The PC and Perpetually Offended Brigade

[astfgyl]

If anything, the experience in SA should show white folk how it feels when the shoe is on the other foot. It doesn't make any of it right though. Racism is a silly concept anyway, we should be celebrating the fact that we are all different but there is something in human nature that makes us all feel that we should be belonging to something or other. Personally I think it's ridiculous to be drawing distinctions on skin colour. That's why I think the whole BLM thing is a bit shit because it is playing up to the difference. It has probably set society back a lot of years by highlighting the fact that having a different colour skin makes a difference. I don't identify as white for example, I'm just me. I also don't give a flying fuck what colour anyone else is. They are either sound or they are not, end of. So if say Sunni and Shia muslims want to kill each other over some shit, well that's mock and they could do with copping on. Same with colour or any other line we want to draw to define ourselves. I've been brought up all my life in a country with endemic racism towards the English, but if I meet an English person I judge them the same as any Irish cunt.  I said myself a while back here that I was racist against Travellers because of x/y/z but even that is not really true because I know several of them that are the solid finest. So I think the same of the SA thing as the US thing, it just highlights the stupidity of oppression because of colour. Left/Right is the same situation really. Or Tipp/Kilkenny or Jews/Everyone else or whatever other two things we can come up with. These things are simply an affront to individuality and why are we not all above it?

[Pedrito]

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2020/1009/1170417-thailand/

Really enjoyed this story. Some Yank who thinks they can say whatever they feel flinging allegations around about slave labour without any proof to back it up. Well he picked the wrong country. I can't help but feel there is a happy medium to be struck in between these poles. The idea that you can be called everything under the sun and the person defaming you just gets away scot free constantly is not my idea of a civilised society. Would like to see more people called up on their bullshit in this way.

[pete]

Reminds me of Morello accusing that restaurant of not paying their staff properly cause they wouldn't let him in haha

https://loudwire.com/tom-morello-slams-seattle-5-point-cafe-being-turned-away-restaurant-fires-back/

[Pedrito]

Champagne socialist secretly despises the working class shocker

[Caomhaoin]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/amp/

This is fucking retarded. This lad under investigation for something Dr.Starkey said whilst being interviewed by him?! It's like the DDR (which would make some chime with delight if it were) only stuffier and with less job and gaff security. Fuck off.

[astfgyl]

As much as I despise that sort of censorship and don't see anything wrong with the interview being broadcast, Dr.Starkey should know better than to be saying it in those terms. If he had made the same argument with a different choice of words he wouldn't be in the position he is in. I think he should be learned enough to know better than that, much the same as Dawkins with his comments.

It's a pity, but that's the way it is and these lads are walking into it. Stripping him of his job and titles is not the way though.

[Caomhaoin]

I'm a big fan of Starkey but that 'so many damned blacks' was toe-curling, cringeworthy guff. I don't think he meant it as it came across, but it was poor from the big lad. He got the high hard one for his troubles.

The point is the lad who interviewed him is the one looking at jail time if he's charged and convicted! That's Stasi stuff. As pointed out by his lawyers, it's an obscene waste of money and police resources. Nuts, and it's just getting worse.

[astfgyl]

Ah yeah I'm in full agreement with you there. It's as if everyone has forgotten the teachings of history.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

It's not so much the fact of having interviewed him, as the fact of having published the material that has him under questioning:

after publishing a podcast in which Dr Starkey said slavery was not genocide because there are "so many damn blacks."

Not really surprising for the  publisher of something to face questions over its content, fairly par for the course actually. His options at time of publishing would have been to edit out the comment; explicitly condemn it, either live or in the edit; and so on. Quite possibly nothing will come of it, but independent of whether it's a waste of money or not (I mean, a majority of everyday legal proceedings could fall under that category), in his position as publisher, it's really not unexpected that he come under charge, and it's something that has happened myriad times in the west, again, most often historically, driven by conservative quarters.

[astfgyl]

Is that the norm, for the publishers to answer for the opinions of the interviewee? Can they use a quick disclaimer to avoid that? Seems a bit heavy handed to me but if it's the usual way of things then maybe they should all have known better, Starkey for saying it and Grimes for not expressing the fact opinions therein are not his own. Even at that, it's a bit much.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Publishers, broadcasters, etc., always answer for content.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

That's not me approving of that norm, just pointing out that it is the norm.

[Caomhaoin]

Publishers, broadcasters, etc., always answer for content.

Did the interviewer of that rapper who said all that anti-semetic guff have to 'answer' for the content? I can't recall a similar incidence and certainly not one becoming a police matter as this has.

The charge itself is a complete misnomer in any case, 'stirring up racial hatred'. How? Starkey only stirred up hatred against himself. He said something which was politically incorrect, end of story.

[Eoin McLove]

What was the context of the quote? It seems so utterly ludicrous. Did it make any sort of sense in the wider context of the discussion or what?

[Caomhaoin]

What was the context of the quote? It seems so utterly ludicrous. Did it make any sort of sense in the wider context of the discussion or what?

He was disputing that slavery equated to genocide.