Cancel Culture



Oh shit. What did the left do to drive away this fine woman?



Oh. Ohhhh.




Hmm. 24 hours is a very flexible unit of measurement.
 

Voting for a political candidate is now cancelling their opponent. Sure, ok, got it.

I think we can safely say that the idea of "cancel culture" has been beaten soundly to death. By the Harper's letter, mind. Senator Loeffler just put a few rounds in the corpse for good measure.
 
Most of the people I see reported being "cancelled", I've never heard of in the first place.

Who cares?

People need to get off twitter.
 


Hmm. 24 hours is a very flexible unit of measurement.




cLe0wE5.jpg
 
not sure which thread this goes in, general culture war nonsense

 
Whats the story with George RR Martin and the Hugo awards then? Been accused of racism for mispronouncing names, must be more to it than that?
 
Whats the story with George RR Martin and the Hugo awards then? Been accused of racism for mispronouncing names, must be more to it than that?
Misspronouncing a name is racist now? He also joked about the Oscar statue being a eunuch. Deary me, off with his head.
 
Misspronouncing a name is racist now? He also joked about the Oscar statue being a eunuch. Deary me, off with his head.

The whole controversy seems confusing to be honest, he's also being criticized for mentioning historic authors like HP Lovecraft and John W. Campbell who are considered racists. Fair enough i could understand the criticism if only for the fact that they were being awarded posthumous Hugos at the show and he was the presenter. In which case what was he supposed to do?
 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...am-giant-Ben-Jerrys-overpriced-junk-food.html
Freeze them out: Call for boycott of 'woke' US ice-cream company Ben & Jerry's for condemning UK attempts to curb Channel migrants (and a reminder of how former hippy founders sold out to multinational Unilever)

The right says lets cancel ice cream because they dared to suggest humanity towards a group of vulnerable people.

It was an ill judged tweet tbf. A lot of the migrants are attempting dangerous crossings for economic reasons. If they were simply just fleeing war or persecution to find safety they’d have already found that in other parts of Europe.
 
It was an ill judged tweet tbf. A lot of the migrants are attempting dangerous crossings for economic reasons. If they were simply just fleeing war or persecution to find safety they’d have already found that in other parts of Europe.

Jesus Christ.
 
It was an ill judged tweet tbf. A lot of the migrants are attempting dangerous crossings for economic reasons. If they were simply just fleeing war or persecution to find safety they’d have already found that in other parts of Europe.
Maybe Nigel Farage convinced them the EU is shite and they decided the place to be is post brexit England. The land of plenty.
 
A lot of the migrants are attempting dangerous crossings for economic reasons

Ah yes, that common phenomenon whereby people regularly undertake dangerous crossings that imperil the safety of themselves and their family for *checks notes* economic reasons. Nothing compels you to get on an overcrowded small dinghy with your children to cross the Channel like the chance of a few extra quid in your pocket. People are notorious for taking such journeys in spite of enjoying reliable access to the most basic levels of shelter, food, and employment/income.
 
Ah yes, that common phenomenon whereby people regularly undertake dangerous crossings that imperil the safety of themselves and their family for *checks notes* economic reasons. Nothing compels you to get on an overcrowded small dinghy with your children to cross the Channel like the chance of a few extra quid in your pocket. People are notorious for taking such journeys in spite of enjoying reliable access to the most basic levels of shelter, food, and employment/income.

Most are young men travelling without children so let’s drop that canard based on one emotive photograph. What is preventing them seeking asylum in France as opposed to the UK? Whether the UK should increase its share of the refugee/migrant burden is a valid question (it should IMO, within reason) but once they have reached the EU (certainly the western half), the decision to keep moving cannot be ascribed to basic self-preservation instincts.
 
Most are young men travelling without children so let’s drop that canard based on one emotive photograph. What is preventing them seeking asylum in France as opposed to the UK? Whether the UK should increase its share of the refugee/migrant burden is a valid question (it should IMO, within reason) but once they have reached the EU (certainly the western half), the decision to keep moving cannot be ascribed to basic self-preservation instincts.

We know families make the same perilous journey, so let’s not drop that canard just because it’s convenient to your argument. Why are these families and young men making this decision if not for their ‘basic self-preservation instincts’? They don’t make that journey out of some calculated economic decision as you seem to imply, they make it because they are fecking desperate, exhausted other options and feel it is their only viable route left. Nobody would rationally make that decision if they were having their basic needs met where they were, or felt that they would be met for the foreseeable future.
 
We know families make the same perilous journey, so let’s not drop that canard just because it’s convenient to your argument. Why are these families and young men making this decision if not for their ‘basic self-preservation instincts’? They don’t make that journey out of some calculated economic decision as you seem to imply, they make it because they are fecking desperate, exhausted other options and feel it is their only viable route left. Nobody would rationally make that decision if they were having their basic needs met where they were, or felt that they would be met for the foreseeable future.

As per usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

To say that no one would make that trip for economic reasons is extremely doubtful.
 
Feck BnJ, surely the point is about right wing Tory pigs calling for a boycott of Ice cream, all the while condemning cancel culture as a lefty, Marxist conspiracy. When these hideous Tory pigs are condemned for their far-right or racist or transphobic or other bigoted views - and actions, they scream like banshees about the censorial left, freedom of speech and the cultural harm of woke boycotts. When their Tory pig feckery world view is criticised by a frozen dessert they melt like snowflakes under piss.

It's only ice cream you totally shit people, you can still be racist if you want to, and you want to.
 
Looks like Andrew Neil pretty much nailed it in his reply to them.

It is just another case of vacuous corporate virtue signalling and nothing more.

Don’t BnJ have a history of social activism?
 
They do. Loads of corporations cynically try to exploit the “woke dollar”, especially recently, but that doesn’t mean that none of them are well intentioned. The BnJ guys have a long history of trying to do the right thing.

I wasn't sure but had seen that implied in memes, which we all know is the most accurate source of information. Think the bolded is very true, even if it can be hard to not be too cynical sometimes with some of the corporate hypocrisy we see.
 
I don't know if this has been posted in this thread before, but it sums up everything that needs to be said on the topic, imo.



"I'm a fallible human being. I try not to make mistakes. I don't do it on purpose. But when I slip up, I refuse to then be cast away forever. Human beings are capable of change and decency and doing better. And so I believe that young people in particular needs to see that you shouldn't be afraid of putting your hand up or admitting to your own ignorance as long as you're consistently trying to do better... I think the idea of this moral superiority obsession of the last couple of years is stopping people from asking really important questions.
 
Jesus Christ.

Ah yes, that common phenomenon whereby people regularly undertake dangerous crossings that imperil the safety of themselves and their family for *checks notes* economic reasons. Nothing compels you to get on an overcrowded small dinghy with your children to cross the Channel like the chance of a few extra quid in your pocket. People are notorious for taking such journeys in spite of enjoying reliable access to the most basic levels of shelter, food, and employment/income.

Seems pretty obvious to me that France is safe...there’s reasons they’re going the extra mile to get to the UK and it isn’t safety.
 
Seems pretty obvious to me that France is safe...there’s reasons they’re going the extra mile to get to the UK and it isn’t safety.

Yeah they're just trying to escape abject, life threatening poverty and silly economic things like that, what opportunistic arseholes! It's pretty similar to tradies going to Australia for a few extra quid a week.
 
Yeah they're just trying to escape abject, life threatening poverty and silly economic things like that, what opportunistic arseholes! It's pretty similar to tradies going to Australia for a few extra quid a week.

It appears that unless a refugee is literally fleeing at gunpoint, the decisions are just economic. In the same way I might walk an extra few hundred metres to go to a shop I know does a good loaf of bread cheaper than elsewhere, they get on a dinghy and risk their life and often their families life for simple economic considerations too.
 
Yeah they're just trying to escape abject, life threatening poverty and silly economic things like that, what opportunistic arseholes! It's pretty similar to tradies going to Australia for a few extra quid a week.

Erm...I’m not bothered about people trying to get here I’m just pointing out that if it was simply safety they were worried about they’d set up camp in the first country that offered it. Not sure why that’s such a controversial view point?
 
Erm...I’m not bothered about people trying to get here I’m just pointing out that if it was simply safety they were worried about they’d set up camp in the first country that offered it. Not sure why that’s such a controversial view point?
I think you might want to update you're idea of safety tbh.
 
I'm not sold on this idea of expressing woke opinions reaps one loads of tangible benefits.
Also the right has a way of shutting down anybody questioning status quo or at times merely expressing any leftist opinion by using virtue signalling as a pejorative rather than entertaining the notion that someone might actually genuinely arrive at a leftist opinion that reflects their own morality or sincerely beliefs having arrived at that by critical thinking/considering the arguments.

Its designed to shut down public expression of leftist sentiment. See the abuse Gary Linekar gets in his mentions and in the tabloids. I mean the line with him was "why don't you house one" and he's recently contacted Refugees at home to do exactly that but the abuse hasn't stopped and the racists commenting are shifting their goalposts.

So I don't see what the net benefit political capital somebody like Linekar would have to gain by expressing said opinions when he could just as easily make bank by being quiet, having banal opinions when asked for and probably save himself from a lot of abuse.

Ditto Ben and Jerry's, honestly doubt the progressives that are retweeting them on social media would make a substantial difference to many more of their products being consumed. And by expressing their opinion they risk losing their racist-y customer base too.

I get the right not seeing how cancel culture tactics is a problem on their end of the ideological spectrum (they don't strike me as being particularly self-aware) but its beyond me how many sensible centrist types fall for this shit while not seeing the irony of publications with national distribution online and in print moaning about their voices being silenced, repeatedly.