Black Lives Matter

[d.r]

2 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Someone has to complain for that to happen.

But still, you just can't pin a suspension on people who call in it's absurd. It is a call in show. Stu has to take responsibility for how he responds, and Manx Radio decided it warrants suspension. For what it's worth, I don't think suspension was the right action. 

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

And how do you read round a subject on a live radio show?  It was an ambush.  I am sure the callers thought they were very clever and would really tell that Peters bloke.  But to a great number of people it has undermined their view of BLM, confirmed with coverage of what has happened  in the UK. It also set in train a sequence of events which do freedom of thought and speech,  BLM IOM, MR and Stu Peter's very little good.  Top Mark's or bravo, as you say.  

I'm not sure any damage has occurred to freedom of speech/thought. Perhaps people will more carefully frame their viewpoints as questions rather than facts, but otherwise I don't see much issue

[P.K.]

Just now, d.r said:

But still.... 

Yeah, right.

Motivation and Method has cost your cause.

Best tell the others...

[Gladys]

5 minutes ago, Kopek said:

I'm really surprised at some of the posters on here who seem to be denigrating the basic principal for the sake of defending ''OUR STU''.

It makes them sound as though they think that BLs Dont Matter.

I'm sure it's not the case but there comes a time to simply say, CV is not the time and violence is not helpful but I do believe in the principal of the protest?

I have posted at length on the MR thread my views on BLM, particularly in the context of the IOM.  Frankly, I do not believe in the principle of the protest at this time and in this manner.  I do, however, despise bigotry, bullying and ideological fascism, which some of the BLM IOM faction seem quite happy to practice. 

[HeliX]

10 minutes ago, HeliX said:

If you let the behaviour of one caller to a tiny local radio station put you off a cause you probably weren't that arsed about it in the first place.

@P.K.

If one caller has legitimately put you off the entire BLM cause, you're either of exceptionally weak constitution or you were not particularly supportive anyway and are using it as an excuse.

[P.K.]

8 minutes ago, HeliX said:

If you let the behaviour of one caller to a tiny local radio station put you off a cause you probably weren't that arsed about it in the first place.

I'm concerned about racism like anyone normal.

But I'm not going to let my good intentions be hijacked by unscrupulous people.

[HeliX]

Just now, P.K. said:

I'm concerned about racism like anyone normal.

But I'm not going to let my good intentions be hijacked by unscrupulous people.

Good intentions like BLM, and unscrupulous people like (as you claim, not me) the first caller?

 

[Gladys]

5 minutes ago, d.r said:

But still, you just can't pin a suspension on people who call in it's absurd. It is a call in show. Stu has to take responsibility for how he responds, and Manx Radio decided it warrants suspension. For what it's worth, I don't think suspension was the right action. 

Yes, but that has been the consequence of the ambush and subsequent complaints.  Have you listened to the audio or read the transcript?  Stu was quite measured and could not get a word in edgeways.  But, because he didn't say, "yes you are right", he is now the subject of a Communications Commission investigation and suspension. 

[d.r]

4 minutes ago, Gladys said:

And how do you read round a subject on a live radio show?

I'm suggesting if you want to know more about what BLM is about, go look it up and do some reading. Maybe you will find yourself to be totally correct and vindicated that it's not worthy of any of your support, or maybe you will think they have a point or find out some things you didn't know. But don't put the responsibility of explaining all these issues on someone else, it takes some work on your part as well. 

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

Yes, but that has been the consequence of the ambush and subsequent complaints.  Have you listened to the audio or read the transcript?  Stu was quite measured and could not get a word in edgeways.  But, because he didn't say, "yes you are right", he is now the subject of a Communications Commission investigation and suspension. 

I think it's more likely to be his comments about white privilege than him not agreeing. Had he said "Can you put white privilege into your words? I'm not sure I agree it exists" rather than "I've had no more privilege in my life than you have" we probably wouldn't be here.

 

Though I would reiterate that I don't think losing his job is necessarily the right response. But we'll have to see what the ICC says.

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, d.r said:

I'm suggesting if you want to know more about what BLM is about, go look it up and do some reading. Maybe you will find yourself to be totally correct and vindicated that it's not worthy of any of your support, or maybe you will think they have a point or find out some things you didn't know. But don't put the responsibility of explaining all these issues on someone else, it takes some work on your part as well. 

I haven't put the responsibility on anyone else, I am quite capable of educating myself. 

[HeliX]

Just now, Gladys said:

I haven't put the responsibility on anyone else, I am quite capable of educating myself. 

You do seem to be letting the actions of between one and three people put you off an entire global cause though, which seems uncharacteristically unmeasured.

[P.K.]

Just now, HeliX said:

Good intentions like BLM, and unscrupulous people like (as you claim, not me) the first caller?

No, the whole set-up of course.

I posted waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy back that as Trump is like a permanently petulant child and as there's an election coming up he will view BLM demonstrations as a golden opportunity for redneck votes.

This isn't rocket science....

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, HeliX said:

I think it's more likely to be his comments about white privilege than him not agreeing. Had he said "Can you put white privilege into your words? I'm not sure I agree it exists" rather than "I've had no more privilege in my life than you have" we probably wouldn't be here.

 

Though I would reiterate that I don't think losing his job is necessarily the right response. But we'll have to see what the ICC says.

But was that a completely unreasonable racist thing to say? It is his opinion, but rather than rationally explain, the caller spluttered in disbelief.  It was an attack.  If it had been the other way round, you may have a point. 

[d.r]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

Yes, but that has been the consequence of the ambush and subsequent complaints.  Have you listened to the audio or read the transcript?  Stu was quite measured and could not get a word in edgeways.  But, because he didn't say, "yes you are right", he is now the subject of a Communications Commission investigation and suspension. 

Like I already said I don't really think a suspension was appropriate, I am interested to know why MR thought it was if anyone knows that.

I am disappointed Stu was not able to turn it into any kind of discussion and I do think that falls more on him as the host rather than the caller. But maybe he just wanted to be a shock jock idk.