This post needs to be quoted every time someone complains about cancel culture.
The True Geordie
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
Ok you seem to be in the business of defending a sexual predator's right to make more money because you might like some songs while downplaying his crimes to 'issues' and that he's 'not nice' which is disturbing quite frankly. You probably should have picked a better example. We're done here.
Why isn’t James Corden the brand ambassador for Gymshark then?
Because he's a cnut
"R Kelly's issues".
The word "issues" is doing some pretty heavy lifting there!
The word "issues" is doing some pretty heavy lifting there!
I wouldn't summarise it like that but fair play, that wording certainly paints the picture you probably wish it to.
Last edited:
Perhaps. Another word could be used. 'Crimes'. Not sure that it matters much, we all know what is being discussed, and it's not as if I called them 'allegations' or something. His 'issues', his 'case', his 'crime', his 'appalling behaviour' - we know what I mean.
Now usually I don't do this but uh... Why are we talking about R Kelly?
Language is important. Convicted pedophile sex offences are not the same as 'issues', not even close. Moving on.
I think there's some misunderstanding on the subject personally. The take is often simplistic, if you 'oppose cancel culture' you are defending this action or that. I think the disapproval of the action is universally agreed in most cases. What is it in a human being that sees a 20 second clip on Twitter of something inappropriate that likely didn't upset them personally even though they doubtless disapprove and join hundreds of people trawling the net for their workplace or whatever which will not relent until they are sacked, kicked out of school, forced to move house or whatever? Like, surely it can't be as simple as 'we just don't like people saying things like that?' Is there not also something in us worth looking at regarding such a lynch mob mentality? Maybe it's just me, I don't know, because it appears most disagree. I just can't see that anything short of that is either 'agreeing' or 'defending' said actions. Opposing 'cancel culture' is taking issue with the lynch mob mentality or approach. It's having issue with the blood hounding. That surely doesn't mean that there is 'no accountability' otherwise. I had great respect for David Moyes standing up to it in the Kurt Zouma case. He didn't defend Zouma. He just said we will not be told how to punish him. The club fined him a quarter of a million pounds. But people always want you to lose everything. It's like something that needs to be sated within us.
Last edited:
Fair enough.
Exactly. I go there sometimes when Liverpool lose but there’s never a video of them talking how shit Liverpool are, as soon as United or any other club lose they’re very quick to release a watch along video laughing along. Cnuts.
I’ll call weirdo stuff weird every time. These “only dampens your arguments” fugazi attempts at trying to condition won’t work over here bruv. Fact of the matter is, man saw a dickhead look straight into a camera and kekeke about Muslim/blowing themselves up jokes - then when these Muslim folks didn’t go for it, they jumped on the redcafe thread regarding the situation talking about “agghh cancel culture!!”. See, weirdo stuff.
You clearly don’t know what the term “butter biscuits” means and how it’s used
You really picked R Kelly for your example here…. Right….But why are you acting as if my own account is, any more than yours, some sort of proclamation that this is how everyone should feel? I said 'perhaps I only speak for myself here'. If someone wants to sue, I appreciate that this is the game. But it is also my view that some of the narrative almost perpetuates some sort of notion that we are actually lesser than. I don't like that. Again, there's language that I don't really want to use here, but certain types of people are just not in a position to put me down for being black. But the way it is, it's like even some homeless man under a bridge is able to claim superiority by just adding 'black' to his insult. We're not some inferior being that the teachers have to tell the other kids to not tease.
I'm also probably not one that people would find it wise to try, but whether it got smokey or not, my point is, such a person's insult could not make me feel lesser is all. And again, just because I'm speaking for myself, doesn't mean others can't be upset. But I do feel that the hurt, the offence taken, by insults from people who are nobodies does almost validate them. The fact is, being black does not actually make me lesser than, and I know that to be true to the point where it doesn't anger me. I might be more angry if you took the piss out of an actual insecurity. My hairline might become one of them in the near future. But that's just me.
Again, cancel culture did not start with True Geordie ffs. Not every such conversation will relate to 'brands', I wasn't talking of this case specifically. Broadly speaking, people seem to have an issue with people with money. They don't look at it as something earned through hard work, it's a 'privilege' that you have on the condition you fit the mould. People feck up. If we held a mirror up to the outraged on Twitter, it would probably just as ugly. The point about 'seeking to educate' is because the point never seems to for long be about 'this is wrong, people shouldn't do this, this person needs to learn this' or whatever - it's always about stopping their bag. After R.Kelly's issues I saw someone ask a person 'why are you still playing that song?' He said 'because I like it' to which she responded 'yea but he gets money from it'. So what? Did he commit a financial crime? How does his actions mean he shouldn't have money? So as wrong as these people's actions often are - I do think the outrage is not always as sincere as often made out. I have no problem with disapproval, but I don't rate the way it's often gone about which makes it look like it's not so much about simply wanting people to do the right thing. It's an opportunity presented where we have a successful person bang to rights and we can kill them.
Nobody said anyone has an 'onus' to educate. You can if you want. Or you can simply just want to destroy out of anger. That's your choice, but the fact is, those choices mean different things. Perhaps people have a right to either, but the latter is what I refer to as 'false righteousness' - because it isn't driven by wanting people to do the right thing, it's capitalising on someone doing the wrong thing and taking the opportunity that position gives you to hit them hard. As you have already said, you're not a turn the other cheek guy, which is your right. Kanye made some comments the other day, and I've not seen anyone try to correct him or challenge his views. It's just been straight destruction. I don't like that.
It not necessarily about money. Its about rewarding/promoting behaviour. I think for some people it is about money but there will always be some, but I don’t see that being the majority.
Actions have consequences. People are free to do/say what they want. And other people are free to react to that how they want to. If thats leads to you being “cancelled” which is not really a thing in reality then thats the consequence, tough shit, make better decisions.
If you are a social media influencer then its literally your job to get paid to promote brand values. Say do stupid shit prepare to lose sponsorship, its not hard. If I said what he said at work I would get fired. Consequences which is also financial, these things happen.
Last edited:
Underrated comment.
Ah man. Can we not keep getting sidetracked over a point here? I didn't 'pick' an example, it was the example I had from the conversation, if it was a different person I'd have used a different one. Nevertheless, yes - R Kelly is an example of a person who has committed a crime which then caused people to oppose their, I dunno 'privilege' to earn money. As despicable as his offences were - they are a crime and he stood to lose his freedom, which he did. The fact that he is rich surely has nothing to do with anything?
He was an example of a wider point of how, even if unrelated, there seems to be a tendency to first count the money of successful people who transgress. I just think that if we are indeed taking the position of righteous, the fact that a person has money shouldn't really be relevant, unless of course it's relevant. If it's genuinely about their actions, we should want to see people convicted of crimes, or removed from positions/brands that conflict with such views. But the 'take their money off them' just makes it seem a little like 'we mad cuz they rich' and now this is our chance to do something about it. Weinstein went to jail, I have no idea how it affected him financially, and I couldn't care less. It has nothing to do with anything.
I think I generally just don't like the mentality of watching people's pockets. It happens with footballers all the time. Real shit happens and people are always like 'he should shut up, he earns £200k a week' or something to that effect. Even Rishi Sunak came in under a 'cloud' of 'he's really rich'. So what? By all means, if the man commits a crime or is simply a shit Prime Minister, then have at him. But the money thing is I dunno, 'unbecoming', for want of a better word.
To just bring it back to True Geordie - my expressing my dislike for cancel culture initially wasn't even so much about him, and I probably wouldn't have even mentioned it if another poster didn't bring that point up. I don't even have a problem with Gymshark dropping him. It was a broader point about a dislike about the pirana like thirst for total destruction for any transgression. Watching TG's video back again - it is indefensible. There's no way that it would not offend people. He probably meant it in jest, he might even claim that that's how he 'jokes with his Asian mate all the time' - but that wasn't a private conversation, it was on a broad platform and he shouldn't have said it. My views on the matter were probably not that applicable to the example. Come to think of it, my follow up views about racial slurs were not even applicable here either!
I think you may have taken the wrong point from this. Saying that YOU do not want to enrich someone, is not the same as saying money is “awarded to people based on character”. It means YOU have decided you don’t want any more of YOUR money going to him if you can help it.
The ability to decide who you give your money to is pretty much the basis of our entire society. If consumers don’t want to give their money to R Kelly, that’s cool. If sponsors don’t want to give their money to True Geordie, that’s cool. If you wanna affect change by organising a boycott, that’s cool.
Boycotts are only effective if a sufficient number of people join in. So if an issue really is a storm in a teacup that very few people actually care about - it will fail. In fact, from the large number of people that are cancelled but continue to have financial success and legions of fans - even a well-supported boycott is no guarantee of any long term impact.
I agree with as far as you expressing the idea that ideally we should be looking to reform and rehabilitate rather than ostracise and destroy. This is noble and shows the best side of human nature.
However, a balance need to be struck. Otherwise you end up tasking those who have been attacked with the responsibility to engage and educate their attackers. Not everyone is up for that. Some may be, but only to a certain point. And no one should feel forced to reason with a grown man, especially when his best friend sitting next to him was unable to gently guide him away from the controversy he seemed determined to involve himself in.
Oh… and I’m black, by the way. If I’ve learned anything from this thread, it’s that it’s important to state your race to get extra street cred.
I can't argue with a word of that. Very well put, and you at least seemed to listen/get where I was coming from.
You are right, people do have the right to chose who to give their money to personally.
I also agree that while reform and rehabilitate is the best side of human nature, it isn't always the choice people will want to take. And I include myself in that, I'm not some saint, very far from it. In fact, I am just as likely to react and want to return insults or even scrap as anyone. However, I do acknowledge that there is some shit of my own that I need to own in that equation. If a guy insulted me and I chose to beat him up, I'd do it knowing that I did it because I wanted to and it made me feel good at the time. I wouldn't be pretending that I am taking some sort of righteous path. I'd at least acknowledge that I've chosen the 'chat shit get banged one'. I feel often with 'cancel culture' - the blood thirst is similar self-gratifying 'revenge' or just destruction. Which is also human nature, but rarely acknowledged as such, but more portrayed as a moral crusade. I don't think it is. At some point, probably quite quickly I suspect, it just becomes about seeing someone cornered and filling your boots.
What true Geordie said about Andy Tate (not ours) was more reactionary but obviously lacked class.
Tate is one of the most self righteous “influencers” there has ever been. Awful human being and that’s why he said the blow up part.
Tate is an extremist in his own right so gets pretty wild reactions sometimes.
Tate is one of the most self righteous “influencers” there has ever been. Awful human being and that’s why he said the blow up part.
Tate is an extremist in his own right so gets pretty wild reactions sometimes.
Yeah, I completely get that. I don’t like to pile on to someone without trying first at least trying to understand where they’re coming from if, as is true in your case, they’re clearly making an argument in good faith.
And you’re pretty much guaranteed to get somebody’s back up in a discussion involving True Geordie and Andrew Tate, of all people.
I wish you all the best, mate.
Fair enough. As mentioned, I find the cnut annoying anyway so I’m not bothered if his career is ended, to be honest. What I’m concerned with are those who lurk, waiting to pounce on any mistake any celebrity/influencer/whatever you want to call them makes. These social influencers are people too, they make mistakes too.
It’s the same thing in a “real world” context, isn’t it? My country, Singapore, still practices capital punishment aka the death penalty for drug smuggling. Everyone and their dog has an issue with it. Feck off and shut the feck up if it’s not your country. Respect the country’s decision. I hold the same view, I don’t give a feck about drug smugglers being hanged. The punishment is well-known, you made the decision despite being aware of the consequences.
I wasn’t talking about endorsements/sponsors/partnerships. I’m talking about normal every day folk, well not really normal, a lot of these “haters” probably still live off their parents and live in their parents’ basements.
What the company does is none of my business, either. They have to protect their own reputation and if it means ending a deal made with a cnut, so be it. The cnut made a mistake and it’s his to bear.
TDLR: Basically my point is feck those who do nothing all day but lurk and wait for anybody to make a mistake, and then make a big deal out of it. They are the worst entities in cancel culture.
This guy wants to be Joe Rogan so bad. He's just a massive gobshite.
Andrew Tate is on a whole other level though, that guy is a psychopath.
Andrew Tate is on a whole other level though, that guy is a psychopath.
I think your characterisation here is a little off. I understand that you're more or less referring to the idea as a whole, but looking at this particular incident we have a situation where the person who's "calling" out true Geordie is a Muslim. His one sentence bio on twitter mentions his faith, his twitter handle is a name with Islamic connotations , and many of his tweets are religious in nature. While intended as a joke, stating that Tate should blow himself up to prove his faith when it comes to Islam, is something that would earnestly (and understandably) offend many Muslims.
This plays into the last part, but you've (understandably) stated here that you don't want people criticising your country if they're not from there, and asking that they show respect to it's decisions. I generally disagree with this world view (who doesn't enjoy criticising the US government?) but I respect that everyone is different. How would you feel about someone insulting Singapore, albeit via the premise of a joke?
Why did you - in a thread about a dickhead making jokes that targeted a group of people - and said people voicing that they’re not going for those jokes - take the time to write about these boogeymen that you’ve concocted that do nothing all day but lurk and wait for anybody to make a mistake? Do you think that’s a normal train of thought? Like from point a. TrueGeordie making these “jokes” to point b. you running interference about “worst entities in cancel culture”?
You even said this:
He has an ego far bigger than his ability and worth to the online community. Younger YouTubers have started the same live show concept he has for football and are more consistent with it and they don’t say controversial stupid shite so get sponsors. Wade covers the YouTube boxing stuff now so he’s losing his grip on that too. I think he’s going to be a bit fecked soon if he doesn’t change his persona quickly and I don’t think his ego can handle having to change. They were already struggling to do their round table show because the didn’t have a sponsor and now he’s said this it will probably be worse.
Can someone explain how this was islamophobic? He said I would gladly blow myself up or did i miss something?
Andrew Tate recently converted to Islam. Geordie said that if he wanted to prove it, he could blow himself up.
Yeah we shouldnt have said anything about Hitler killing jews, we shouldnt have said anything about genocide in Rwanda, Ukraine meh thats not out country, child labor - meh its not your kids. Not your country, like none of your business, like not your wife etc is what all abusers, psychopaths and human rights abusers etc say. We are all human and we can stand up for whoever we want to. Hanging for a bit of drugs! - come off it. Thats barbaric and wrong and I have a right to say it.
Good post geez
What the feck is going on in here?
True Geordie made an islamophobic joke and somehow R Kelly's been involved
Makes sense, totally the same thing...
A lot of bluster over this. Shit ‘joke’, sponsored dropped him, he apologised. Time to move on?
Stop trying to cancel this thread.
First time I've heard of Andrew Tate. Googled him. Wish I hadn't. What a bellend. Is he famous too? We are going down the shitter.
I don't like the guy from the limited times I've seen his videos, but I don't think what he said would've been taken half as badly if his mate sat beside him didn't make a bit of a deal about it.
The video of him snivelling and crying did make me laugh though.
The video of him snivelling and crying did make me laugh though.
Watched a few minutes of him and seems like someone who's read a thesaurus and thinks he's smart.
Most googled person in the world apparently