You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Who actually thought that cancelling meant cancelling a person? Do we really need to explain that? Of course it means cancelling a show or appearance etc. Cancelling a person is just, well, murder no? As well as presumably cancelling the offence-maker's entire family and history. A bit like a left-wing Nineteen Eighty-Four. Just lifted out of history, they don't exist. They never did exist. And rightly so comrade! That'll learn 'em for saying something that somebody else found offensive on behalf of somebody else eh?
^^Google can't translate that for me.😉
Precisely. It would be like a service removing and episode of Fawlty Towers, yet you can watch it elsewhere. Then a grumpy old actor calling it cancel culture and getting upset because they’re royalties have fallen.
jambourgie
Free MemberWho actually thought that cancelling meant cancelling a person? Do we really need to explain that? Of course it means cancelling a show or appearance etc. Cancelling a person is just, well, murder no?
No. Cancelling a show is cancelling a show. Cancelled people lose jobs, careers, the ability to voice their opinions.
Most people who complain that they're being cancelled do so with a media-assisted megaphone which is, well, insane but there you go. People try to make it mean "someone is criticising me" or "I don't like the consequences of my actions".
So no, Roy Chubby Brown who is out on a 12-gig tour and has just had a biography published has not been cancelled. He's been mildly inconvenienced.
Roy Chubby Brown
Now there's a name I've not heard of in a while! 12-gig tour you say? Biography published? He's doing alright after getting banned eh? Can't buy that kind of publicity. Are you his agent?
Most people who complain that they’re being cancelled do so with a media-assisted megaphone which is, well, insane but there you go. People try to make it mean “someone is criticising me” or “I don’t like the consequences of my actions”
Isn’t that the truth!
jambourgie
Free MemberNow there’s a name I’ve not heard of in a while
You feeling OK?
I was confused but then I recalled Jambourgie’s history.
Coming up next at the Sheffield Palladium: the comedy stylings of Abu Hamza. Don’t agree with him, don’t go.
On the one hand I’m imagining what he would say would be hugely entertaining, but on the other hand - not so much.
Where? When? Who? Which venue? Which lecture? Who was supposed to be speaking? What do you seem to recall?
I recall several. Milos Yanopoulis or whatever his name is. Ann Coulter, Jordan Peterson. I'm sure I've read about others but I don't remember all the names, just the events. Do your own homework.
Public figures losing their jobs is generally because, as a society, they are seen to have crossed a line. It’s how societies all over the world self regulate if your like. Laws are created and hopefully applied to all. Hopefully.
I would suggest that they have been seen to have crossed an arbitrary line by the largest or loudest mob. That's how cancel culture works. Even if you said something which was unremarkable at the time but is now consider offside, that is enough. Prope are afraid to say what they think or believe, not because it's illegal or wrong but because someone with a megaphone (and let's face it, with social media everyone has one) takes offense. It's mob rule, bullying whatever you wanna call it. Not democratic and no one is well served by it.
I didn’t need to prove my case because you did it for me.
That's not at all what you've proved to me.
Who actually thought that cancelling meant cancelling a person? Do we really need to explain that? Of course it means cancelling a show or appearance etc. Cancelling a person is just, well, murder no? A
I think its more about taking away their opportunity to be relevant, or seen.
If you ran STW and someone said something you disagreed with and you kicked them off here, you wouldn't have murdered them, but the would cease to exist here. Which is the goal of cancel culture.
Cancelled people lose jobs, careers, the ability to voice their opinions.
No. They lose the platform on which to voice their opinions. They can still rant aimlessly on the internet like the fleet of us. And, indeed, write columns in national newspapers whining that they’ve been “cancelled”
If you ran STW and someone said something you disagreed with and you kicked them off here, you wouldn’t have murdered them, but the would cease to exist here. Which is the goal of cancel culture.
No, they simply wouldn’t be able to voice on here. They’re still not been cancelled, a platform has the right to allow what is voiced on their platform. For here it would need to be they’ve broken the forum rules, the rules they agreed to.
That’s not at all what you’ve proved to me.
I'm sure you think that's true.
Do your own homework.
And with that his entire argument vanished...
Cancelled people lose jobs, careers, the ability to voice their opinions.
This does happen. I don’t think it happens as often as the meeja would like. And there often is a distinction between ‘job’ and ‘platform’ although celebrities often blur this distinction as part of their ‘job’ is being famous (requires platform)
Some examples:
- Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem at NFL games to protest racist police brutality, and conservatives called for the end of his career. Donald Trump publicly stated, "Get that son of a bitch off the field." Colin ended up getting removed from his team after that season, and no other NFL team would take him. A former NFL executive later admitted the league intentionally ousted him because of his activism.
- Ultra-conservative writer Milo Yiannopoulos will no longer speak at a US conservative conference and his book deal has been cancelled after videos surfaced in which he appeared to condone paedophilia.
University of California at Berkeley cancelled Mr Yiannopoulos' speaking engagement there after violent protests broke out. President Trump - whom Mr Yiannopoulos refers to as "daddy" - threatened to cut the university's federal funding in response.
He was also banned from Twitter last year after leading a campaign of abuse against black Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones.
Prope are afraid to say what they think or believe
Do you honestly think that someone like Jordan Peterson or Milo or Richard Dawkins is genuinely afraid to say something they believe? From what I've seen and heard most of the folks who repeatedly exclaim that their views aren't tolerated have made a very healthy career and bank balance saying pretty much anything and everything they think will gain them an audience.
Jordan Peterson has been so effectively cancelled by the woke lefty mob that he's *checks notes* playing Wembley Arena on his next speaking tour.
It's all part of the grift innit?
On the one hand I’m imagining what he would say would be hugely entertaining, but on the other hand – not so much.
Huh, I thought you’d have hooked more in with this post.
From what I’ve seen and heard most of the folks who repeatedly exclaim that their views aren’t tolerated have made a very healthy career and bank balance saying pretty much anything and everything they think will gain them an audience.
My anecdotal observation is that most people I’ve seen and heard who repeatedly exclaim their views aren’t tolerated aren’t making a living from those views. But are just ordinary people. On the flip side, they’re still actually expressing those views but usually preselect where those views are aired where they can ‘out shout’ anyone that disagrees with them
But that does also raise the question, does cancelling only count as cancelling if it’s aimed at someone making money/public notoriety from expressing opinions. Which does of course fit the definition so pedantic response is yes.
From what I’ve seen and heard most of the folks who repeatedly exclaim that their views aren’t tolerated have made a very healthy career and bank balance saying pretty much anything and everything they think will gain them an audience.
Almost as if constantly claiming that you’re ‘dangerous’ and are being ‘cancelled’ by ‘cultural Marxists’ is actually a fast-track to profit (from peddling rage-bait)
As far as business models go rage-baiting seems pretty successful if you’re of the conservative persuasion. Cognitive dissonance assumedly ranges across the political spectrum, but I have to pause to remark that Trumpists and the perma-enraged right really don’t score well seem to score highly there. What, with trying to cancel democracy, all the while claiming to stand for ‘democracy’ even as they use underhanded/over-funded/super-dirty methods to get their way (see certain insurrections, election lawsuits and spurious referenda/campaigns)
Talking of which - my EU citizenship was cancelled thanks to some extrememly dishonest outrage-peddling. This now massively limits my movement and work-opportunities. Cancel-culture is bad, kids.
My anecdotal observation is that most people I’ve seen and heard who repeatedly exclaim their views aren’t tolerated aren’t making a living from those views.
This would seem likely to extend beyond the anecdotal. Given that the vast majority of people don’t make a living from airing their views.
But are just ordinary people. On the flip side, they’re still actually expressing those views but usually preselect where those views are aired where they can ‘out shout’ anyone that disagrees with them
It used to be that shouty bloke always early at the pub whom was mostly ignored if ‘tolerated’. Maybe he’d get the odd punch-up. Now he tends to stay in a lot more, and has found similarly-feathered friends on social media.
Suggest having a read of:
‘Social influence and unfollowing accelerate the emergence of echo chambers’ - Kazutoshi Sasahara
TLDR: just read the title 😉. Simlarly:
‘Rumor Propagation is Amplified by Echo Chambers in Social Media’ -Daejin Choi, Selin Chun, Hyunchul Oh, Jinyoung Han
And here we are.
A couple of pages back a poster suggested that the only real change is now is that the sorts of folks who're getting challenged on their views are the people for whom the expectation was a that their views were mainstream and authoritative a generation ago; and the cancelled were (for example) gay, black and other minority voices.
So, I tend to the opinion that some people are really outraged about the fact that their hegemony of having the "listened to" voice is being questioned, and they don't like it.
I do like the idea from Ricky Gervais in wanting to live long enough to see this generation of Cancellers themselves get Cancelled by the next.
Those of us old enough will remember when the Guardian reading socially (self) righteous and woke (if we'd used the term) people's go-to stand up comic of the day was Bill Hicks. Let's just say a lot of his material had not aged well, and with it his reputation. 25 years from "Go Bill, you sock it to The Man!" to "Why you dumping on poor women in service jobs because they've been underserved with educational opportunities? Also, can we talk about some of the power dynamics of your Goat Boy character at this point?"
I would have considered myself woke in the early 90s if we'd used the term, and I laughed along heartily with my equally woke fellow students at his "privileged guy mocks a waffle waitress for her lack of education" bit in a way that I'm not proud of today, and I think a lot of my contemporaries would say the same, so it's not just the next generation coming along and telling us to get in the bin, people can and do change.
Obviously Hicks himself never got the chance so this is not about demonising him, we'll never know whether he would have moved with the times, maybe acknowledged some of the faults in his earlier work, or maybe he'd have turned into a reactionary, stuck in a past where he was once relevant and shouting at clouds about a world that has changed and he no longer understood his place in. We do, sadly, know which way Cleese has gone with that.
EDIT: It took maybe 25 years for Bill Hicks to go from hero to "problematic". Little Britain was doing blackface, "tranny" gags and punching down on disabled people, and the poor, 15 years ago on bbc1 to minimal objection. It needn't take long to shift.
Good post edlong
I would suggest that they have been seen to have crossed an arbitrary line by the largest or loudest mob.
I think you can definitely argue that twitter lynch mobs often become toxic but surely part of the motivation is about is people being held accountable who were previously pretty much untouchable. Would Jimmy Savile have got away with his crimes for so long in the age of twitter?
I'm sure everyone has either read it or is bored of being recommended it but So You've Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson is well worth a go.
Well put Edlong.
I think it is also worth mentioning the interview style. It seems often an interviewer will take a direct and combative stance from the outset. A skilled interviewer will be able to gauge their approach to the interviewee and get the best out of them, sometimes this can be for the interviewer to shut up and let their counterpart talk. Being a confrontational interviewer has its place but doing your homework on the subject is probably the important part. I’m not saying go easy on people like Cleese, but know when to go easy and when to delve deeper is what was needed. In the op’s interview the interviewer seemed to eager to go straight for the juicy bits and not allow the conversation to develop in that direction. I can’t think she will be happy with her interview.
No. They lose the platform on which to voice their opinions. They can still rant aimlessly on the internet like the fleet of us.
Which means they no longer have the ready they did, 'cancelling' them as 'a thing's
It's alos sometimes referred to as de-platformimg.
Which means they no longer have the ready they did, ‘cancelling’ them as ‘a thing’s
What?
It’s alos sometimes referred to as de-platformimg.
No it isn’t.
Do you honestly think that someone like Jordan Peterson or Milo or Richard Dawkins is genuinely afraid to say something they believe?
Nope. I also don't believe that the extreme examples are useful to the mainstream.
I am thinking more about average politicians, any business which relies on public perception to survive and the like. Occasionally someone says something uncontroversial, factually true but out of keeping with the current zeitgeist of the bully mobs. Cue grovelling apology, loss of job etc.
Little Britain was doing blackface, “tranny” gags and punching down on disabled people, and the poor, 15 years ago on bbc1 to minimal objection. It needn’t take long to shift.
Indeed. And they haven't really suffered for it - yet. Someone may decide that they cannot be forgiven for their past transgressions and decide they should never work again.
Kevin Hart posted something about his kid and being gay or something. It was definitely offside, he did apologise but was due to host the Oscars. Someone dig up the old post and it became a thing and he lost the gig. So Little Britain get a pass on their old, problematic stuff, Kevin Hart doesn't. I wonder what the difference might be.
No it isn’t.
Yes, it is.
If you ran STW and someone said something you disagreed with and you kicked them off her
For here it would need to be they’ve broken the forum rules, the rules they agreed to.
Imagine for a moment it's an example, where the rules are arbritary, set by a group who have a different outlook than you, and the rule was, if they disagree with it, it breaksm the rule.
And with that his entire argument vanished…
I'm not sure how you meant that. I find it interesting though that people who demand others provide 'proof' almost never provide any of their own. If you don't think it happened, nothing I say will convince you. If I provide an annotated, peer reviewed research paper, it could be dismissed with, yeah but who paid for it, thr institution is biased, blah, blah, blah. The only way to satisfy yourself is to do your own research.
Nope. I also don’t believe that the extreme examples are useful to the mainstream.
Like the violent protests you expect others to remember better than you seem able to?
I’m not sure how you meant that. I find it interesting though that people who demand others provide ‘proof’ almost never provide any of their own
You're being asked to substantiate your vague claim. The burden of proof lies with you, it really shouldn't be too tricky.
The thing with this forum is that people who get themselves into untenable postions on so many issues they realise they've become ridiculous, is that they can bin their pseudo and come back with a new one. In real life that's a little more difficult.
The problem is when you present one peer reviewed piece of biased research in a dodgy journal it doesn't cut it when peer reviewed stuff in many other reputable ones says the opposite.
Like the violent protests you expect others to remember better than you seem able to?
I expect very little of you. I recall the fact of them just fine. I recall some details, not others. If you were unaware of them, or don't recall the fact of them, that's not on me.
You’re being asked to substantiate your vague claim. The burden of proof lies with you, it really shouldn’t be too tricky.
There was nothing vague about it. I recall them. Simple statement of fact. I need no further proof. If you think they didn't happen, substantiate your claim. Otherwise I'm going with what I know. I'm not obligated to do anything. As you say...
The thing with this forum is that people who get themselves into untenable postions on so many issues they realise they’ve become ridiculous, i
Voice of experience?
that they can bin their pseudo and come back with a new one.
You constantly make what I can only assume you think is a slur but you have never presented any proof
Research often disagrees. It's only through repetition that something comes to be accepted. Until it is disproven. I would caution against taking an exemplar gratis as gospel though
Would Jimmy Savile have got away with his crimes for so long in the age of twitter?
I'd be surprised if there weren't more Jimmy Saviles out there hiding in plain sight on TV.
There was nothing vague about it. I recall them. Simple statement of fact. I need no further proof. If you think they didn’t happen, substantiate your claim. Otherwise I’m going with what I know. I’m not obligated to do anything. As you say…
I had assumed you didn't really expect me to prove a negative, but it seems I was wrong.
If you can't provide any evidence to substantiate your claim, then readers will draw their own conclusions about its merits.
Voice of experience?
Check out my date of joining.
I think he went in expecting an argument but all he got was contradiction
I think he was expecting the five-minute argument, but got the ten-minute one instead.
I thought John Cleese was dead.
No, just Polly.
In the op’s interview the interviewer seemed to eager to go straight for the juicy bits and not allow the conversation to develop in that direction.
I saw it more like she asked a perfectly reasonable question and he was a dick about it so she decided to give him a hard time.
Let's face it, no one really cares about his stand up shows in Singapore - he has only managed to stay relevant by courting controversy with his anti-woke stuff. Which means it's a bit much for him to get uppity about it being talked about.
Nope. I also don’t believe that the extreme examples are useful to the mainstream.
Agreed. But, they were your examples in the first place. Are you arguing with yourself now?
I recall the fact of them just fine. I recall some details, not others
You don't recall any details at all, even after someone else gave them to you.
You cannot demand proof from others without providing it yourself. It is not anyone else's problem to try and prove you right.
You don’t recall any details at all, even after someone else gave them to you.
I provided names pages ago. Did you not check to see if they didn't happen? Clearly not, so you are just here for a contradiction.
If you can’t provide any evidence to substantiate your claim, t
See above.
One protestor was arrested and found to be carrying a garrote. I googled it. Now that's cancel culture.
You don't have to prove a negative. I recall they happened. I provided names for you to look up. You obviously havent. Your belief that it didn't happen is just that, belief, an article of faith. No amount of proof can change belief. Only you can change it. Do your own research, draw your own conclusions. Or cling desperately to your beliefs. Your choice.
Or present some evidence that it never happened to the names I provided, that it's an urban myth.
But, they were your examples in the first place. Are you arguing with yourself now?
You need to work on your reading comprehension, or argument construction. They were my examples of one thing. A different thing. A thing that doesn't relate to the other thing, of which they are not a good example which someone else raised.
A different context, if you like. They actually profited from the attempts to de-platform or cancel them (with notable exceptions) precisely because of their audience. That does not translate to the broader world, where the audience is entirely different. But you knew that, you just like a good contradiction.
You need to link some sources to back up your claims, chromololly, and not a newspaper that is better known for hoaxes than credible content.
Imagine for a moment it’s an example, where the rules are arbritary, set by a group who have a different outlook than you, and the rule was, if they disagree with it, it breaksm the rule.
Ok I’ve imagined it. I got banned for breaking the very rules I was told not to break.
Ultra left wing publication, the Spectator are not amused with Cleese.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/john-cleese-cancels-can