Has David Starkey gone mad?

[Dont Panic]

PeteinSQ said:

You can't find Gopal's tweet any more but what she tweet was: White lives don't matter. As white lives.

You can take it to mean that white people's lives don't matter but that would be to ignore the second sentence and its implications for what is meant by the first sentence.

She's saying that a white person's life doesn't matter because they are white, it matters because they are a person.

This goes to the heart of the blm movement and what that means. People take it to mean that white people's lives don't matter, but actually what they're saying is white lives already matter and we want our lives to matter too.

Gopal has a history of decrying racism and I'm sure this makes certain people uncomfortable. But she isn't a racist.

And as for consequences she has received many death threats from mugs who failed at English comprehension.

Youre interpreting it in the way you are purely as an apologist, excusing her racism, shes got form for it.
If starkey had reversed it and replaced "white" with "black" youd be blowing your stack, its duplicitous to argue otherwise.
Both statements are racist. End of. Give it up.

[longblackcoat]

Dont Panic said:

If you’re not free to speak within the law without fear of consequences imposed by some braindead crybabies then youre not free.
If you cant understand and value that concept then you deserve the eventual imposition of even stricter controls on what you can say, places you can go and those you can associate with.

He’s absolutely free to say what he wants. Others are free to call him a misguided fool and dispense with his services if they employ him. I’m free to call him a racist.

No one should assume that freedom of speech means immunity from repercussions - part of a free society is understanding that actions have consequences and that people have the freedom to action them.

[Dont Panic]

longblackcoat said:

He’s absolutely free to say what he wants. Others are free to call him a misguided fool and dispense with his services if they employ him. I’m free to call him a racist.

No one should assume that freedom of speech means immunity from repercussions - part of a free society is understanding that actions have consequences and that people have the freedom to action them.

Youre missing the point. Its not up to twitter or facebook or anyone other than the law to apply detriments to someone for what they say just because you or gangs of triggered adult babies dont fking like it.
Its not a free society if youre not free to speak.

[Joey Ramone]

Dont Panic said:

Youre interpreting it in the way you are purely as an apologist, excusing her racism, shes got form for it.
If starkey had reversed it and replaced "white" with "black" youd be blowing your stack, its duplicitous to argue otherwise.
Both statements are racist. End of. Give it up.

No he isn’t. I loathe Gopal. She’s a troll, and she’s tried to shut down the research undertaken by other academics that she perceives as ideologically unsound (the Oxford Professor Nigel Biggar’s ‘Ethics and Empire project, most notably). But Protein is absolutely correct in his interpretation of her tweet. The rather more salient point is not simply that she knew precisely how provocative it would be to right leaning individuals who failed to think through the entire tweet rather than the first four words, but that it could also be easily sensationalised and misconstrued by any number of folk.

[gregs656]

Dont Panic said:

Youre missing the point. Its not up to twitter or facebook or anyone other than the law to apply detriments to someone for what they say just because you or gangs of triggered adult babies dont fking like it.
Its not a free society if youre not free to speak.

You seem to have confused freedom of expression with freedom from consequence of expression. You’re at GCSE level of discussion.

[mx5nut]

gregs656 said:

Dont Panic said:

Youre missing the point. Its not up to twitter or facebook or anyone other than the law to apply detriments to someone for what they say just because you or gangs of triggered adult babies dont fking like it.
Its not a free society if youre not free to speak.

You seem to have confused freedom of expression with freedom from consequence of expression. You’re at GCSE level of discussion.

They don't want to live in a world where they have more free speech. They want to live in a world where people won't judge them for being racist.

[ToastMan76]

PeteinSQ said:

Gopal has a history of decrying racism and I'm sure this makes certain people uncomfortable. But she isn't a racist.

And as for consequences she has received many death threats from mugs who failed at English comprehension.

You are just an apologist for a racist. She is absolutely a racist. She has previously retweeted a sentence calling “whites” a “disease that needs to be cleansed from the earth”. She tweeted she ‘has to resist the urge to kneecap white men everyday’. People like her think they are oh so clever and that the world owes them superiority based on their perceived victimhood. Their agenda isnt equality, its supremacy. And people like yourself are the crook that holds them up, in a mission to appeal to your own sense of moral superiority.

[Dont Panic]

gregs656 said:

You seem to have confused freedom of expression with freedom from consequence of expression. You’re at GCSE level of discussion.

Your rights, your desires to speak to subjects that may offend should not be governed by a baying mob of hyper moralising self appointed social media censors or those in business, commerce, education etc who subscribe to the same ultra intolerant orthodox view of others rights to self expression of thought through the medium of speech.
If you dont see the problem with groups such as those applying and enforcing their own brand of punishment outside of the law then youre part of the problem yourself.
Fot the kind of world youre looking to emulate, Berlin 1961-1989.
Have no lessons been learned?

[Derek Smith]

mx5nut said:

gregs656 said:

Dont Panic said:

Youre missing the point. Its not up to twitter or facebook or anyone other than the law to apply detriments to someone for what they say just because you or gangs of triggered adult babies dont fking like it.
Its not a free society if youre not free to speak.

You seem to have confused freedom of expression with freedom from consequence of expression. You’re at GCSE level of discussion.

They don't want to live in a world where they have more free speech. They want to live in a world where people won't judge them for being racist.

That sums it up for me, and rather nicely.

[Dont Panic]

mx5nut said:

They don't want to live in a world where they have more free speech. They want to live in a world where people won't judge them for being racist.

The definition of a plank, personified.

What qualifies the likes of you to judge any other person on the planet let alone impose consequences on them for words or ideas you dont agree with?
Youre one of these moralising individuals who has an inflated opinion of his own values over that of everyone elses despite it being a pretty a safe bet youve got some nasty skeletons in the cupboard of your own.

And youre wrong in your statement, Its not about living in a world where people dont judge you, we all do anyway at every level, its about who imposes any sanctions for what they say.
.
I say thats for the law to decide not for jumped up maoists like yourself.

[bitchstewie]

Dont Panic said:

bhstewie said:

Honestly this isn't a difficult concept.

Its a very simple concept, the right to say whatever within the confines of the law without fear of reprisal.

bhstewie said:

People bleat on about "free speech".

You seem to value only prescribed speech.

bhstewie said:

So far as I know you don't have a constitutional right to free speech in the UK but you can usually say whatever you like within the confines of the law.

No you cant. Twitter facebook etc are now the moral guardians of acceptable speech and what they say goes, without a single vote to pass the motion.

bhstewie said:

That's what Starkey has done.

Nobody tried to stop him saying it (that I know of).

Nobody has said he should be silenced or forbidden from saying it (that I know of).

He could go on Twitter or any media outlet that would let him on and say the exact same thing again right now.

Some people and some organisations he was associated with have taken a view on that.

Interesting that none (that I know of) seem to have decided to associate themselves with him more as a result of his comments.

Why do you think that might be?

It all boils down to sending a message to others: You will not say what we dont agree with or else.

bhstewie said:

You can bang on about "woke" and "liberals" as much as you like but to expect people to simply shrug and go "meh free speech init" isn't going to happen.

Oh it isnt eh? Thats the issue. youve nailed it in one.
People who arent elected, groups with a similar narrative, organisations with an angle and business run by the like minded are applying the pressure of their numbers to squash individuals they see as not fitting their perfect utopia.
Each time the likes of starkey is dominated and destroyed it sends the same message out to everyone else- We own your rights to say what you want, because as you say there are "consequences" imposed entirely by these lot purely down to their common purpose.
They all drink from the same Wokeaid bottle.

If youre not free to speak within the law without fear of consequences imposed by some braindead crybabies then youre not free.
If you cant understand and value that concept then you deserve the eventual imposition of even stricter controls on what you can say, places you can go and those you can associate with.

So following your logic if you invite me to a party at your house and I call your wife an "ugly bh" that's within the law so "free speech" and you should just shut up and offer me another drink.

Isn't gonna happen is it?

And what the fk are you on about "each time the likes of starkey is dominated and destroyed" literally what sort of stuff have you been filling your brain with to even use that sort of language around what's happened to Starkey

The real issue here can be distilled very simply which is you can't say what you want any more (actually you never could people have been sacked or had to resign since forever for saying certain things) and you don't like it.

All that crap above is just a toddler throwing a tantrum because it's 2020 they are a scared man.

Never mind though.

Don't worry about the party invite either.

[zygalski]

It's clearly a conspiracy by the majority against those who wish to propagate racism and racial hatred through freedom of speech.
It's an outrage!

[Dont Panic]

bhstewie said:

So following your logic if you invite me to a party at your house and I call your wife an "ugly bh" that's within the law so "free speech" and you should just shut up and offer me another drink.

Oh my word! At party at "my house" wouldnt be in the public domain now would it?

bhstewie said:

Isn't gonna happen is it?

Well it might if demand is high enough.

bhstewie said:

And what the fk are you on about "each time the likes of starkey is dominated and destroyed" literally what sort of stuff have you been filling your brain with to even use that sort of language around what's happened to Starkey

So starkeys career is now booming then?
Can we expect to see him signing book deals and doing talk shows?
Voiceovers on the latest blockbuster Hollywood movie perhaps?
You tell me, how much more in demand he is now that his career is on the up and up.

bhstewie said:

The real issue here can be distilled very simply which is you can't say what you want any more (actually you never could people have been sacked or had to resign since forever for saying certain things) and you don't like it.

Thats not really the case, its only recently such things as "hate speech" laws were enacted as a catch all.
I dont have any problem with nasty people saying even nastier things being questioned on their opinions and being made to look stupid for it, what I have a deep issue with is the likes of you self appointing to enforce what happens to them after theyre exposed.
Your Mob mentality dosent impress me.

bhstewie said:

All that crap above is just a toddler throwing a tantrum because it's 2020 they are a scared man.

Somewhere a village is missing its idiot.

bhstewie said:

Never mind though.

Don't worry about the party invite either.

Youre always welcome to come and insult me and the wife, she'll give as good as she gets.

[AndrewCrown]

zygalski said:

It's clearly a conspiracy by the majority against those who wish to propagate racism and racial hatred through freedom of speech.
It's an outrage!

Mr Z
I think there is a conspiracy, but it is a minority...who ironically propagate racism.
Through:

• Ignoring laws in a global crisis
• Throwing bicycles at Police horses
• Looting
• Damaging private & public property
• Not understanding history properly

That’s the outrage..

[Murph7355]

PeteinSQ said:

You can't find Gopal's tweet any more but what she tweet was: White lives don't matter. As white lives.

You can take it to mean that white people's lives don't matter but that would be to ignore the second sentence and its implications for what is meant by the first sentence.

She's saying that a white person's life doesn't matter because they are white, it matters because they are a person.
....

If that is what she meant then she is guilty of VERY poor choice of words and even poorer choice of punctuation.

It would have been very, very straightforward to write your interpretation free of ambiguity. She chose not to.

[bitchstewie]

Murph7355 said:

PeteinSQ said:

You can't find Gopal's tweet any more but what she tweet was: White lives don't matter. As white lives.

You can take it to mean that white people's lives don't matter but that would be to ignore the second sentence and its implications for what is meant by the first sentence.

She's saying that a white person's life doesn't matter because they are white, it matters because they are a person.
....

If that is what she meant then she is guilty of VERY poor choice of words and even poorer choice of punctuation.

It would have been very, very straightforward to write your interpretation free of ambiguity. She chose not to.

I think you're both right personally.

I can see how she meant it.

I also think she was a absolute idiot for choosing to word it the way she did.

[Murph7355]

bhstewie said:

I think you're both right personally.

I can see how she meant it.

I also think she was a absolute idiot for choosing to word it the way she did.

And this is how I feel about Starkey. The situations are the same IMO.

It was stupid use of language. But I can see how his use of the word "damn" may not have been in any derogatory sense.

I'm not convinced either Gopal or Starkey are any more racist than the other.

[A Winner Is You]

Murph7355 said:

PeteinSQ said:

You can't find Gopal's tweet any more but what she tweet was: White lives don't matter. As white lives.

You can take it to mean that white people's lives don't matter but that would be to ignore the second sentence and its implications for what is meant by the first sentence.

She's saying that a white person's life doesn't matter because they are white, it matters because they are a person.
....

If that is what she meant then she is guilty of VERY poor choice of words and even poorer choice of punctuation.

It would have been very, very straightforward to write your interpretation free of ambiguity. She chose not to.

She also tweeted previously about having to resist the urge to kneecap white people every day, and liked a tweet calling white people "vermin". No ambiguity about those, she's a racist but gets awarded with a promotion from her employer.

[Dont Panic]

A Winner Is You said:

She also tweeted previously about having to resist the urge to kneecap white people every day, and liked a tweet calling white people "vermin". No ambiguity about those, she's a racist but gets awarded with a promotion from her employer.

Yeah shes definitely got the whiff of being well past her use by date about her, however I wouldnt want her to be gagged or suffer any kind of detriment, so although the things shes saying are no better than any far right racists I believe wholeheartedly in her right to say them and also her to be offended by anyone saying similar back.
Thats why its so important to be able to say what you think without fear or favour, the divergence in treatment between her multiple racist outbursts and starkeys is pretty much a gaping chasm.
Either re-engage starkey or boot out gopal, either option I would support.

[ToastMan76]

Dont Panic said:

Yeah shes definitely got the whiff of being well past her use by date about her, however I wouldnt want her to be gagged or suffer any kind of detriment, so although the things shes saying are no better than any far right racists I believe wholeheartedly in her right to say them and also her to be offended by anyone saying similar back.
Thats why its so important to be able to say what you think without fear or favour, the divergence in treatment between her multiple racist outbursts and starkeys is pretty much a gaping chasm.
Either re-engage starkey or boot out gopal, either option I would support.

She does have the right to spew her venom, but by the same measure those on the other side of the coin should have the exact sale treatment. Unfortunately its if you are white - cancelled, if you are brown - promoted.