Cancel Culture

[Duff Man]

If being disrespectful when disgreeing with someone is cancel culture, then this site is 98% cancel culture, and has been for the 15 or so years I've been reading it.

[Sugar Ape]

1 minute ago, Duff Man said:

If being disrespectful when disgreeing with someone is cancel culture, then this site is 98% cancel culture, and has been for the 15 or so years I've been reading it.

No it isn’t you bellend.

[ZonkoVille77]

2 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

If being disrespectful when disgreeing with someone is cancel culture, then this site is 98% cancel culture, and has been for the 15 or so years I've been reading it.

 

Cancel yer ma

[Duff Man]

Just now, Sugar Ape said:

No it isn’t you bellend.

Damn, cancelled again.

[SasaS]

14 minutes ago, aRdja said:

The article is just asking a question no? I ask this question all the time myself.. I like Jay Electronica and he revealed himself to be anti-semitic today, would it be right for me to contribute to enjoy his music? I’m not so sure.. I’m a massive fan of the Beatles and John Lennon used make anti-semitic remarks all the time allegedly... I don’t think I could give the Beatles up unfortunately, but it’s an interesting discussion IMO.

Well, look at it this way, you may say that here is where the libelous part possibly comes in, did he reveal himself to be antisemitic, i.e. does she "harm trans people". She is involved in a debate over "people who bleed", she was not arrested for a drunk racist rant or something. The site rushes to take sides and presents Rowling as someone who harms trans people as if this was the undisputed fact, and what is more, in an article aimed at schoolchildren, an impressionable age group audience where surely different rules of free speech / restraint apply. 

[Bjornebye]

If I chose to go and paint "Get the Brist out of Ireland, Up the IRA" on the wall at the top of our street I couldn't turn around to people who complained at me about it by saying "Thats my opinion I'm entitled to it how dare you criticise me". I'd have to take the consequences.

 

If hold an opinion, I actively choose to go and showcase it knowing full well some will agree and some won't. I can't then cry when my Proddy Loyalist Milkman decides he doesn't want to deliver to me anymore. 

 

 

[Rico1304]

Just now, Bjornebye said:

If I chose to go and paint "Get the Brist out of Ireland, Up the IRA" on the wall at the top of our street I couldn't turn around to people who complained at me about it by saying "Thats my opinion I'm entitled to it how dare you criticise me". I'd have to take the consequences.

 

If hold an opinion, I actively choose to go and showcase it knowing full well some will agree and some won't. I can't then cry when my Proddy Loyalist Milkman decides he doesn't want to deliver to me anymore. 

 

 

She knew the potential impact of what she said about trans people.  She said that in the first set of tweets. She knew she’d get a backlash and that it cost cost her financially.  She said that too. What she’s objected to is people lying about what she actually said.  As is pointed out above.  
 

The cancel letter was about those less fortunate than those who’d signed it.  

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

If I was famous I'd last about 3 days before being cancelled

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Rico1304 said:

She knew the potential impact of what she said about trans people.  She said that in the first set of tweets. She knew she’d get a backlash and that it cost cost her financially.  She said that too. What she’s objected to is people lying about what she actually said.  As is pointed out above.  
 

The cancel letter was about those less fortunate than those who’d signed it.  

Im not just talking about her here. I'm talking about all those with a platform who complain about negative backlash. I'm using her as an example. If she claims she knew she as going to suffer yet still went ahead then she is a soft cunt. Have people "lied" about what she said? Or is this part of how one person would perceive something against another? 

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Aw Geez said:

If I was famous I'd last about 3 days before being cancelled

Same. If that. 

 

I'm not saying I'd be any different. I'm just saying, you reap what you sow. If thats "utter bollocks" as someone has said then I suggest you stick yer bollocks back up yer maa's drainpipe. 

[Rico1304]

3 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Im not just talking about her here. I'm talking about all those with a platform who complain about negative backlash. I'm using her as an example. If she claims she knew she as going to suffer yet still went ahead then she is a soft cunt. Have people "lied" about what she said? Or is this part of how one person would perceive something against another? 

Or, she believes that the harm to women’s rights is worth standing up for?  Yes, they’ve said she’s harming trans people. Even seen her accused of killing them. She’s not responded to any of the threats or rape, of pictures of ladycocks she’s been asked to suck. Just where people have lied or misrepresented what she’s said.  

[cloggypop]

8 minutes ago, Aw Geez said:

If I was famous I'd last about 3 days before being cancelled

Infamy, infamy. They've all got it in for me. 

[Bjornebye]

5 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Or, she believes that the harm to women’s rights is worth standing up for?  Yes, they’ve said she’s harming trans people. Even seen her accused of killing them. She’s not responded to any of the threats or rape, of pictures of ladycocks she’s been asked to suck. Just where people have lied or misrepresented what she’s said.  

I don't know if you're being deliberately ignorant to my point here mate but I am not saying she shouldn't have her opinion. What I'm saying is she can't complain that not everyone will react kindly. If people are spreading lies (They shouldn't) then unfortunately in this grim, social media world its par for the course. She isn't stupid. Its not like Katie Price doing it not realising the impact it will have. 

 

Again - JK Rowling was just an example to make my point. Rachel Riley posts inflammatory stuff all the time then threatens libel or reports people who disagree with her. If you throw a brick at a window, don't cry when the glass breaks. 

[Pidge]

2 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Well, look at it this way, you may say that here is where the libelous part possibly comes in, did he reveal himself to be antisemitic, i.e. does she "harm trans people". She is involved in a debate over "people who bleed", she was not arrested for a drunk racist rant or something. The site rushes to take sides and presents Rowling as someone who harms trans people as if this was the undisputed fact, and what is more, in an article aimed at schoolchildren, an impressionable age group audience where surely different rules of free speech / restraint apply. 

There's no serious debate attached to the original tweet. She attacked an article that was perfectly clear why it used the term because she assumed it was something else and it's all blown up from there. After that there's been a lot of expenditure to control the debate, a lot of which has ignored that the original flashpoint was a ridiculous non-sequitur.

[Duff Man]

37 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

Cancel yer ma

And again!

 

*signs Harpers letter*

[lifetime fan]

32 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

I don't know if you're being deliberately ignorant to my point here mate but I am not saying she shouldn't have her opinion. What I'm saying is she can't complain that not everyone will react kindly. If people are spreading lies (They shouldn't) then unfortunately in this grim, social media world its par for the course. She isn't stupid. Its not like Katie Price doing it not realising the impact it will have. 

 

Again - JK Rowling was just an example to make my point. Rachel Riley posts inflammatory stuff all the time then threatens libel or reports people who disagree with her. If you throw a brick at a window, don't cry when the glass breaks. 

Katie Price understands social media better than anyone on here. 

[SasaS]

31 minutes ago, Pidge said:

There's no serious debate attached to the original tweet. She attacked an article that was perfectly clear why it used the term because she assumed it was something else and it's all blown up from there. After that there's been a lot of expenditure to control the debate, a lot of which has ignored that the original flashpoint was a ridiculous non-sequitur.

Well there must have been some debate then. Which started with her attacking the article.

[Pidge]

1 minute ago, SasaS said:

Well there must have been some debate then. Which started with her attacking the article.

Hence the adjective.

[aRdja]

22 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Well there must have been some debate then. Which started with her attacking the article.

This is all well and good. The Harper letter was authored in the spirit of free speech. She signed it. Well done her! brava! I’m proud of her. The Day published an article, off the back of Daniel Radcliffe’s comment, presenting both views as to whether Harry Potter fans who disagree with her views should continue to enjoy her books. If you were that passionate about freedom of speech, argue your case. Don’t stifle debate. Be like Chomsky.

[Strontium]

1 hour ago, aRdja said:

The article is just asking a question no? I ask this question all the time myself.. I like Jay Electronica and he revealed himself to be anti-semitic today, would it be right for me to contribute to enjoy his music? I’m not so sure.. I’m a massive fan of the Beatles and John Lennon used make anti-semitic remarks all the time allegedly... I don’t think I could give the Beatles up unfortunately, but it’s an interesting discussion IMO.

 

Paul and Ringo both married Jewish women. You should be okay.

[aRdja]

4 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

Paul and Ringo both married Jewish women. You should be okay.

John was though allegedly... used to make fun of Epstein all the time for being Jewish.

[SasaS]

39 minutes ago, aRdja said:

This is all well and good. The Harper letter was authored in the spirit of free speech. She signed it. Well done her! brava! I’m proud of her. The Day published an article, off the back of Daniel Radcliffe’s comment, presenting both views as to whether Harry Potter fans who disagree with her views should continue to enjoy her books. If you were that passionate about freedom of speech, argue your case. Don’t stifle debate. Be like Chomsky.

I agree with you on principle, suing would be OK in my view if someone deliberately published something damaging and factually untrue, in this case, after reading on the website and the original article, the problem for her may be that they use her as an example of "unpleasant people" who said or did something wrong, of which there is a consensus, their examples are Dickens, Picasso, Wagner - historical figures, in a publication which, as I understand, addresses schools and schoolchildren as part of the official "educational ecosystem".

 

It is still not a well-established fact that she did something wrong, she did not apologize, there is still a debate in public with people weighing in with their opinions. The tone of the article is not neutral, it doesn't ask, if your favourite writer said something perceived as controversial, would you still read her books if you found yourself disagreeing with her, it basically says she is transphobic and asks could you still read her books.

[aRdja]

8 minutes ago, SasaS said:

I agree with you on principle, suing would be OK in my view if someone deliberately published something damaging and factually untrue, in this case, after reading on the website and the original article, the problem for her may be that they use her as an example of "unpleasant people" who said or did something wrong, of which there is a consensus, their examples are Dickens, Picasso, Wagner - historical figures, in a publication which, as I understand, addresses schools and schoolchildren as part of the official "educational ecosystem".

 

It is still not a well-established fact that she did something wrong, she did not apologize, there is still a debate in public with people weighing in with their opinions. The tone of the article is not neutral, it doesn't ask, if your favourite writer said something perceived as controversial, would you still read her books if you found yourself disagreeing with her, it basically says she is transphobic and asks could you still read her books.

The article never states that she’s transphobic. Not even once. Nevertheless, have a debate. Publish a rebuttal. Why pretend to be a supporter of the marketplace of ideas when really you’re only in favour of those in-line with your own?

[SasaS]

1 minute ago, aRdja said:

The article never states that she’s transphobic. Not even once. Nevertheless, have a debate. Publish a rebuttal. Why pretend to be a supporter of the marketplace of ideas when really you’re only in favour of those in-line with your own?

It does, not in so many words, and it is difficult to argue with its opinion, because there isn't one, other than the stated fact she was widely criticized for a tweet seen as transphobic, without going into why would this tweet be transphobic (which you could then argue against).

 

For me, it is somewhere in between, it is definitely an example of cancel culture and I can see why they decided to publish an apology, any solicitor worth his salt could easily state the case for it.

[aRdja]

7 minutes ago, SasaS said:

It does, not in so many words, and it is difficult to argue with its opinion, because there isn't one, other than the stated fact she was widely criticized for a tweet seen as transphobic, without going into why would this tweet be transphobic (which you could then argue against).

 

For me, it is somewhere in between, it is definitely an example of cancel culture and I can see why they decided to publish an apology, any solicitor worth his salt could easily state the case for it.

It presented the both views including the arguments as to why she should not be cancelled. They probably apologised because they couldn’t afford not to. I honestly think it’s embarrassing that she went out of her way to silence it. Hence my post earlier, it’s odd that loads of them free speech warriors are real litigious.