Jump to content

Middle


Amadeus
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Declan said:

Because he was nervous calling the radio?

Why's it relevant?

Because it makes it very obvious that this "They rang a radio phone-in show to discuss racism prompted by something the presenter posted on-line" is a load of old nonsense. As any fule kno....

Reading something out is not exactly a discussion now is it...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Peter Layman said:

Who calls into a radio talk show with a pre-written script?

People unused to public speaking, people who want to be clear in what they're saying.

It doesn't justify Stu's reaction but if it was the cause of his behaviour, why didn't he explain and apologise at the time? "I was thrown because the caller was reading and I reacted badly, I'm sorry if I upset people, what I said does not reflect my true opinions." But he's still expressing the same opinions, making them a virtue in his manifesto - so what difference does it make if the caller read from a script.

Edited by Declan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Declan, despite our numerous disagreements and differences I do enjoy observing how we both see things. As you have opined in the past, I am from an older generation and of necessity have a different approach to things than many (but by no means all) younger people.

I'm all for listening to alternative viewpoints but do get cross when people misrepresent my motives or actions. If you listen to the show in question (and I see no point in going over old ground) you'll realise that at no point did I 'lose it' with the caller. I was incredibly indulgent and gave him ample opportunity to make his case, to the point where I chuckled because he simply wouldn't let me get a word in edgeways (which was misrepresented as 'laughing at the POC'). Most radio hosts would have cut him off or faded him out.

This whole thing about white privilege has been debunked by a huge number of academics and commentators. If I was at fault for rejecting the notion, it's because I'm not willing to learn new meanings to ordinary phrases, or recite them to show my compliance with the vocal minority.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, P.K. said:

So now you can explain why the first caller was reading from a script?

Assuming that they were (and you have no evidence), they may have been a nervous first-time caller; they may have had a number of points they wanted to make and not miss anything;  they may have wanted to be careful about their wording.  All virtuous reasons.  In any case it would be the job of a good broadcaster to reassure them and help them make what further points they wanted to.  That's how you get people calling back.

And why should it matter?  Even if there was some sort of Evil Plot, rather than people with similar viewpoints expressing those,(and there's absolutely no evidence), Stu is an experienced broadcaster and should be able to cope and argue his position coherently.

I seem to remember this from the time - an awful lot of the defences of Stu seemed to rely on the assumption that he was useless at his job and allowances should be made for that.  With friends like that, he doesn't really need enemies.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

I'm all for listening to alternative viewpoints but do get cross when people misrepresent my motives or actions. If you listen to the show in question (and I see no point in going over old ground) you'll realise that at no point did I 'lose it' with the caller. I was incredibly indulgent and gave him ample opportunity to make his case, to the point where I chuckled because he simply wouldn't let me get a word in edgeways (which was misrepresented as 'laughing at the POC'). Most radio hosts would have cut him off or faded him out.

 

Well you know if you "lost it" or not. What I heard was you challenging him in a way you didn't challenge a white guy who rang up to say "they don't like to mix with us" based on a teenager at his church who was taciturn when introduced to the caller and relaxed around his friends - like most teenagers.

I initially viewed your conduct as wrong, but explainable by the generation thing. However, the lack of apology, the unwillingness to learn lessons, the conspiracy theory that you were ambushed, the involvement of the UK's answer to Josem - Toby Young, and that you've used it as springboard for your political ambitions has made giving you the benefit of the doubt ridiculous.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

This whole thing about white privilege has been debunked by a huge number of academics and commentators.

I don't think this is quite accurate.

To be clear, by "white privilege", what is most commonly meant is that people who are white in Western countries do not have their lives made more difficult by their skin colour, where people who are non-white often do. Surely that's not remotely contentious? It's not a suggestion that all white people have great lives (Oprah may have used it that way, but she's also an idiot so...). Plenty of white people have terrible lives. But during those lives they won't have anything made more difficult for them simply because they're white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Assuming that they were (and you have no evidence), they may have been a nervous first-time caller; they may have had a number of points they wanted to make and not miss anything;  they may have wanted to be careful about their wording.  All virtuous reasons.  In any case it would be the job of a good broadcaster to reassure them and help them make what further points they wanted to.  That's how you get people calling back.

And why should it matter?  Even if there was some sort of Evil Plot, rather than people with similar viewpoints expressing those,(and there's absolutely no evidence), Stu is an experienced broadcaster and should be able to cope and argue his position coherently.

I seem to remember this from the time - an awful lot of the defences of Stu seemed to rely on the assumption that he was useless at his job and allowances should be made for that.  With friends like that, he doesn't really need enemies.

I get the impression that you haven't actually listened to what took place. Well?

As to your "No more than reporting a crime is inherently criminal.  Don't be silly" I don't recall folks who have lost a leg or two claiming the rest have "Bipedal Privilege" or whatever. After all, it's a physical difference like your skin colour.

Now from what I have read on here "White Privilege" is just a descriptive term for anyone who is not a POC. Now I understand "unless you have walked their shoes" etc but unfortunately if I blacked up I would probably be arrested and charged under the Equality Act. Besides being a delicious irony I suspect my defense of investigating "White Privilege" would be given short shrift.

It seems that "White Privilege" equates to "not understanding" what it is like to be a POC which means you are therefore "ignorant" of what it's like which means you need "educating" of course.

Now if you ever wanted to alienate support for your cause insulting people like that is certainly the way to do it. Now if you go back to the definition of racism "White Privilege" coupled with the ramifications we have seen on here definitely makes it a candidate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Lost Login said:

 

I think this is a good article on what "white privilege" is https://www.barnardos.org.uk/blog/white-privilege-guide-for-parents

 

I’ve read this and feel very angry and disgusted.

Apart from its insulting and patronizing tone ( the “we must educate ourselves” etc) it includes a link to some output from Al Jazeera.

This stuff from Al Jazeera states ( it doesn’t even imply) that Brexit supporters are racists. To quote “ far right sentiment which spread hate about immigrants “

What on earth is a charity established to look after the welfare of children is doing spending donations, given in good faith, on this sort of political propaganda?

I write as a non racist, left leaning person who supported Brexit as a means to return self determination to the UK.

Edited by The Voice of Reason
Minor grammatical corrections
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...