Jump to content

David Starkey in Trouble Now


Danger-Mouse
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, chrisjpainter said:

quoting dictionaries isn't helping. You've not said why it's acceptable to express anger and frustration towards a group of people because of the colour of their skin.

Because that's the way our damn language works.

Understand yet?

 He's not expressing anger at blacks. He's expressing anger at people claiming slavery is genocide.

Edited by Danger-Mouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr_Nobody said:

Because that's the way our damn language works.

Understand yet?

why are you expressing anger and frustration at the language? Go on justify it. Words have meaning. they have connotations. you can't just throw any old dolphin in and say that's just how language works so it's fine. 

And you have to remember what the context and history is with Starky. He caused a furore a few years ago for voicing opinions in a similar tone, so he should know damn well why it's not acceptable. There we go, expressing anger and frustration, because he's failed to learn a lesson from past experience. Justified use of 'damn'

Now look at the context he was using it in. We're talking about expressing anger and frustration at black people. And the context?  Slavery not being genocide because of the survival of 'damn black' people. The expression of anger and frustration in the context he's using can only come from two things: 

a) purely and solely because they're black or 

b) Because black people lived. 

Both options are racist. And you can't just toss it away and say, 'oh that's not how language works.' It is exactly how language works. You can't use a word that means to express anger and frustration but say it doesn't mean to express anger and frustration, which is exactly what you're trying to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Mr_Nobody said:

Because that's the way our damn language works.

Understand yet?

 He's not expressing anger at blacks. He's expressing anger at people claiming slavery is genocide.

No he's not. Because he didn't say 'those damn people who say slavery's genocide.' He said:

'Slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain would there? You know, an awful lot of them survived.'

The 'damn' comes in a separate clause to 'slavery was not genocide'. The focus of the expression of anger is separated from it and is instead attached to 'blacks'. The structure of the quote means that 'blacks' are independent of those saying slavery was genocide. This is further backed up by what he says next: 'You know an awful lot of THEM survived'. That 'them' can only be the 'damn blacks'. The people that said slavery was genocide do not feature as either subjects or objects anywhere in the sentence. It cannot be those people, then, that are damned. Also it'd make no logical sense, because there are millions of people in Black Lives Matter (the theme of the interview) who are not black. They can't be damned blacks. Unless he's saying those that are black in BLM are damned, but those that aren't are not. In which case...racist.

Edited by chrisjpainter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chrisjpainter said:

why are you expressing anger and frustration at the language? Go on justify it.

o

Thank you! You just proved my point! I'm not frustrated at language only your interpretation of it.

I love the English language. It's just frustrating when someone doesn't see that it is at times vague and may be interpreted in multiple ways. 

Again, one more time. You stated Starkey's comment was "inescapably racist". I said it wasn't.

I don't know if Starkey said it in a racist manner but then again neither do you. It's just your opinion of what he meant when he said it. 

Hence the comment is not inescapably racist.

Damn can be used in several ways so you cannot state with 100% certainty which way he was using it.

You can say I'm playing semantics or splitting hairs and you would be correct but that does not change the fact that his statement is open to interpretation.

That's it. End of discussion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr_Nobody said:

Thank you! You just proved my point! I'm not frustrated at language only your interpretation of it.

I love the English language. It's just frustrating when someone doesn't see that it is at times vague and may be interpreted in multiple ways. 

Again, one more time. You stated Starkey's comment was "inescapably racist". I said it wasn't.

I don't know if Starkey said it in a racist manner but then again neither do you. It's just your opinion of what he meant when he said it. 

Hence the comment is not inescapably racist.

Damn can be used in several ways so you cannot state with 100% certainty which way he was using it.

You can say I'm playing semantics or splitting hairs and you would be correct but that does not change the fact that his statement is open to interpretation.

That's it. End of discussion.

 

You haven't proved that it can be taken in a multiple ways. You've tried to prove it by saying damn can be taken in multiple ways, and then badly formulated one way. I think your point is that it's often used flippantly, with no deep rooted significance behind it. Except to prove your point you quoted a dictionary that required the expression and frustration, which is the very thing you're trying to avoid proving. If 'damn' can mean that (and I notice you only quoted one meaning) then it completely disproves your argument that it can be said flippantly without any emotive significance. What you should have done is scroll through the definitions to find something like this:

damn
/ (dæm) /

interjection

slang an exclamation of annoyance (often in exclamatory phrases such as damn it! damn you! etc)
informal an exclamation of surprise or pleasure (esp in the exclamatory phrase damn me!)

adjective

(prenominal) slang deserving damnation; detestable

adverb, adjective (prenominal)

slang (intensifier)damn fool; a damn good pianist
 
But that doesn't particularly help, because the context is pejorative. There is no room for jokey, flippant language when talking about genocide and slavery, neither is there any justification for using 'damn' in 'surprise or pleasure', or any oxymoronic potential as in 'damn good pianist'. 
It comes down to doubt and reasonable doubt. You could doubt he meant it as a racist term. Would it be reasonable doubt? Hardly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...