-
• #56527
Probably Cassette Boy for his poorly thought out comparison.
1 Attachment
-
• #56528
There doesn't have to be an actively aware and aggrieved person somewhere else for "but I'm the victim here" to turn an apology into a churlish non-apology.
-
• #56529
Yeah, if you're inadvertently racist it's probably best to apologise rather than go on about your critics "diseased minds".
-
• #56530
100% agree that last bit wasn't necessary, but I think your synopsis of his tweet;
"Sorry if people feel offended" non-apology. In fact, he's portraying himself as the victim. "My turn in the barrel".
is a long way from what he wrote.
-
• #56531
I'm going to guess that he will probably receive at least one abusive message regarding this incident, so yes he is a victim of sorts. Def a victim of shitty media orgs looking for clicks.
What is he meant to be apologising for anyway? He was told it looks bad so he took it down and clarified his reasons for posting. Not sure a sorry to any individual or unknown group of offended internet citizens is required.
Anyway I don't even like Danny Baker.
-
• #56532
Anyway the important thing here is that the royals have had a healthy child with a quirky name.
-
• #56533
Ah, Twitter can be relied upon for sober appraisal:
I couldn’t give a fuck about what you think and how I’ve tweeted with
the grammar police on to me. THICK CUNTS I’ll say it louder. -
• #56534
Danny Baker has been fired.
-
• #56535
He's now been fired, which seems a bit silly...
-
• #56536
I think he’s been fired for being anti royal rather than racist. It’s generally OK to be a screaming racist at the beeb but dare to dis the royals and you’re out.
-
• #56537
Oh God. The state of Twitter.
-
• #56538
with a quirky name
Really? Sounds exactly like something I'd have expected as a royal name.
-
• #56539
It's PG gone mad.
-
• #56540
^ rep
-
• #56541
can't believe I'm about to argue this... but as I'm killing time before a call.
It's an abbreviated name.
edit: followed by a surname as a second name. Ok so he's not called Yucca, but still it is non-trad.
-
• #56543
Meh, it used to be, but it's now just a name in its own right I'd say.
-
• #56544
Ha!
-
• #56545
Anyway the important thing here is that we're no longer talking about a small chubby male with no hair.
-
• #56546
Is the baby slim?
-
• #56547
Yeah fuck you.
-
• #56548
Doing blackface just the once is enough for me.
-
• #56549
followed by a surname as a second name
Well, I've met at least one first-name Harrison. Oh, and there's Harrison Ford. It's perfectly acceptable as a first name, anyway, as it simply means 'son of Harry' (or variants thereof).
-
• #56550
In England?
The US have strong form on using surnames as first names. Obviously it's now becoming more common here too.
Who is the victim? The people who misconstrued the post are certainly not, has anyone experienced any negative effects from the post other than DB?