Cancel Culture

Man of Leisure said:
Not a fan of any of them. Shame Bear got booted off so soon.
Click to expand...
Ahh a fellow Challenge fan. Not the only one after all.

Speaking of Bear though, it’s a good comparison of how ridiculous and fake some of these decisions are considering the amount of shit he has said and done.

MTV very happily throw Dee under the bus to save their image and pretend like they give a damn but they obviously don’t. They edited her out of last nights episode and it didn’t even make any sense in the end, which was annoying for me But beyond that it’s a perfect example of picking and choosing when to feel outraged and suddenly pretend to stand up for a cause. Camilla on a previous season called Leroy the n word but it was swept under the carpet.

As you mention Bear, he’s posted a picture of a 15 year old in his bed after having sex with her. He’s also just recently had a friend post a video about how he supports BLM and now wants to give all the black women a try.

Bayleigh has multiple times called someone a paki and told them to go to Pakistan.

Swaggy set up a cancer charity event for a Big Brother cast member and then kept all the money. Then attacked the family of the cancer patient because he no longer had cancer and didn’t need the money.

Additionally, there have been several other cases of racism, assault and even rape on the show.

This isn’t particularly cancel culture I guess but I’d say its closely related. These reality show contestants are poked and prodded to be more outlandish and crazy for MTV (or whichever channel) but as soon the backlash outweighs the financial gain for them they are immediately kicked out the door with no regards. It’s an absolute toxic and vile culture which is glorified. We’ve seen it with Caroline Flack and several other Love Island contestants who have committed suicide off the back of it.

Wes has now said he’s got Dee into a mental health facility because he fears she’ll hurt herself.

I don’t see how vilifying and attacking people to drive them to suicide is a help or why it is acceptable.
 
Leroy The Red said:
Great post, there’s a poster in here you mentioned in another thread as being a serial offender with this sort of posting and they did exactly that to to me in another thread.
Click to expand...
Yup. Been there too. He accused me of saying something I hadn't said, or even got close to saying. Then followed the familiar pattern of creating straw man after straw man when it became painfully apparent he couldn't add substance to his original accusation, then finished by calling me a 'sealion,' despite interrupting me in the first place.
 
limerickcitykid said:
Ahh a fellow Challenge fan. Not the only one after all.

Speaking of Bear though, it’s a good comparison of how ridiculous and fake some of these decisions are considering the amount of shit he has said and done.

MTV very happily throw Dee under the bus to save their image and pretend like they give a damn but they obviously don’t. They edited her out of last nights episode and it didn’t even make any sense in the end, which was annoying for me But beyond that it’s a perfect example of picking and choosing when to feel outraged and suddenly pretend to stand up for a cause. Camilla on a previous season called Leroy the n word but it was swept under the carpet.

As you mention Bear, he’s posted a picture of a 15 year old in his bed after having sex with her. He’s also just recently had a friend post a video about how he supports BLM and now wants to give all the black women a try.

Bayleigh has multiple times called someone a paki and told them to go to Pakistan.

Swaggy set up a cancer charity event for a Big Brother cast member and then kept all the money. Then attacked the family of the cancer patient because he no longer had cancer and didn’t need the money.

Additionally, there have been several other cases of racism, assault and even rape on the show.

This isn’t particularly cancel culture I guess but I’d say its closely related. These reality show contestants are poked and prodded to be more outlandish and crazy for MTV (or whichever channel) but as soon the backlash outweighs the financial gain for them they are immediately kicked out the door with no regards. It’s an absolute toxic and vile culture which is glorified. We’ve seen it with Caroline Flack and several other Love Island contestants who have committed suicide off the back of it.

Wes has now said he’s got Dee into a mental health facility because he fears she’ll hurt herself.

I don’t see how vilifying and attacking people to drive them to suicide is a help or why it is acceptable.
Click to expand...

I think one of the main questions in all of this, is why you are watching what sounds like a steaming pile of shit of a show.
 
ivaldo said:
Yup. Been there too. He accused me of saying something I hadn't said, or even got close to saying. Then followed the familiar pattern of creating straw man after straw man when it became painfully apparent he couldn't add substance to his original accusation, then finished by calling me a 'sealion,' despite interrupting me in the first place.
Click to expand...
Haha, he’s a shitbag of a poster.

ivaldo said:
Inbetweeners as well.
Click to expand...
Turns out that was cancelled because of a rights issue.
 
ivaldo said:
Yup. Been there too. He accused me of saying something I hadn't said, or even got close to saying. Then followed the familiar pattern of creating straw man after straw man when it became painfully apparent he couldn't add substance to his original accusation, then finished by calling me a 'sealion,' despite interrupting me in the first place.
Click to expand...

How do you interrupt someone on a forum :lol:
 
Conor said:
How do you interrupt someone on a forum :lol:
Click to expand...
All right, inserted himself into a conversation I was having with someone else, shot down a point I didn't make, then when his straw man was pointed out, fell back on calling me a sealion.
 
V.O. said:
I don't think anybody who spends a lot of time thinking about politics or morality and is already firmly on one side of the spectrum is going to be pushed to the other by this or by much else. However, I do think that a majority of people just aren't that politically conscious at all and can be moved to vote for one lot or the other depending on whose story they like better.

It's not cancel culture itself that's the problem I'm describing, though it is definitely symptomatic of it. It's the strong over-emphasis on tag/label based identity politics. Over the last few years, the way the left views the world has been shaped into an oppression vs. privilege dichotomy based wholly on your tags/labels and the sanctity of them. People are viewed largely as the sum of these labels and your privilege/oppression score becomes how much society should care about you.

The story from the left used to be "If your life is shit, it's not your fault mate. You're being exploited by the rich and they've pulled the fecking ladder up behind them." If you're a straight white bloke the implied story from the left now is "Well, actually mate, you won the demographic lottery! You're privileged. If your life is shit, it's your own fecking fault." If you're from a poor single parent council estate home and you haven't got a pot to piss in, you probably don't feel very fecking privileged. At that point, the "It's them forrins" bollocks spouted by the right becomes a much more appealing story.

Discrimination in all its forms is fecking abhorrent, but the way to fight it isn't to keep score of all the possible ways that somebody could be discriminated against and attack anybody who didn't sufficiently walk on eggshells around somebody else's labels. That only emphasises the differences between people. It's doing the job of the right for them. When it gets to some of the ridiculous lengths where the idea of somebody being offended is seen as bad as actual violence or the obvious economic and social injustices these groups DO suffer, it trivialises the important shit. It needs instead to be Pauli Murray's "When my brothers try to draw a circle to exclude me, I shall draw a larger circle to include them".
Click to expand...

That’s an absolute doozy of a post.
 
Olly Gunnar Solskjær said:
I can't believe you're trying to cancel me.

I mentioned right wing politics because it usually talked about by right wing people (or people that just happen to like talking about a lot of right wing viewpoints and buzzwords), or said that it's one of the things causing people to turn right wing, and it gets a bit tiring going over these kind of things over and over and over again.

I apologize if I offended you.
Click to expand...
A faithful little ideologue you are. Bravo.
 
V.O. said:
I don't think anybody who spends a lot of time thinking about politics or morality and is already firmly on one side of the spectrum is going to be pushed to the other by this or by much else. However, I do think that a majority of people just aren't that politically conscious at all and can be moved to vote for one lot or the other depending on whose story they like better.

It's not cancel culture itself that's the problem I'm describing, though it is definitely symptomatic of it. It's the strong over-emphasis on tag/label based identity politics. Over the last few years, the way the left views the world has been shaped into an oppression vs. privilege dichotomy based wholly on your tags/labels and the sanctity of them. People are viewed largely as the sum of these labels and your privilege/oppression score becomes how much society should care about you.

The story from the left used to be "If your life is shit, it's not your fault mate. You're being exploited by the rich and they've pulled the fecking ladder up behind them." If you're a straight white bloke the implied story from the left now is "Well, actually mate, you won the demographic lottery! You're privileged. If your life is shit, it's your own fecking fault." If you're from a poor single parent council estate home and you haven't got a pot to piss in, you probably don't feel very fecking privileged. At that point, the "It's them forrins" bollocks spouted by the right becomes a much more appealing story.

Discrimination in all its forms is fecking abhorrent, but the way to fight it isn't to keep score of all the possible ways that somebody could be discriminated against and attack anybody who didn't sufficiently walk on eggshells around somebody else's labels. That only emphasises the differences between people. It's doing the job of the right for them. When it gets to some of the ridiculous lengths where the idea of somebody being offended is seen as bad as actual violence or the obvious economic and social injustices these groups DO suffer, it trivialises the important shit. It needs instead to be Pauli Murray's "When my brothers try to draw a circle to exclude me, I shall draw a larger circle to include them".
Click to expand...
That's a pretty broad generalization of 'the left'. Weren't you the one who posted something like "I used to be left leaning, buuuut...." ? This just looks like a longer version of it. That's like me saying anyone who leans to the right are assholes and Trump supporters and xenophobes, when that clearly isn't the case. You are against the liberal elite, the patronizing folk, PC culture, I get it. You even have the obligatory "racism of any kind is wrong" in there, as if that were ever in question.

Just curious though, what do you think is important shit?
 
mu4c_20le said:
That's a pretty broad generalization of 'the left'. Weren't you the one who posted something like "I used to be left leaning, buuuut...." ? This just looks like a longer version of it. That's like me saying anyone who leans to the right are assholes and Trump supporters and xenophobes, when that clearly isn't the case. You are against the liberal elite, the patronizing folk, PC culture, I get it. You even have the obligatory "racism of any kind is wrong" in there, as if that were ever in question.

Just curious though, what do you think is important shit?
Click to expand...
I believe he stated he still leans politically to the left. People can (and bloody should!) reflect and criticise their own beliefs from time to time. His points are entirely valid. Don’t be deliberately argumentative - you know he is not referring to absolutely every single left leaning individual.
 
V.O. said:
The story from the left used to be "If your life is shit, it's not your fault mate. You're being exploited by the rich and they've pulled the fecking ladder up behind them." If you're a straight white bloke the implied story from the left now is "Well, actually mate, you won the demographic lottery! You're privileged. If your life is shit, it's your own fecking fault." If you're from a poor single parent council estate home and you haven't got a pot to piss in, you probably don't feel very fecking privileged. At that point, the "It's them forrins" bollocks spouted by the right becomes a much more appealing story.
Click to expand...

I recognise Corbyn and Bernie as being left-wing politicians, the most high-profile ones in the English-speakng world. Look through any of their speeches or ads for anything like the 2nd message. It's not there. While the right was doing its rotating list of stories with which to target Corbyn, they settled multple times on lack of female representation in the shadow cabinet.
Corbyn's campaign was 'For the many, not the few"
Bernie's was "Not me, us"
Inclusive! Both were destroyed at the ballot box.
Did you like Corbyn btw? I know most people in this thread disliked him.

Jacobin is the largest selling leftist magazine in the US. Here are their articles on privilege:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/trump-black-lives-racism-sexism-anti-inauguration/
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/1-99-percent-class-inequality/

Here is the main statement from the DSA, which at least till the start of the year was the biggest left organisation in the US
Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.
Click to expand...

This is the main statement from Momentum
Momentum is a people-powered, vibrant movement. We aim to transform the Labour Party, our communities and Britain in the interests of the many, not the few.
Click to expand...
2 electoral losses in a row, including an intra-party one.
 
Last edited:
jungledrums said:
I believe he stated he still leans politically to the left. People can (and bloody should!) reflect and criticise their own beliefs from time to time. His points are entirely valid. Don’t be deliberately argumentative - you know he is not referring to absolutely every single left leaning individual.
Click to expand...
No, I don't know, really. Nothing wrong with criticism but it comes off as one sided and misleading. Just because I didn't join in on the praise of the post doesn't mean i'm being contrarian; i made my point and I'd like to see him explain.
 
berbatrick said:
I recognise Corbyn and Bernie as being left-wing politicians, the most high-profile ones in the English-speakng world. Look through any of their speeches or ads for anything like the 2nd message. It's not there. While the right was doing its rotating list of stories with which to target Corbyn, they settled multple times on lack of female representation in the shadow cabinet.
Corbyn's campaign was 'For the many, not the few"
Bernie's was "Not me, us"
Inclusive! Both were destroyed at the ballot box. Did you vote for Corbyn btw?

Jacobin is the largest selling leftist magazine in the US. Here are their articles on privilege:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/trump-black-lives-racism-sexism-anti-inauguration/
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/1-99-percent-class-inequality/

Here is the main statement from the DSA, which at least till Jan 20 was the biggest left organisation in the US


This is the main statement from Momentum

2 electoral losses in a row, including an intra-party one.
Click to expand...

I’ve probably missed the point you’re making but isn’t it possible that Corbyn and Sanders just aren’t very good at winning votes? They do both seem quite effective at winning fanatical devotion from the identity politics obsessed left-wingers alluded to in the post by @V.O. but evidently that’s quite a niche crowd (despite the power they wield on social media)
 
Conor said:
I think one of the main questions in all of this, is why you are watching what sounds like a steaming pile of shit of a show.
Click to expand...
Because I enjoy watching it and enjoy watching people compete against each other in physical and mental challenges. Same reason anyone watches any tv show.

Which isn’t relevant at all to the issue of these people’s mental health and lack of support given to them.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
They do both seem quite effective at winning fanatical devotion from the identity politics obsessed left-wingers alluded to in the post by @V.O. but evidently that’s quite a niche crowd (despite the power they wield on social media)
Click to expand...

You're really chatting shit about stuff you know nothing about.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I’ve probably missed the point you’re making but isn’t it possible that Corbyn and Sanders just aren’t very good at winning votes? They do both seem quite effective at winning fanatical devotion from the identity politics obsessed left-wingers alluded to in the post by @V.O. but evidently that’s quite a niche crowd (despite the power they wield on social media)
Click to expand...

oh they loved him, really
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...e-sanders-identity-politics-class-race-debate

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-bros-are-loud-proud-and-toxic-to-bernie-sanders-campaign

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/here-comes-the-berniebro-bernie-sanders/411070/

https://time.com/longform/bernie-sanders-2020/

https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...e-isnt-enough-to-win-over-black-voters-118197
 
V.O. said:
I don't think anybody who spends a lot of time thinking about politics or morality and is already firmly on one side of the spectrum is going to be pushed to the other by this or by much else. However, I do think that a majority of people just aren't that politically conscious at all and can be moved to vote for one lot or the other depending on whose story they like better.

It's not cancel culture itself that's the problem I'm describing, though it is definitely symptomatic of it. It's the strong over-emphasis on tag/label based identity politics. Over the last few years, the way the left views the world has been shaped into an oppression vs. privilege dichotomy based wholly on your tags/labels and the sanctity of them. People are viewed largely as the sum of these labels and your privilege/oppression score becomes how much society should care about you.

The story from the left used to be "If your life is shit, it's not your fault mate. You're being exploited by the rich and they've pulled the fecking ladder up behind them." If you're a straight white bloke the implied story from the left now is "Well, actually mate, you won the demographic lottery! You're privileged. If your life is shit, it's your own fecking fault." If you're from a poor single parent council estate home and you haven't got a pot to piss in, you probably don't feel very fecking privileged. At that point, the "It's them forrins" bollocks spouted by the right becomes a much more appealing story.

Discrimination in all its forms is fecking abhorrent, but the way to fight it isn't to keep score of all the possible ways that somebody could be discriminated against and attack anybody who didn't sufficiently walk on eggshells around somebody else's labels. That only emphasises the differences between people. It's doing the job of the right for them. When it gets to some of the ridiculous lengths where the idea of somebody being offended is seen as bad as actual violence or the obvious economic and social injustices these groups DO suffer, it trivialises the important shit. It needs instead to be Pauli Murray's "When my brothers try to draw a circle to exclude me, I shall draw a larger circle to include them".
Click to expand...
Where have you actually seen this?

I know the right likes to claim that the left hates white males, but I haven't seen this new "implied" messaging from the left anywhere.
 
Mogget said:
Where have you actually seen this?

I know the right likes to claim that the left hates white males, but I haven't seen this new "implied" messaging from the left anywhere.
Click to expand...
It's one of the many things that gets twisted to push agendas (not saying V.O. is pushing any agenda before anyone takes issue with that, but if anything has possibly picked up on it from someone or some place that has)

"White privilege doesn't mean your life hasn't been hard. It just means the color of your skin isn't one of the things that makes it harder.
 
 
berbatrick said:
I recognise Corbyn and Bernie as being left-wing politicians, the most high-profile ones in the English-speakng world. Look through any of their speeches or ads for anything like the 2nd message. It's not there. While the right was doing its rotating list of stories with which to target Corbyn, they settled multple times on lack of female representation in the shadow cabinet.
Corbyn's campaign was 'For the many, not the few"
Bernie's was "Not me, us"
Inclusive! Both were destroyed at the ballot box.
Did you like Corbyn btw? I know most people in this thread disliked him.

Jacobin is the largest selling leftist magazine in the US. Here are their articles on privilege:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/trump-black-lives-racism-sexism-anti-inauguration/
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/1-99-percent-class-inequality/

Here is the main statement from the DSA, which at least till the start of the year was the biggest left organisation in the US


This is the main statement from Momentum

2 electoral losses in a row, including an intra-party one.
Click to expand...
I think you are reducing his point to those in the spotlight: prominent media outlets, or prominent left leaning politicians etc. I believe, when he talks about that growing belief, he refers mostly to subsections of the social media brigade.
Olly Gunnar Solskjær said:
It's one of the many things that gets twisted to push agendas (not saying V.O. is pushing any agenda before anyone takes issue with that, but if anything has possibly picked up on it from someone or some place that has)

"White privilege doesn't mean your life hasn't been hard. It just means the color of your skin isn't one of the things that makes it harder.
Click to expand...
Come on. You are surely better than this. People that disagree with you have not simply been misled by bitter, agenda-laden morons.
 
limerickcitykid said:
Because I enjoy watching it and enjoy watching people compete against each other in physical and mental challenges. Same reason anyone watches any tv show.

Which isn’t relevant at all to the issue of these people’s mental health and lack of support given to them.
Click to expand...

It seems a bit contradictory to support a reality tv show that hires people with serious issues and puts them in a room together for the sake of 'entertainment'(so far you've listed racists, possible ephebophiles/statutory rapists, and con artists as the contestants), while also lamenting the lack of support the show gives them. Maybe watch less crap shows?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Probably! But at least it’s coherent shit. Your posts tend to be very obtuse. If you want people to understand your point you need to try and explain yourself better. Otherwise what’s the point of posting at all?
Click to expand...

I think my post is clear, and it should be very clear for @V.O. who claims to be on the left.
Bernie and Corbyn ran class-based campaigns. In various different ways this is what they said
"If your life is shit, it's not your fault mate. You're being exploited by the rich and they've pulled the fecking ladder up behind them."
Apparently this is the messge of a left that no longer exists???

The largest leftist media I know of are all class-focused. Jacobin, Majority Report, Chapo are the ones I'm familiar with. Chapo started particularly due to the frustration of centrist Clintonite hacks using identity politics to attack Bernie.
Does that mean they argue that white privilege does not exist? No, but that does not mean they are saying " Well, actually mate, you won the demographic lottery!" This was a chapo segment where they disagree on the qs of identity politics but none of them say that.

So my thing is, this is the dominant political left as it exists, or at least existed 6 months ago till the first of 3 losses. A class-centric message. Not just is it evidently a message with a 2-5 W-L record, it is ignored by people like @V.O. who claim it is what they are looking for.


Pogue Mahone said:
That’s odd. Only looked at the first couple of links but they seem to support my point. Are you agreeing with me now?
Click to expand...

I'm saying the liberals attacked Bernie for being too focused on race. He did not get their support "in a cult-like way" or whatever.
 
jungledrums said:
Come on. You are surely better than this. People that disagree with you have not simply been misled by bitter, agenda-laden morons.
Click to expand...
Some people misunderstand what the term "white privilege" means, some of that is because of how it's presented, sometimes by people with agendas, other times for other reasons. I'm not sure what's so controversial about saying that.
 
Olly Gunnar Solskjær said:
Some people misunderstand what the term "white privilege" means, some of that is because of how it's presented, sometimes by people with agendas, other times for other reasons. I'm not sure what's so controversial about saying that.
Click to expand...
I have no issue with the quote.

You said: “... It's one of the many things that gets twisted to push agendas (not saying V.O. is pushing any agenda before anyone takes issue with that, but if anything has possibly picked up on it from someone or some place that has)”.

You basically reduced his argument to the ramblings of someone else with an agenda. Beyond being a bit rude, that sort of comment is hardly conducive to any sort of productive discussion.
 
Olly Gunnar Solskjær said:
It's one of the many things that gets twisted to push agendas (not saying V.O. is pushing any agenda before anyone takes issue with that, but if anything has possibly picked up on it from someone or some place that has)

"White privilege doesn't mean your life hasn't been hard. It just means the color of your skin isn't one of the things that makes it harder.
Click to expand...
Out of interest, wouldn't that make it a right and not a privilege?
 
jungledrums said:
I have no issue with the quote.

You said: “... It's one of the many things that gets twisted to push agendas (not saying V.O. is pushing any agenda before anyone takes issue with that, but if anything has possibly picked up on it from someone or some place that has)”.

You basically reduced his argument to the ramblings of someone else with an agenda. Beyond being a bit rude, that sort of comment is hardly conducive to any sort of productive discussion.
Click to expand...
I suggested it as a possibility (to Mogget's question asking where he had seen that definition of white privilege) because of how often it gets thrown around these days. It wasn't a criticism or me intending to be rude to V.O., any criticism would be saved for those that purposely use it wrongly in order to give people the wrong idea.
 
Is this really a "culture"?

It's another symptom of the tendancy for online behaviour to ignore common sense and revert to black and white style viewpoints. It's rarely correct to judge someone completely on what they said 20 seconds ago, never mind 6 years ago, but as soon as it's some writing on an internet page that is what people will do. They often have nothing else to measure their judgement against other than the statement itself.

There should maybe be some employment law that you can't be punished for social media comments over a certain age (doesn't mean you couldn't be criticised for them), but even that is muddy water. There's been a few instances where the stuff that's been dug up has been pretty bad.

berbatrick said:
You're really chatting shit about stuff you know nothing about.
Click to expand...

In fairness this could be a standard response to about 98% of any opinion on anything on the internet.
 
Fully Fledged said:
.
Click to expand...
how is this any different to what happens to anyone who puts themselves out there? everyone on tv gets abused online and i'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority of this abuse has feck all to do with overexaggerated niche cancellings by extremely online leftists, most of this abuse is coming from the same people it's always come from, middle aged divorcees with festering mental health problems
 
Play stupid games win stupid prizes. You have the right to say what you want but if it's in a private domain, you can get canceled.

Cancel culture and free speech fall under the same umbrella. Focusing on the extremes (which I dislike) doesn't mean it's wrong.
 
I think it's a silly trend, mostly about the people who do the protesting / the people who (think they should) feel offended. Last week it was all Dominic Cummings - we were all appalled, he must be sacked etc..., people calling for the governments head. Now it's just a little thing we were briefly irritated by, but as it turned out actually didn't give a shit about.

Witch hunt after witch hunt really. It's easy to be angry on the internet, but in real life do people actually care? As a culture people should stop it, because it undermines actual anger when it occasionally arises.
 
mu4c_20le said:
Weren't you the one who posted something like "I used to be left leaning, buuuut...." ? This just looks like a longer version of it.
Click to expand...
jungledrums said:
I believe he stated he still leans politically to the left.
Click to expand...

I'm being made to sound like Nick Clegg over here! For the record, I'm probably about as left 'leaning' as Scargill. :lol:

mu4c_20le said:
That's a pretty broad generalization of 'the left'
Click to expand...

It is, yeah. There's always going to be a tonne of caveats when you're talking about something as general as 'the left' or 'the right'. Would you disagree with the point I was making in doing so that there's been a big trend towards the kind of identity politics I'm describing in the past few years, though?

mu4c_20le said:
You even have the obligatory "[discrimination] of any kind is wrong" in there, as if that were ever in question.
Click to expand...

That's because the argument for that kind of politics is that it's anti-discrimination. Which it is. Therefore, by criticising it, I must be pro-discrimination. I'm sure if I used a specific example of a type of discrimination, I'd be merrily branded with the corresponding 'ist' or 'phobe', and that's it - opinion disregarded. My view is that it's not the best way to fight discrimination generally, and sure as shit isn't the best way to get any bugger who actually gives a feck about it anywhere near a position where they can make a meaningful difference.

berbatrick said:
I recognise Corbyn and Bernie as being left-wing politicians, the most high-profile ones in the English-speakng world. Look through any of their speeches or ads for anything like the 2nd message. It's not there. While the right was doing its rotating list of stories with which to target Corbyn, they settled multple times on lack of female representation in the shadow cabinet.
Corbyn's campaign was 'For the many, not the few"
Bernie's was "Not me, us"
Inclusive! Both were destroyed at the ballot box.
Did you like Corbyn btw? I know most people in this thread disliked him.
Click to expand...

Big fan of Corbyn, yeah. To me it's a case of 'right man, wrong time'. I think he got stuffed largely because he had a piss weak stance on brexit in an election that was always going to be about brexit. I think if brexit doesn't exist and that election is all about policy and message, it's a very different story.

On Sanders, I'm not familiar with the candidate selection process in the US, but my impression from afar is that the American system including the Democratic Party is set up in such a way that any fecker who isn't pro-capitalist, pro-corporate, and willing to play ball with the rogues' gallery from Apple to Zurich isn't going to be allowed to get anywhere the feck near the presidency.

mu4c_20le said:
Just curious though, what do you think is important shit?
Click to expand...

The shit that happening in America right now is a good place to start. That if you're black, you're going to be x times more like to be targeted by police, and in America, gunned the feck down like a rabid dog. The fact that if you stick the name 'Alan Jones' on a job application, it's 5 times more likely to get looked at than if it's 'Kelechi Adebayo' or 'Mohammed Iqbal'. Basically anything that has a meaningful impact on somebody's life.

As opposed to getting League of Gentlemen taken off Netflix because Papa Lazarou's facepaint is the wrong colour.

I reckon a good illustration of the wrong focus is the story about Hulk Hogan a few years ago. It was largely "Look! Hulk Hogan is a racist piece of shit because he said the n word!". No he isn't. Hulk Hogan is a racist piece of shit because in that same report he was on record as telling his son "I hope when we die, we don't come back as a couple of blacks". Hulk Hogan is a racist piece of shit because he didn't want his daughter to have anything to do with the black fella she was dating, simply because he was black. Now he's been able to rehabilitate his image to a degree because all anybody remembers is "he said the n word that one time".
 
noodlehair said:
There should maybe be some employment law that you can't be punished for social media comments over a certain age (doesn't mean you couldn't be criticised for them), but even that is muddy water. There's been a few instances where the stuff that's been dug up has been pretty bad.
Click to expand...

I'd agree there probably should be a statue of limitations on certain things and I've always been a bit uncomfortable with that type of thing.

It is muddy water as you say but dragging up someone's idiotic comments made when they were 14 or 15 never sits well with me.

I'm glad we had no social media back when I was that age. I'd have deleted the lot by now, not that there'd have been anything racist or dodgy in that sense but it'd have been an ocean of cringe.
 
Camilo said:
I think it's a silly trend, mostly about the people who do the protesting / the people who (think they should) feel offended. Last week it was all Dominic Cummings - we were all appalled, he must be sacked etc..., people calling for the governments head. Now it's just a little thing we were briefly irritated by, but as it turned out actually didn't give a shit about.

Witch hunt after witch hunt really. It's easy to be angry on the internet, but in real life do people actually care? As a culture people should stop it, because it undermines actual anger when it occasionally arises.
Click to expand...

Well he should have fecking resigned but if he flat out refuses what are you gonna do.

A lot of the time politicians over here in Ireland just brazen it out and rarely step down but it doesn't mean we forget or that we don't care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.