Middle

[Declan]

Because he was nervous calling the radio?

Why's it relevant?

[P.K.]

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...?

[Peter Layman]

29 minutes ago, Declan said:

Because he was nervous calling the radio?

Why's it relevant?

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

[SleepyJoe]

Activists?

[Roger Mexico]

6 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

But isn't the term 'white privilege' inherently racist?

No more than reporting a crime is inherently criminal.  Don't be silly.

[Declan]

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 October 2, 2021 by Declan

[Stu Peters]

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.

[Roger Mexico]

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.

[Declan]

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.

[HeliX]

I wrote this post down before I typed it. Probably makes me a degenerate or something.

[HeliX]

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.

[Declan]

34 minutes ago, HeliX said:

I wrote this post down before I typed it. Probably makes me a degenerate or something.

Old skool!

[P.K.]

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.

[wrighty]

PK’s ranting - clueless 🙄

[P.K.]

4 minutes ago, wrighty said:

PK’s ranting - clueless 🙄

Great contribution!

I never rant. But I do get slightly annoyed sometimes...