Is he though? Biden is about as corporate as it gets. There is no way this guy will hurt his rich buddies. He's not exactly the poster boy of socialism.
Cancel Culture
- Thread starter Buchan
- Start date
Doesn't he want a 67% wealth tax? Whether it goes through or is just empty words is another matter, but that it has even been mention will get rich people sweating. Some people's greed knows no bounds.
He is a terrible candidate but still infinitely better than the utter shit show he is up against.
this is an interesting view on cancel culture
btw, i think it really exists and that is a shame
Cancel culture is so insidious. First, your given a platform on the BBC, then the Jeremy Kyle show, then ITV start giving you a platform to say what you’d do as Prime Minister. These right-wing “celebs” stand no chance against the powerful left institutions 
PC gone mad on campus, who will stop these lefty professors
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/11/19/hoover-has-gone-too-far/
Came across this because the author's chess coach is a popular youtuber, and he mentioned it.
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/11/19/hoover-has-gone-too-far/
Came across this because the author's chess coach is a popular youtuber, and he mentioned it.
I mean this:
And this:
And this
i guess that even a redcafe scout will understand what i mean when i say that cancel culture exists
i guess that even a redcafe scout will understand what i mean when i say that cancel culture exists
Yet another disgusting attack on private property from the freedom hate conservative movement.
Oh, private property! That’s a good one!
They aren't cancelled and you've picked 3 good sources for the hysteria around politics in America.
One example, was kirk and owens being harrassed in a restaurant for what they think
The other was ben shapiro being denied to give a lecture in a university for what he thinks
The last was a teacher at an ivi league university being harassed by students for what he thinks
in my book, that is cancel culture: the idea that someone has the power to denny others to think differently and express it
Cancel culture is also about trying to public shame people. For already well-known people like Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro the only effect from this is they will get far bigger audience and more supporters.
ugh, he’s just trying to get publicity here. I’m not against him speaking and I don’t disagree with some of his points...but just rock up and be reasonable. He wanted that narrative of being denied entry.
I was talking about Kirk, Owens and Shapiro, i have no opinion on the university teacher. They think differently and have a massive platform to express it. They still do, so i don't see where the cancellation is coming from.
They're victims of a political atmosphere they helped create and perpetuate, so its hard to feel too sorry for them beyond finding it a sorry state of affairs. They're the counterpart to the left sjw harassing them in the street, they're as much as or a much larger problem.
Cancel culture is when someone does or says something controversial or inappropriate (which can be something they put on social media many years ago) that kicks off a wave of outrage online, that results in them being “cancelled” Which can mean a lot of different things but often involves losing a job or piece of work they might have got otherwise. When someone is cancelled it’s usually over a single incident and not something they wanted or expected to happen.
The examples you bring up here are a different phenomenon. Which would usually be called “no-platforming”. This is when people with controversial opinions are denied a platform to express them. The type of person who gets de-platformed has usually made a deliberate decision to make a career out of being controversial and are not surprised at all when they are refused a platform. In fact many of them (e.g. Shapiro) deliberately engineer situations like the one in the video you shared.
Cancel culture is mostly overhyped moral panic, by whiney snowflakey types with zero self-awareness and nothing interesting to say
Usually they'll whine about how their free speech is being stifled on platforms where they have access to a wide audience or national newspapers.
I don’t feel sorry for them, i feel sorry for the whole society that is in hands of a few that think their opinion is the only that should be heard and that they are entitled to stop not only others to talk, but others to listen
and if shapiro, owens and/or kirk ever forced someone to shut up and didn’t let other ideas be expressed i will also think they are part of the cancel culture and a disgrace for liberties
Tbf it’s the snowflakes types that are causing it.
Well, first "controversial" doesn't mean "wrong" or "hate speach", it just means it's not accepted by many. This happened through history many times and, here we are, the world is round and the universe doesn't turn around us.
who is to say what's "inappropriate"?
Not long ago the idea of gay people getting married was "inappropriate", now, at least were i leave, is a right
And Shapiro may have engineered situations like that. So? does it make it acceptable to be cancelled? what is it that he says that people who are not going to listen to him, feel they have the right to stop other people to do it? and who is going to make that decision? those kids? why? what gives them that right?
of course he wanted that, because one of his paradigms against them is exactly that
I wasn’t getting into the rights and wrongs of cancel culture or de-platforming. I was just explaining the difference.
Er......private property.
oh
ok
how was my "who's to say what's inappropriate?" speach
Rev Martin Luther King must be proud of me
stop it
you must know is not that
Proceeds to lecture about free speech
I’m basically on your side here. I’m not a fan of no-platforming, as I don’t like the idea of “protecting” anyone from ideas (obvious exception being hate speech etc) Plus I don’t like the way it gives these controversial opnions more power. Let them speak and let ridiculous ideas be ridiculed.
Having said that, I also don’t like the way twats like Ben Shapiro (and I really do think he’s a twat) have a whole grift around being no-platformed and love the attention it gives them. Plus this isn’t really about free speech. It’s about the freedom to decide who you do and don’t want to hire to speak at an event you’re organising.
Shapiro makes more money thanks to idiots that try to stop him, that's a really stupid paradox
and i also don't agree with most of what he says, but i think free speech is fundamental to make a society better
and the guys trying to stop him from speaking reminds me of some of the worst days this world saw
"When somebody tells me to 'stop being so sensitive', you know what? I feel a little like a nose being lectured by a fart. I am not the problem." - Hannah Gadsby
yes, that might be the case with some characters
what about anonymous scholars or professors that are harassed for having a different opinion on what to wear as a costume on thanks giving?
Did you listen to the security guard in the video ?
Putting aside the fact the likes of Shaprio don't give a shit about free speech or censorship('Free Speech" Conservatives never talk about the actual censorship of the Palestinian movement for example).
The reason Shaprio wasn't allowed into the lecture was because the university is privately owned and the owners didn't want him on site(Maybe due to his political views or that he looks like an extra from Willy Wonka). To quote the Texan philosopher "And that's the bottom line cause stone cold said so".
Now if you don't like this then buddy you've got an issue with private property and maybe a more democratic outlook is needed although oddly enough I don't think that would interest Shapiro.
Last edited:
you understand that i'm not a shapiro advocate, just someone that thinks a university should be open for discussion and that only a judge has the right to say that a speech is illegal and only after it has been said?
It only works this way for celebrities though who already have a platform. It's doesn't work this way for ordinary people.
Ok but you know the reason why he wasn't allowed into the campus and the lecture was because it's private property. He wasn't cancelled but denied access to private owned building.
Agree with you that university should be an open discussion(Which mean they would need to publicly owned, although really I would get rid of them). Disagree with the judge part.
Wasn't he invited to be a speaker? I thought I heard that from the conversation.
The judge part i take it from the Argentinian constitution. It copies most of the American one. It says that every Argentinian has the right to publicly express his opinion without prior censorship, meaning that only after he said something, a judge may rule it's against the law. You are free to say whatever you want, but not free of the consequences
And let's be honest the reason that Shapiro wasnt allowed in the university was that the authorities doesnt want him to speak there
The excuse was that is private property
What would you think if the "private property" excuse was given to deny access to Biden, Kamala Harris or Sanders?
Mostly likely but the safety officers said - "Bottom line it's private property ok and the proper procedures weren't filled out".
Basically it's not you're university so feck off or we will call the police.
Depends on what they talk about. 32 state legislatures in the United States have passed bills penalising organisations or individuals who support boycotts of Israel or of products from the occupied territories.
Boris in the UK wants to do the same here
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...l-boycott-ban-bds-queens-speech-a9253651.html