In reply to Tyler:
> Or not given Danny Baker was very much from the luvvie left side of the political spectrum.
The fact that the odd leftie gets caught up in the fray, like the spat between terfs and transgenders, is less a result of even-handedness and more a result of "anyone right of me" being deemed problematic. I don't think you can pretend outrage is being evenly applied across the political spectrum, though it would be fair to say the right is increasingly playing the left at its own game.
> I think its 2:1 (Farrage, Tommy Robinson:Femi) excluding that old duffer who spilt yogurt on himself.
I wasn't aware the old duffer spilt his yoghurt. Is that really the case?
> This might surprise you but I'd say its the side that has murdered a politician, that right wing politicians have said will begin civil unrest if they are ignored.
Civil unrest is likely given how polarised the issue is. As much as some on the right might be inciting it I think they are equally stating a reality. Its probably only the unlikelihood of Brexit happening which has prevented threats of unrest from Remainers. I'm sure if Remain had won the referendum 52 to 48, yet the Tories decided to go ahead with Brexit anyway, we'd be seeing just as much antagonism from the Remain camp.
I'm not enamoured with the Brexit ring-leaders, especially those on the hard-Brexit side. I just don't see the Remainers (or anti-Trumpers, as the recent protests at his visit showed) being much more peaceful or reasonable.
> I don't think it was incitement to rape either, I do think think it was an attempt to intimidate. This might be a bit too woke for you but the implication of "I wouldn't even rape you" is 'I could if I wanted'.
I can see how you could come to that impression. But I think he was simply trying to be as obnoxious as possible to someone who was using the fact that they were being trolled on social media to give them a free-pass on their lack of interest in male suicide statistics. Social media, and Twitter in particular, has a habit of leading to insane escalations in accusations and counter-statements. I can understand why he is unwilling to retract his comments especially if to do so would be to validate the claims being made against him (that he encourages rape, he supports rape, he threatens rape, etc) and to undermine his original point.
> Answer me this, can you really not appreciate there is a difference between the circumstances of Jo Brand's distasteful joke and the other examples given? Do you really not see there is a difference between how they might be received and processed by the respective audiences.
I can see how all these cases can be viewed differently. It's possible to view each as excusable or deplorable interchangeably, depending on what degree you are willing claim to be outraged.
What I don't get is how you can honestly be outraged about one, to the point that it requires summary dismissal from employment, while shrugging your shoulders at another. The distinctions seem to be arbitrary or concocted to suit a political standpoint. I'd like to wind back to a time where the comments were seen for what they are - poor jokes, not indicative of some greater failing or injustice in society. Unfortunately we're far beyond that as outrage culture has, over the last decade, become a very effective tool to shut down viewpoints you disagree with.