:rolleyes:
That would be 'no' then.

Indeed, just look at Musk.

Mike Pesca (formerly of and arguably cancelled by Slate) has a fun new segment in his new podcast called "cancel court."

This week's case is that of Kyrie Irving:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheGist/com...ience_edition/

(Starts around 2½ minutes into the show.)

I don't have time to listen to a whole podcast. Can you let me know the time marker where they explain why private organizations shouldn't be allowed to discipline employees who engage in brand-damaging conduct?

Why would you assume they did that?

Have a listen for at least three meaningful arguments, none of which fit your assumptions.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

“Listen to these people I agree with talk for 40 minutes” isn’t as appealing an offer as you might think it is.

"segment" ≠ "show"

How's about you present these "meaningful arguments" yourself, rather than expecting everybody else to go slog through a 40 minute podcast to find them?

Or is this just your typical spam?

So, does Missouri's new law to ban books quality as "cancel culture"?

No. Only ‘libs’ can cancel.

The segment only lasts a few minutes, and I've already told you where it begins. Have a listen, or don't. :D

Ah, so content free spam promotion it was!

So it seems.

Plenty of content for those who care to listen.

"He who has ears, let him hear."

I created a YouTube video explaining why I won't listen to some random podcast that I'd like you to watch.

Happy to have a look.

If you can't summarize the 40 minute podcast, or even describe the arguments made, you give no one a reason to actually watch/listen to the latest thing you're just spamming links to.

For all we can tell you didn't even consume this podcast, but are hoping to have others do so and come back and explain it to you. It certainly wouldn't be the first time you've linked to material you hadn't read and changed your tune once we explained what your link said.

Once again, a "segment" is not an entire "podcast" or "show," it is but a portion thereof.

The "cancel court" segments typically last between 10 and 15 minutes, and I'm going to keep posting them here whether you like it or not, since they are definitely on topic.

On that note, here's another episode of Cancel Court, this time about "whether former New York Times Op-Ed page editor James Bennet was canceled or not..."

https://twitter.com/D4M10N/status/1593394392928231426

Good news, everyone. You don't have to listen to a podcast to know if James Bennet was "cancelled". You can just do a quick Google search to find out that he's still a working journalist. He wasn't "cancelled". He's fine.

If you think "cancelled" requires utter destitution and perpetual unemployment, you aren't using the term correctly.

Is this supposed to mean something? You're not posting a link to a segment, you're posting a link to a podcast. That podcast is 40 minutes, and you, the advertiser, seem to have no idea what was said in the podcast. This gives no one else a reason to slog through it.

How do we know they're on topic? How do you know they're on topic? You seem to have no idea what is said in these links you're spamming us with.

Oh, look, d4m10n is now spamming links to his twitter feed while claiming it's a podcast.

Then all your establishing is that "cancelling" is no big deal. Lives and careers aren't destroyed. People just get new jobs and life goes on. It seems fairly mundane actually, and not very useful in the service of convincing people "cancel culture" is this terrible scourge that threatens us all.

*you’re

Dammnit.

I don't recall claiming anything about a "terrible scourge" but possibly I'm misremembering. I would say that sometimes cancellations go too far and have rather undesirable results, such as when Gimlet lost their flagship podcast following the public shaming of two of its main figures, or when Slate lost its daily news podcast, or when Gelato Mio was ratings bombed by angry skeptics.

I listen to them. You might try it, sometime; the link I posted earlier should take you to exactly the starting point.

*** checking in to see what is happening in this thread ***

Same old same old. People still bitching about "cancel culture"; something that doesn't really exist except in the minds of social justice warriors and other salty types.

Nothing new to see here then...

What’s the criteria for determining how and when “cancellations” go to far? And who gets to make that determination?

They make it up as they go.

The vested interests.

'Cancel Culture' is failing to get someone ousted when publishers don't want to work with you for being a bigot. 'Free speech' is getting paid to write things others don't want to buy.

And studiously avoiding certain matters.

Indeed, they are mostly OK with the "right" people being "cancelled", just as long as they can continue to scream into the void about the "wrong" people being "cancelled".

Fixed that for you.

Correction accepted! :thumbsup:

Oh, goody, we're back to 'd4m10n believes podcasts should continue to be made whether or not the podcast personnel can continue to work together or whether or not the audience has rejected the podcast' as examples of cancel culture having run amock.

Your inability to articulate what it in them or why anyone else would care to hear them doesn't demonstrate that you listen to them. Or, perhaps you 'don't recall' what's in them as you 'don't recall' any other part of the discussion? Either way...spamming a podcast is going to get you the same interest the spam emails I get every day get.

Or, perhaps it is too much effort to summarize three different people giving three different arguments from three different perspectives when they don't even bother to take turns in a formalized Oxford style debate. I get that you're not going to listen, but you've not made a persuasive argument against posting links to the "cancel court" segment since it's directly on topic here.

On that note, here is the next one:
https://player.fm/series/not-even-ma...ana-wen?t=1890

It's about Dr. Leana Wen this time.

Speaking of podcasts about cancel culture, here are a few audio segments from The New Yorker:
https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/th...of-free-speech

(I've only heard the first one so far.)

Wait, I didn't convince a spammer to stop spamming by pointing out that spamming links won't get people to go to them? Color me shocked! Why, spammers are usually known to be rational people who don't post annoying ads over and over again! :rolleyes:

Not sure why anyone would think an audio segment about cancellation is spam in a discussion thread about cancellation. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The discussion about Dr. Wen seemed particularly on point.

How do we know what it's about? You, the one spamming us with the links, seem unable to describe the points made in the podcast you're spamming us with.

Just have a listen. The intro to "cancel court" pretty much explains the concept of the segment in around 15 seconds.

Spammer continues to attempt to get people to listen to a podcast he can't give the details on, explain any points made, or give any other reason to listen to it other than because the spammer himself recommends it.

:rolleyes:

Not sure why anyone would think an audio segment about cancellation is spam in a discussion thread about cancellation. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

ETA: For the audio skeptical, here is a discussion of Wen's cancellation in print.

Probably because you just post links (to your twitter, which then links somewhere else...) and cajole people to go there.

See #2485 for a direct link.

Because it's a "discussion thread" and not a "post links to videos without discussion" thread.

If you don't have anything to say about it, why are you posting it as part of a "discussion"?

I've read the link to a written discussion of the subject in post #2492. I think it's a perfect example of cancel culture - what do you think?

Another person who is unable to describe any of the points made in the podcast tries unsuccessfully to convince people to read/listen to the spammed article by...not being able to give anyone a reason to read/listen to the article other than that it fits your prejudices.

How do you know it fits my or anyone elses' prejudices if you haven't watched/read anything about it?

Because....you said it did.

eta: Read the thread. There isn't even a consensus on what cancel culture is, whether it's a new phenomenon, or what counts. That you think this spammed link is a perfect example of something shows that you are already prejudiced to believe that cancel culture exists, and that you know what counts as cancel culture.

Brilliant Reith lecture on freedom of speech by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. I think this is available outside the UK.