Manx Radio

[Declan]

18 minutes ago, Gladys said:

No, Lucy had a list of questions which she just ploughed through "when did this..", "what do you think of...." , "did you know....". 

I have no doubt that the sentiments of each caller were sincere and honestly held.  What I do doubt is that it was not coordinated. 

Even if it was all co-ordinated, Stu was the professional broadcaster. It can't have been the first time a group of people with similar views called his show. It was his environment, he'd lobbied for exactly this sort of show - shouldn't he be able to handle a couple of callers who disagree?

[Mr Newbie]

15 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Is thinking someone is responsible for the thoughts that come out of their mouth a "strange" conclusion?

Thinking that you are other people’s thought police is a very worrying conclusion. The experience and beliefs of someone who has lived through different times than someone else should not be a trigger for outrage. Go back and look at some of the genuinely disgustingly racist TV shows that aired in the 1970s. Someone like Peters probably lived through that and it means that someone of that generation will always have a slightly different perspective to some millennial tit watching YouTube clips about a movement they have no direct connection to happening in another continent. He was an easy target. Just like someones grandad is probably an equally easy target for having a mind formed in an entirely different world. It doesn’t mean that they are racist, or that they support racism. It means that they probably need a bit of gentle education, not have their head rammed into the stocks and pelted with fruit on Twitter and Facebook by some smug millennial virtue signing wankers who have lived through nothing and who are trying to get some vicarious thrill out of protesting about something they saw on YouTube.

Edited June 6, 2020 by Mr Newbie

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Is thinking someone is responsible for the thoughts that come out of their mouth a "strange" conclusion?

Tell me what he said that is so incendiary. Please do  because I am really struggling to understand how you can condone this whole episode. 

The wider matter needs to be debated sensibly and rationally.  I would urge everyone  to watch the Trevor Philips documentary.  The main point of that is that we need to debate and gain an understanding, not be frightened or bullied into silence. 

[HeliX]

5 minutes ago, Mr Newbie said:

Thinking that you are other people’s thought police is a very worrying conclusion. The experience and beliefs of someone who has lived through different times than someone else should not be a trigger for outrage. Go back and look at some of the genuinely disgustingly racist TV shows that aired in the 1970s. Someone like Peters probably lived through that and it means that someone of that generation will always have a slightly different perspective to some millennial tit watching YouTube clips about a movement happening in another continent. He was an easy target. Just like someones grandad is probably an equally easy target for having a mind formed in an entirely different world. It doesn’t mean that they are racist, or that they support racism. It means that they probably need a bit of gentle education, not have their head rammed into the stocks and pelted with fruit on Twitter and Facebook by some smug millennial virtue signing wankers. 

I don't think I'm anyone's thought police. I do think that as a tax payer I'm probably entitled to have an opinion on things that happen on a publicly funded broadcast.

[HeliX]

9 minutes ago, Scotty said:

I genuinely think you are in need of help.

Nobody ever goes this far on a topic without having a carer on hand. FFS, just reread what  you have posted over the last few days.You have won the award of the most posts in a week, but gained the title of biggest sucker. You see that ?

To be absolutely clear, I couldn't care less what you think about me.

If you have a problem with people posting their opinions on a public forum perhaps public forums aren't for you.

[HeliX]

5 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Tell me what he said that is so incendiary. Please do  because I am really struggling to understand how you can condone this whole episode. 

The wider matter needs to be debated sensibly and rationally.  I would urge everyone  to watch the Trevor Philips documentary.  The main point of that is that we need to debate and gain an understanding, not be frightened or bullied into silence. 

As I said, I don't necessarily think he should be fired, but I do think comments like "I've had no more privilege in my life than you have", defending the phrase "all lives matter" used in the context of replying to "black lives matter", and using statistics on black on black crime to discredit black lives matter is not acceptable on a publicly funded broadcaster.

I certainly agree that racism, like many other topics, needs to be debated rationally and sensibly. But I don't believe Stu was attempting either of those things in good faith. Which in his position, he sort of has to.

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, Declan said:

Even if it was all co-ordinated, Stu was the professional broadcaster. It can't have been the first time a group of people with similar views called his show. It was his environment, he'd lobbied for exactly this sort of show - shouldn't he be able to handle a couple of callers who disagree?

But it wasn't just a couple of casual callers, it was an onslaught.  The real tragedy is that this topic needs a proper mature debate.  The unintended consequence is that no one will have the stomach to debate this again.  Is that really what you want?  Why not engage, explain and educate? 

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

But it wasn't just a couple of casual callers, it was an onslaught.  The real tragedy is that this topic needs a proper mature debate.  The unintended consequence is that no one will have the stomach to debate this again.  Is that really what you want?  Why not engage, explain and educate? 

Wasn't one result of this that Manx Radio are intending to host a show specifically dedicated to discussing race issues?

[woolley]

16 minutes ago, Mr Newbie said:

 Someone like Peters probably lived through that and it means that someone of that generation will always have a slightly different perspective to some millennial tit watching YouTube clips about a movement they have no direct connection to happening in another continent.  

I know which group has had the not too subtle conditioning to be "on message" rammed into their brains from birth onwards.

[Gladys]

5 minutes ago, HeliX said:

As I said, I don't necessarily think he should be fired, but I do think comments like "I've had no more privilege in my life than you have", defending the phrase "all lives matter" used in the context of replying to "black lives matter", and using statistics on black on black crime to discredit black lives matter is not acceptable on a publicly funded broadcaster.

I certainly agree that racism, like many other topics, needs to be debated rationally and sensibly. But I don't believe Stu was attempting either of those things in good faith. Which in his position, he sort of has to.

 Let's get to the nub here, why wouldn't someone who believes in an open debate not want to explore the concept of privilege, whether there really is a difference between black lives matter or all lives matter, and crime statistics.  On the latter, I would be pondering why? I would not be trying to ignore it, because there is, potentially,  a more revealing issue at play.

But questioning the information we receive is perceived as confirming stereotypes, whereas it could actually help in a broader, less dogmatic view.

Sadly, this whole shitstiorm will suppress proper debate and persuasion.  That would be far more productive and meaningful than a march down the prom.

[Mr Newbie]

40 minutes ago, HeliX said:

I don't think I'm anyone's thought police. I do think that as a tax payer I'm probably entitled to have an opinion on things that happen on a publicly funded broadcast.

He was the easiest target in the world. Even a complete moron could have set that up. But they take themselves so seriously it’s like they think they have taken down Jeremy Paxman rather than Alan Partridge.

All this virtue signaling reminds of Jarvis Cockers Common People. They’re just bored kids from the IOM (pretty much all of them white) latching onto something to do in order to claim recognition and affinity with something they’ve seen on YouTube during lockdown. As Cocker said everybody hates a tourist. Especially one who thinks it's all such a laugh! 

You will never understand
How it feels to live your life
With no meaning or control
And with nowhere left to go
You are amazed that they exist
And they burn so bright
Whilst you can only wonder why

Rent a flat above a shop
Cut your hair and get a job
Smoke some fags and play some pool
Pretend you never went to school
But still you'll never get it right
'Cause when you're laid in bed at night
Watching roaches climb the wall
If you called your Dad he could stop it all ... 

They have no direct meaningful understanding of what it’s like to experience racism most of them. It’s recreational protesting by white privileged rebels without a clue. 

Edited June 6, 2020 by Mr Newbie

[peter pan]

6 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Sadly, this whole shitstiorm will suppress proper debate and persuasion.  That would be far more productive and meaningful than a march down the prom.

Ironic you would talk about suppressing proper debate when Manx Forums has routinely rejected people from signing up, and the site is somewhat reminiscent of an echo chamber. 

[HeliX]

7 minutes ago, Gladys said:

 Let's get to the nub here, why wouldn't someone who believes in an open debate not want to explore the concept of privilege, whether there really is a difference between black lives matter or all lives matter, and crime statistics.  On the latter, I would be pondering why? I would not be trying to ignore it, because there is, potentially,  a more revealing issue at play.

But questioning the information we receive is perceived as confirming stereotypes, whereas it could actually help in a broader, less dogmatic view.

Sadly, this whole shitstiorm will suppress proper debate and persuasion.  That would be far more productive and meaningful than a march down the prom.

I did say in that post you quoted that I think it should be discussed, but I don't believe Stu Peters was doing so in good faith.

I don't think it will suppress proper debate. It certainly hasn't here!

[gettafa]

4 hours ago, HeliX said:

Is that true? There's plenty of people posting in support of Stu in this thread, so far as I know no-one's decapitated them yet.

 

Yes it is true - as I clearly stated how I was feeling. By all means challenge my opinions but don't think you should go about challenging a person expressing their feelings. 

Oh, and 'parading someone's head on a stake' is obviously a metaphor, although from footage I have seen on social media lately and riots from 35 years ago maybe it is not so metaphorical.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

33 minutes ago, HeliX said:

I don't think I'm anyone's thought police. I do think that as a tax payer I'm probably entitled to have an opinion on things that happen on a publicly funded broadcast.

Of course you are.  But that doesn't mean your nonsense is going to go unchallenged.