Called a black guy an ape via a Shakespeare reference, it would seem.

>>21124
Stop reading the cocktease BBC who'll give you half a neutered story and read a proper news outlet like the Daily Mail.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7943667/Alastair-Stewart-steps-ITV-News-presenting-duties.html

Sounds like nothing to me.

>>21127

Seems contextual. I doubt he was using his wit in this context rather than make a veiled racist statement. I don't think this is like Danny Baker where people projected onto him their insecurities through multiple assumptions in bad faith.

>>21126
Had a look on Twitter. It appears that he uses this quote often.

What an absolute load of nothing to lose his job over, especially given the prominence of Piers Morgan on ITV.

>>21128
It's racist to not be able to call a black man an ape, if it's ok to call a white man an ape. Having different rules for how to treat difference races is racist.

>>21129

>>21128 I would like to reconsider my position given this additional evidence.

>>21130
I wish you were as naive as you are prending to be. But cultural context matters.

>>21129

So... you can lose your job now for quoting Shakespeare?

>>21133
It appears so.

>>21132

>But cultural context matters.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are correct about this.

To what extent do you feel that it is necessary we reach a point where cultural context doesn't matter, allowing us to apply the same standard regardless of the direction of discrimination?

I feel that we must at least strive towards that goal, or else we will never actually eliminate the concepts behind discrimination. I'm thinking of the Star Trek episode where Abraham Lincoln calls Uhura a negress, and she's not offended because racism has finished already so she's just like "wot m8".

>>21135
>To what extent do you feel that it is necessary we reach a point where cultural context doesn't matter, allowing us to apply the same standard regardless of the direction of discrimination?

The historical context matters greatly. It's not enough to simply say "everyone is equal now", because they're not and that context means we have a structural and historical imbalance to correct.

That point is distinct from why Mr Stewart lost his job. I get the same train (and usually sit in the same carriage/seats) as him, so see him often; he seems like a good person and the quote that was posted by him wasn't racist in the slightest.

>>21135

I think what is also becoming lost with today's younger generation is the realisation that works of the past, even if they are racist by today's definition and should rightly not be published in the same way by today's contemporary writers or artists, have their place in the time period that they were created in. By either reciting those works, or by showing old movies or playing old songs, you are not automatically condoning the underlying message of content that is today considered offensive but which was fine when it was created. It's only when you present such content so that it can be taken to mean that you agree with the message as seen through the lens of today's cultural context that it becomes a problem.

Nobody watching the History Channel today will think that they are in favour of, or condoning the mass murder of Jews, even though a good 40 percent of their programming is about WWII and Nazi propaganda.

And nobody watching old Bond movies from the 60s will infer that ITV3 nowadays actively champions misogyny.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIfSQW499Xc

>>21132
Melt.

>>21137
This tangent is somewhat irrelevant, because, while I haven't read the play Stewart was quoting, I highly doubt that in the historical context Shakespeare was calling a black person an ape.

If you're going to quote old literature to be erudite then at least vary it up a little, don't just copy and paste the same quote repeatedly. That just makes you look like a trained monkey.

I thought the racist thing was to call black people monkeys? Is it lost on everyone that it's common to refer to any human as an ape because we are?

OK lads, so it wasn't just Shakespeare:

https://twitter.com/KateMaltby/status/1222658042082230277

>>21142
If you lost your job for being a cunt to someone else online we'd all be unemployed.

>>21143
He said, anonymously.

>>21144

Honestly the fact that we aren't all anonymous online (i.e. just a username) anymore is the worst thing to happen to the internet and the individual.

>>21143
We do it anonymously to a bunch of people who are also known cunts. The mods really should try to reach out to smug, miserable, odd-balls like Alastair Stewart, both to boost the site numbers and save them from themselves.*

*I don't care about and have not followed this story so if I've said something wrong I don't care again. What a cunt.

>>21144
Well, yeah. I don't want to be dolescum.

>>21146
>The mods really should try to reach out to smug, miserable, odd-balls like Alastair Stewart, both to boost the site numbers and save them from themselves.

We should get the lad who catches the same train to drop him our calling card.

>>21148
Problem is I don’t think Stewart’s catching anymore trains.

Why can't i be coolest monkey in the jungle, mum?

Feel like the winners of the Culture Wars should have been decided by the judges about five years ago, but here we are.

>>21142
Ended up on this from Maltby's Twitter. What have I missed about Prince William?

Oh, it's about his alleged affair which is allegedly the reason he fell out with Prince Harry.

>>21145

I think this is partly why I've become more open about being a furfag over the years. I dreaded being found out at all ten years ago, but as the boundary between IRL identities and online accounts has eroded, I've leaned into it as a full time alter-ego.

Most people on Twitter and the like have nothing to hide behind, whereas I'm an anthropomorphic fox with a guro fetish, so debating opponents find it much harder to contextualise my vexing political arguments if they're looking for an easy ad-hom.

>>21145

> the fact that we aren't all anonymous online (i.e. just a username) anymore is the worst thing to happen to the internet

Quite. I still remember days when the average Internet user's mention of his own actual name was tucked away on some third-rate Geocities or Angelfire page that AltaVista struggled to even find.

I remember one time circa 1998 when as a younglad, I was sitting in an Internet café, and in came three pseudo intellectual looking late 20s, early 30s women, whose tech illiteracy was immediately apparent, and who said to the waiter/admin, "We would like to communicate with (sic!) someone in Peru. Will that be possible?". Techlad was perplexed by the question, and the three women then elaborated that apparently he was some sort of acquaintance from social science at uni, but they didn't know for sure where exactly in Peru he was. This was before social media, and instant messaging was also still in its infancy, let alone Skype or webcams, and techlad tried to find Peruvian socialsciencelad on a search engine, but to no avail, and had to tell them that without more definite info about Peruvianlad, it was kind of hopeless. This, in turn, baffled the three women, and it really seemed to blow their mind that although the Internet was supposed to be this magical new place where you could "communicate" instantly with people on the other side of the globe, then again, you could not, if you didn't precisely know where and how to find them.

Turns out this Shapland guy is just one of those guys that hate white people and see racism in EVERYTHING but can't see he's a racist cunt himself.

>>21159
Obvious dredging is ... well, obvious.

>>21159
> Turns out this Shapland guy is just one of those guys that hate white people and see racism in EVERYTHING but can't see he's a racist cunt himself.

When all you have is a hammer...

>ITN has emphasised that veteran newsreader Alastair Stewart left the broadcaster over multiple “errors of judgment” in his use of social media – rather a single incident – after supporters of the presenter turned on an individual they blamed for his departure.

>Stewart resigned on Wednesday, three weeks after he sent a tweet to a black man including the term “angry ape”. The message, quoting the Shakespeare play Measure for Measure, was sent to political adviser Martin Shapland during a disagreement between the two.

>However, an ITN source said: “It was never about a single tweet, it was always errors plural.” They added: “When we received the original complaint we contacted Martin Shapland and gave him notice of our statement and have been continuing to be in contact with him.”

>At the same time staff at ITN, which produces the news output for ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, have increasingly come out in support of Stewart and called for him to be reinstated. Many claimed that management had been looking for an excuse to get rid of the longstanding news anchor, who was presenting fewer shows.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/30/alastair-stewart-itv-departure-regrettable-twitter-row-martin-shapland

Alastair Stewart: The man addicted to cunt-offs.

>>21162
Celebrity cunt offs must be one of the most intense blood sports known to man. If you're seen to back down all the other celebrities will take the right piss at the next eyes-wide-shut multidimensional lizard sex orgy, but on the other hand if you take things too far you could see your whole career fucked right into the nearest skip.

>>21167
Wonder if anyone here has ever been in an online cunt-off with a famous person . I've had a few debates with Grauniad columnists BTL but that doesn't really count.

>>21168

I managed to get blocked by Frankie Boyle. Considering the "hard case Glaswegian" image he likes to put on he's about as emotionally robust as Stephen Fry on a wet Wednesday in Milton Keynes.

>>21168

Robert Llewellyn called me a prick once about ten years ago, but I've deleted all my old tweets and I've got no idea why. I can only imagine that I said something rude about Spare Head 3. Equally mysterious is why I'm blocked by Jon Ronson.

>>21170

You had a few cans of 'spesh and had a teary at him because Back To Earth was shite, didn't you?

>>21168
Some published writer I've never heard of blocked me for daring to suggest that Swinson publicly shitting on Corbyn might have contributed to Labour declining to do a deal with the Lib Dems.

>>21173
Ever since Clegg got Brown to stand down it seems to have become a tradition for the Lib Dem leader to say they can't work with the Labour leader.

>>21169
People who whinge-brag about being blocked by folk on Twitter are sickos.

Why is it considered acceptable to snitch to someone's employer on twitter?

I am disgusted.

>>21176
Attempting to ruin someone's life is seen as an acceptable part of online shaming.

>>21176
I think the kids call it "cancel culture".

>>21178

>Attempting to ruin someone's life is seen as an acceptable part of online shaming

And for the most selfish of reasons. Just because somebody offended your really quite often bigoted and narrow-minded world view by throwing a wry Twitter remark out there that you and a mob of 20 others disagree with, and which may or may not have been ever so mildly in bad taste, doesn't give you the right to put that person out of a job.

Even if somebody tweets something really quite bad like Fuck all darkie poofs, burn eskimos at the stake and put women back in the kitchen where they belong, at the end of the day, somebody who tweets that may be a horribly failed person, let alone the fact that he'll break half a dozen anti-discrimination laws, but he still has a right to be in gainful employment somewhere. Probably not in any kind of capacity where he will reflect badly on his employer and have much to do with customers.

But if you believe that somebody who's said something that's either admittedly horribly wrong on many levels, or something that just plain offends your own temperamental sensibilities forfeits his right to eke out a living, then that person isn't the only one who needs their head examined.

>Alastair Stewart is joining GB News to host a weekend news and current affairs show, it was announced yesterday (Fri). The broadcaster, 68, is Britain's longest-serving news anchor, with a career spanning more than four decades. Stewart, who stepped down from his role at ITV News last year, said his appointment at the new network is an opportunity to "challenge the groupthink".

>The veteran presenter left ITV following a Twitter exchange in which he quoted a Shakespeare passage, including the phrase "angry ape". Stewart said he made a "misjudgment" which he regretted. Colleagues lamented his departure with one senior ITN journalist insisting “he is not a racist” and describing the choice of quote as “no more than ill-judged”. While ITN cut ties with Stewart, claiming he had breached editorial guidelines by quoting the line from Measure for Measure, his fellow broadcasters defended him amid the social media storm.

>GB News is chaired by broadcaster Andrew Neil. Other signings include broadcaster Kirsty Gallacher, ex-BBC presenter Simon McCoy, the former executive editor for The Sun, Dan Wootton, and ex-Sky broadcaster Colin Brazier. Stewart said of his new appointment: "GB News is a unique opportunity to broaden the spectrum, challenge the groupthink and shift away from a predictable agenda in news and debate. "I can't wait to get stuck in and tackle issues that really matter to people across the United Kingdom."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/02/alastair-stewart-joins-gb-news/

They're also trying to get Piers Morgan on board.

>>32943
What do right-wingers actually want? Thatcher won, and I'm not talking about election results, we've left the EU and the Tories have an 80+ seat majority. Are we supposed to bring back leaded petrol? Hunter-killer subs taking out migrants on dinghies? Golden Churchill statues every square kilometer? In what way does the right-wing want to change this country? "Broaden the spectrum" my arse, it's going to be culture war kvetching about nonsense that doesn't amount to a hill of beans in reality. The spectrum's already so fucking narrow it's more like a magnifying glass shooting solar rays into ants. Hopefully launching a television news channel in 2021 is as out of touch as trying to launch an 80 gun ship of the line and we'll be spared even louder reactionary voices than we have already.

>>32945 What do right-wingers actually want?
Empire, and for foreigners to know their place, which is elsewhere and acknowledging their inferiority.
I assume. Fucked if I really know. Maybe the glory of the 1950s back again? But with cheap flights and the right to retire to warm places.

>>32945
To live in America, but with the smugness of two thousand years of history behind them.

>>32945
>>32947
>>32948

Breathtaking insight as usual. These are the people who wander around thinking "the reason others don't share my political beliefs is because they suffer from some intellectual or moral infirmity.".

>>32949
And the correct answer is?

>>32950

"The right" is a really broad church. There are classical liberals and libertarians who believe that the state that governs least governs best. There are reactionaries who believe that everything was better in The Good Old Days and everything modern is awful. There are populists who like easy answers and scapegoats. There are nationalists and social conservatives who care much more about identity than economics. There's some overlap between these groups, but also vast differences - Jacob Rees-Mogg's vision for a Singapore-like global Britain is outright repugnant to many of his more nationalistic and isolationist colleagues.

One of the reasons for the electoral dominance of the Tory party is that they've been able to form a functional coalition between some quite disparate groups. The left tend to fall victim to the narcissism of small differences and spend too much of their energy in-fighting, but the right are much better at setting aside their differences and focussing on what unites them. The ideological differences within the ERG were far greater than the differences between Corbynites and Blairites, but they didn't get hung up on it - they all wanted Brexit, even if they wanted it for very different reasons and had very different visions of a post-Brexit Britain.

>>32949
I asked a question about the political motives of the big-hat right-wingers in 21st century Britain, I don't see how that ends up with me thinking everyone who disagrees with my entirely unstated poltical ideals is a moral untermenschen. This is why I can never be arsed talking politics on here, because invariably someone comes along and imagines a Bible sized set of beliefs and ideas you subscribe to that you then have to spend the rest of the day debriefing them about your every political thought. Then someone else shows up, calls them a name and they get into an argument about guttering with each other that lasts a whole week anyway.

>>32945
>kilometer?
I can think of one thing that Broken Britain still needs. Actually, two, since you spelt it wrong as well.

But otherwise, I agree with you. I don't see how you're going to "broaden the spectrum" by being another mouthpiece for the governing party. They're not going to demand Amazon pay more tax, or tackle the housing crisis, or blame bankers for anything they've got away with. Their 70-year-old white-van audience don't care about that. GB News is only going to be brave insofar as "muh immigrants" and "eskimos want YOUR children to use ARABIC numerals!!!!11!!!11!!" is brave. But I guess if society didn't want a whole TV channel of #cancelled newsreaders, perhaps we shouldn't have cancelled them over basically nothing in the first place.

>>32968
I think I got a red squiggly line for spelling it "metre" a while ago, apologies.

I don't even think it's it's going to be anything that severe or hysterical, honestly. It's going to be Telegraph TV, rather than the high-reaction of the USA's Fox News. But that's still a dead end, because we live in Telegraph Britain, politically speaking. I could go on, but I want to get some sunshine before the day is up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_32xq12lz0

Regional news reporting is serious business.

>>34122
I am definitely, definitely slapping that man with a dildo if I ever see him. I don't even own a dildo. I'll buy one just in case.

>>34122
>Owns

Sounds like he played right into his hands on that one.
I get it though, teenagers can fuck right off. Shame ITV apologised and the presenter is probably out of a job for what is just a loss of temper.

>>32945

I mean, when the Christians acheived political hegemony in their locale and epoch they did the Crusades and the Inquisition, so we have the secular neoliberal version of that to look forward to.

>>34129
Wasn't that what the Iraq War and that ghastly "future of work" exhibit at the Millennium Dome were for?

>>34124
Of course he owned him, he suggested that he works at either Footlocker or McDonald's. You don't get more cutting than that.

TBF I'd take a much greater interest in my local news if it was presented by a man in skinny jeans who kept threatening to bang people out.

>>34142

Regional Newspersons should have to fight the passersby for the right to be newsman. If you defeat the current newsman in fisticuffs you get to be the new Regional Newsperson. This was the way that Newsreaders used to be selected and frankly I think Journalistic standards were higher back them.

We all remember hearing of how Jon Snow defeated 100 Newsmen in News-kumite back in 1973 and as you can see, he is still going strong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5CZCFeQc6o

Look at the colour of his skin. He's gone full gammon.

>>34259

Looking like the Scarlet Pimple

>>34259

Whining about your lack of funding isn't a particularly good look for your first month. Or is it first week? Who knows?

>>34261
He's doing a good job of blowing his own trumpet over 92,000 viewers.

>>34259

There is a certain Vogonity that he shares with Jeremy Clarkson; now I can tell them apart more easily.

>>34264

I'm pretty sure Internet Comment Etiquette's channel that was just ironic* videos of him farting had more viewers than that.

>>34259
Funny how the "free speech" crowd get uncomfortable when others exercise their freedom of speech against them.

>>34268

Haha, yeah. They should just start their own TV channel.

>>34259
Has anyone watched any GB News yet? I've put it on a couple of times (you need to retune your TV to get it if you have Freeview) and it's clearly sticking to the broadcast impartiality rules so tightly that it's not actually hilarious to watch. I was expecting it to be like Fox News, referring to "Mexican countries" and other dazzlingly stupid errors, but instead it's like Russia Today, obviously wanting to go off on a mad tirade but never actually being allowed to. As a result, it's actually been pretty boring every time I've watched it.

>>34272
I, for one, don't own a television.

>>34273

It'd be nice to have a schizophrenic's opinion on issues once in a while.

>>34272
I heard they have a daily WOKE WATCH segment.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGPB1Fa4lrI

>>34272
I've tried to find something to post off the website just because it would make one of you apoplectic but it's all either advertising or stuff that is in reality old news:

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/scandal-how-white-working-class-kids-let-down-and-neglected-by-education-system-damning-mps-report-finds/107510

They're clearly running a clown operation going by the sound issues, calling themselves GB news when NI still exists and having no real market given Sky News exists but I'm reluctant to brand them when they're just getting started. They've royally fucked off much of the press so they've not entirely upset me.

>>34277
I've only really seen the Guardian having a teary over GB News, which mainly seems to be "stop liking what I don't like" more than anything.

>>34278
Can you point out this teary you reference? I've had a look at The Guardian and, apart from factual reporting of ratings, warnings not to underestimate it, a one-star review from a TV critic, and the usual offering of surrealist nonsense from Stewart Lee, I've only found Nesrine Malik who despite predicting that GB News will "corrode our political culture further" notes that it is "building on the political energy that is already out there, rather than generating it". Is that what you mean by telling people not to like it? It seems to me more like resignation that it's wildly popular.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/21/gb-news-andrew-neil-grievance-politics-left

>>34276

I love this. Who falls for this, are they genuinely banking on people only reading the title or watching only the first 40 seconds or so?

>>34285

>Who falls for this, are they genuinely banking on people only reading the title or watching only the first 40 seconds or so?
Yes.

>>34285
I did have to pause it after he mentioned that the teacher actually said "Niger" with a hard g, they really tried hard to underplay that. Honestly I agree with the principle that context is key, but that's with adults. With bloody kids in a school you don't just say that word unless it's really required to be spoken and properly contextualised. You don't just whip it out because it sounds like 'Niger' or is an anagram of 'ginger' or you really want to sing that new yeezy song to your class, it's just a bit silly. I wouldn't say sack him, but man needs a mild slap.

>>34285
Have a look at the comments on this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/teacher-used-n-word-in-lesson-on-how-not-to-pronounce-niger-h0cbph8p0

I'm not really sure what their point is. Are they cross that the teacher is under investigation for saying something like "Niger is pronounced nee-zher, not nigger" or do they feel like the school or pupils have overreacted?

I guarantee that if a teacher used the word nigger when I was at school, we're talking almost twenty years ago, lots of the pupils would have walked out. It would have had nothing to do with being offended snowflakes and everything to do with shit stirring.

In related nigger news:

>A long-standing council employee has won a tribunal after being sacked for using the 'n-word' in full during an internal meeting.

>Ian Stevenson had an unblemished 32-year career working for the London Borough of Redbridge shattered when he was dismissed, without notice, last July. He claimed he was unfairly sacked for gross misconduct for using the 'n-word' in full during an internal training course on anti-radicalisation on 11 February.

>The claimant accepted he used the phrase during the session while discussing racist attitudes during the 1980s. He said he had only used the word after the facilitator of the course had described the discussion as a "safe space".

>In her report of proceedings, tribunal judge Imogen Noons said: "Although the course was about radicalisation, the claimant's evidence on the first day of this hearing was that he raised the issue of racism, specifically around Jewish jokes, stereotypes and websites. During the course of this session the claimant asked a question of the facilitator around when situations should be reported as racism, as sometimes it was unclear. She asked him to give an example and the claimant relayed a situation he had been in in 1985 when a black person had referred to his then girlfriend, who was also black, using the N word. In the course of relating this example the claimant used the N word in full. The claimant accepts that he said the N word in full. The claimant said sorry in the training session after he had used the N word and no-one at the session said to the claimant he should not have used the N word in full."

https://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/19397044.redbridge-council-lose-tribunal-employee-ian-stevenson/

>>34289
>It would have had nothing to do with being offended snowflakes and everything to do with shit stirring.
Do you mean the students not actually caring but acting like they are to get some tasty drama/not have to go to lessons? I think it would have depended on the teacher, but certainly in my school I can imagine a "Ooooooooh Sir you can't say that!" and loads of shouting, like when someone smashes a glass in a Greek bar, just general chaos really. It was mostly white, maybe 5-10% of the year group were non-white. I remember many, many racist jokes from that time. I wonder if that's just the south?

Or have I misunderstood and you're saying the students where you were would have genuinely been upset?

>>34289
>>In her report of proceedings, tribunal judge Imogen Noons said: "Although the course was about radicalisation, the claimant's evidence on the first day of this hearing was that he raised the issue of racism, specifically around Jewish jokes, stereotypes and websites. During the course of this session the claimant asked a question of the facilitator around when situations should be reported as racism, as sometimes it was unclear. She asked him to give an example and the claimant relayed a situation he had been in in 1985 when a black person had referred to his then girlfriend, who was also black, using the N word. In the course of relating this example the claimant used the N word in full. The claimant accepts that he said the N word in full. The claimant said sorry in the training session after he had used the N word and no-one at the session said to the claimant he should not have used the N word in full."

Ah yeah, that can fuck off. Don't like this direction, unless anyone has any idea if any good can come from it? Seems like it's just a disaster.

>>34290
>Or have I misunderstood and you're saying the students where you were would have genuinely been upset?

Nah, it would have been full blown mischief.

This was a school in East Yorkshire where there was only one non-white kid in my year group of ~300. The year above had Kung Fu George and a black lad and the years below had a pair of Chinese twins and black twins but that was it at any one time for a school or c. 1,500 kids.

>>34289
> lots of the pupils would have walked out.
Lol what.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>34294
Pretty sure we did Of Mice and Men at school twenty years ago, reading it aloud and doing other exercises around it. Doesn't Crooks get called a nigger? If anyone was offended at the time they kept it to themselves in class.

>>34294
I'm telling you if one of my teachers had said nigger, particularly if they weren't unpopular, some of the kids would have played up for shits and giggles.

>>34289
>N word

Sorry lads, I'm not sure what this term means - can someone please elucidate for me, perhaps using the word in a sentence?

>>34295
I remember this coming up in my English class, the teacher chose people to read the passage and watched what they did for his own amusement. He was black though so if anyone voiced any concern he would say it's alright to either say it or skip it, him being able to lend you the special pass.

>>34297

>N word

You know, like what H.P. Lovecraft called his pet dog.

>>34303
Someone said it further up the thread, but knowing this place it's possibly a trap set by a bored mod. I feel like Richard fucking Hammond, I'm giggling at the notion but I don't have the balls. There's not currently a good enough reason to say it.

>>34295
I did Of Mice And Men at school about 15 years ago, where we took it in turns in class to read a few pages. Whoever got the page where Crooks is called a n-word read out the actual world, and nobody was particularly phased. Maybe because in my year group of 300 there were only 6 non-whites.

>>34308
Do it. Say the word, ladmate.

>>34308
Saying a word and acknowledging a word isn't the same as using it against someone or condoning it's usage, that sort of cretinous brainworms is the sole proviso of the woke Twitter mob who bully Authors for writing racist villains, because it must mean they're totally actually racist themselves; author projection, innit.

Also, "N-word" clearly codifies the intent and usage which would get you banned hence why you're all being cagey, so ban N-word posters that's what I say.

>>34308
>it's possibly a trap set by a bored mod
I thought the word was blackholed/autobanned so I'm not really sure what the rules are here.

>>34312
It's only the plural that's autobanned.

>>34315
Thanks. That explains the what but not the why.