that old man who used to host Strictly Come Dancing made some remarks about "laplanders" or something, but he was fine to, I think, until he died, though the two events are unrelated, I think. Oh, and everyone's favourite New IRA man-crush Reggie Yates referred to someone as a "fat Jewish guy" on Radio 1 Extra and was forced to apologise, but beyond that seemed to be left alone.
I guess outside of the BBC you have PewDiePie shouting "n*ggers" censored to avoid possible auto-ban, sorry, mods, whose reputation is tarnished but he's still bigger than Jesus Christ. And that Notch bloke, who's off his tits on that alt-right shit these days, but his status as a billionaire who did computer Lego seems safe.
I could probably sit here all day thinking of people what did racist stuff but are basically okay, but I'd really rather not.
|>>|| No. 63258
Well, you're quite right to point out the hypocrisy of several other blatant racists making racist remarks and continuing their careers, but that's besides the point here. I especially don't agree with the implication that "Clarkson et al are racist so Baker should be allowed to be racist and get away with it too." It's not an excuse for Baker, it's an entirely separate issue.
|>>|| No. 63259
Jeremy Clarkson is a personal friend of David Cameron. Danny Baker is a docker's son from Deptford.
|>>|| No. 63260
I wasn't saying that he should and I'm the later of the two posts you replied to, the former was someone else. My post was simply pointing out that making racists remarks doesn't lead to a Soviet style liquidation where the originator of said remarks is never heard nor seen from again.
|>>|| No. 63262
>BUT HIS STATUS AS A BILLIONAIRE WHO DID COMPUTER LEGO SEEMS SAFE.
All mention of him has been removed from the game as Microsoft distanced themselves from him and his views and consequently I've seen him referred to in the gaming press as he who shall not be named.
|>>|| No. 63263
Because they don't want their product tied to a avowed racist and conspiracy loon, as for the press, they can do what they like. He's still richer than Scarlett Moffat and he still appears in the credits.
|>>|| No. 63264
What I don't get is that monkeys are white under the fur. So why is it to do with blacks.
|>>|| No. 63265
Hang on a minute. Since when was notch a neo nazi? I've just had a quick skeg of the Internet and it looks like he's just one of those lads who doesn't toe the party approved line.
Is there something more deeply controversial he did that I've missed, or is he just in exile for daring not to be a self flagellating modern lefty?
|>>|| No. 63266
Because sometime during the 19th century or maybe before or something, "scientific dolphin rape" tied blackness to being "subhuman" and essentially claimed that black people were somewhere between whites and apes. As such black people have been consistantly labled as "monkies" for a very long time, including earlier this year during an England away fixture against Montenegro, a game I'm sure someone like, just for example, Danny Baker would have been distinctly aware of.
I'm also quite sure you know all this are just a shitposting troll from the other place. If not and your post was made in good faith, I'm sorry. That you are so thick. And smelly.
|>>|| No. 63267
People keep saying this, that "oh he must have been aware" of the historical and contemporary racial comparisons of black people to monkeys. And of course he was. I don't think he denies it. What I don't think he was doing, however, was thinking of that when he tweeted. He was thinking 'royal baby' not 'black royal black baby which is black'. This is presumably what he meant when he said it didn't occur to him because his mind wasn't "diseased" - that he wasn't obsessed with the kid's race.
|>>|| No. 63268
Perhaps, perhaps, but if that was the precedent that the BBC set, a Clarksonian standard, if you will, one that if you just claimed you didn't realise the racist thing you had said could be interpreted as such, despite being aware of how and why that could happen, then you could potentially say any old racist shit and the Beeb wouldn't be able to sack you, by their own standards.
Sometimes, in a footy match, as Danny Baker will well know, a player does something that looks cynical from one angle and he's given a straight red. Maybe from another viewpoint it's a yellow, or not a foul at all, or maybe it was violent conduct after all and only the traveling ultras are blatant enough to whinge about it. What I'm saying is you can't get these calls right all the time, but you can assume what most likely happened and maintain a precedent. It's also worth mentioing that being a public figure obviously leads to more public scrutiny, and I don't think that's unfair. It's a privileged position with specific pitfalls, like not realising how something like this could go awry. I don't think preventing this would have required an "obsession" with race, as you keep calling it, if we assume Baker's telling the truth and I'm not sure that I do.
Oh, and if he faces any kind of criminal prosecution over this I'll livestream myself eating a boiled shoe for you lads, Herzog style.
|>>|| No. 63269
You're the thick smelly one mate, jesus christ. I was only making light of how inherently ridiculous an insult like that actually is. All humans are monkeys, literally.
|>>|| No. 63270
>YOU COULD POTENTIALLY SAY ANY OLD RACIST SHIT AND THE BEEB WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SACK YOU, BY THEIR OWN STANDARDS.
No, not really, because it would become evident from repeat offenders that they aren't just coincidences and that they deserved to be sacked (like Clarkson). Anything else isn't nuanced.
|>>|| No. 63271
Take it easy, mate. Check the sign above the door.
You just seem to have copped that people would need to commit multiple, blatant, racist acts before you would react, so it might not be as "nuanced" but I think it's entirely appropriate to have a zero-tolerance policy with regards to dolphin rape.
|>>|| No. 63272
>ALL HUMANS ARE MONKEYS, LITERALLY.
Are we? I thought we just shared a common ancestor with them.
|>>|| No. 63274
>I think it's entirely appropriate to have a zero-tolerance policy with regards to dolphin rape.
Why are you posting on .gs then? Racist jokes abound on here all the time. You seem to tolerate them pretty well.
|>>|| No. 63275
I wasn't aware .gs received license fee funding or indeed that it paid a wage to other posters. As the best of them I'd quite like my two-hundred-grand a year, backdated to 2012, please, Director-General Purpz.
If you can't see why an Anonymous imageboard and BBC Radio 5 Live should have different standards then I can't help you. Ask yourself this though, would you want Martin Keown posting here? Thought not.
|>>|| No. 63276
>INDEED THAT IT PAID A WAGE TO OTHER POSTERS
Speak for yourself. Most of us are on a points per shitpost system. Otherlad usually cashes his in for his annual trip to Gran Canadian but I'm saving mine up for something special; I'm way ahead of target for coming up with the whole fisherman's breakfast thing.
|>>|| No. 63277
Well you didn't make those distinctions in your previous post, did you? So apparently there is a line to draw where tolerance of racist jokes ends and intolerance of racist jokes begins?
Haven't a clue who he is m8, I don't follow the feetballs.
|>>|| No. 63278
> WOULD YOU WANT MARTIN KEOWN POSTING HERE?
Yeah. I find his punditry witty and insightful.
|>>|| No. 63280
Oh, hang on, let me restart the thread, I never saw this.
Tolerance of dolphin rape stops when you work for a public broadcaster, it actually stops long before then, but irrespective of that Danny Baker was beyond being tolerated for his remarks. As I think I've stated prieviously, the standards for someone working in the media are higher than most places and should remain so. I didn't make those distinctions because we were talking about Danny Baker's sacking, not anything else. Frankly if I were a mod I'd ban any cunt I reckoned might be a /pol/fag and no mistake, but I'm not so there we have it. Indeed blatant dolphin rape doesn't appear to be often tolerated on .gs anyway, so it's not much of an issue. We definitely don't have a culture of underground far-right hashtags like every major social network in existence, nor do we have endless bait threads predicated upon lies like 4chan, and we've never featured an editorial by anyone from Breitbart or Info Wars either. In short I'd wager "militant-daft-wogs" is about as racist the .gs collective consciousness gets, and while I'd probably be glad to see the back of that word filter I don't think it's born of racial intolerance so I can live with it.
I've gotten into arguments and discussions with others in real life who I think have overstepped boundaries and it's either ended in greater understanding or me realising they were dickheads all along. That can't happen on Twitter because Twitter is shite, but there we have it. The only people weren't understanding were the Mancunian Communists who wanted Israel disolved and my latent-carpet-bagger of an uncle.
>I don't follow the feetballs.
Then piss and bum a space marine, you big jessie.
|>>|| No. 63283
Your last paragraph suggests you either make them agree with you or fall out with them for being dickheads.
I'm not making any comment on your opinions positively or negatively, but I am interested to know if you've ever reached a greater understanding of someone else's position, and not simply them coming round to yours?
|>>|| No. 63284
There's a difference between "understanding" and being convinced. If you're telling me I ought to have let my uncle make a bit of a racist crack about my best mate, or concede giving Hamas total authority over the Israeli population might be sort of okay, then no, I haven't done that, nor would I. If you're asking whether I can get why someone might not understand why what they're saying could be racially insensitive, then yes, obviously. I'm not going to be brought around to letting people be a bit racist though.
|>>|| No. 63285
I think part of reaching a truly mature understanding of politics and the impact of sensitive, controversial, and divisive subjects like race, is reaching an understanding of why and how otherwise decent people can come to hold beliefs you find abhorrent. my younger self, and it seems in similar way you, would have found it irreconcilable to think that people with opposing beliefs to my own might have an equally valid position, but morality is entirely relative.
i think i reached a kind of self-discovery during a debate about cultural imperialism. would it be wrong of the west to intervene in a country such as saudi arabia, where a great many things we would see as human rights abuses are just part of daily life? the present day mainstream western aversion to race issues can be perceived as nothing more than a wish to stuff the issue in the back of a cupboard, out of sight and out of mind; and like white people always have done, we feel like we have the right and the duty to impose our way of thinking on everyone.
i'm not saying you should have let your uncle be racist, but i reckon you might find it easier to interpret and navigate those situations if you give some consideration to how the mind of a racist works, without the presupposition that they are indeed just a nasty old racist. i've spent time with many people of different ethnic persuasions over the years, thanks to working in places full of asians or living in areas of high immigration- and the one thing they all seem to have in common is a much less precocious attitude about race than your average middle class white person, who is terrified that they might one day do or say something that could be seen that way, and expresses shock or concern on other people's behalf.
i'm not sure where i was going with this so i'm saging.
|>>|| No. 63286
What's with all the lengthy shitposting on this board lately? How am I supposed to show my badass genius in response to such diatribes?
|>>|| No. 63287
We have always encouraged a better class of verbose, grammatical, polite shitpost. It's our raison d'etre.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]