International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Continuation Cancel culture IRL Part 2 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=354396)

d4m10n 2nd November 2021 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13645695)
So you would admit that there's nothing novel about "cancel culture"?

See post #490

Upchurch 2nd November 2021 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13645713)
See post #490

Which has less to do with capitalism or free speech as it does with the time scale. Which is to say, not much at all.

d4m10n 2nd November 2021 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13645704)
I would argue that it is the same as all free speech. Free speech, itself, is neither ethical nor unethical.

You honestly cannot think of any speech which is unethical but ought to remain unconstrained by law?

Suppose someone wants to lecture on the virtues of homeopathy at your local speaker's corner. Such a speech is clearly unethical since it causes people to seek out remedies which don't work. At the same time, such speech is legally protected.

d4m10n 2nd November 2021 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13645716)
Which has less to do with capitalism or free speech as it does with the time scale. Which is to say, not much at all.

I never agreed that we should constrain our analysis to either capitalism or free speech.

Upchurch 2nd November 2021 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13645719)
You honestly cannot think of any speech which is unethical but ought to be unconstrained by law?

Well, that isn't what I said at all. You need to read the next sentence after the ones you quoted.

Upchurch 2nd November 2021 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13645720)
I never agreed that we should constrain our analysis to either capitalism or free speech.

But that is all that "cancel culture" is.

Upchurch 2nd November 2021 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13645719)
You honestly cannot think of any speech which is unethical but ought to remain unconstrained by law?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13645722)
Well, that isn't what I said at all. You need to read the next sentence after the ones you quoted.

I feel I should elaborate. I am saying that free speech is merely the protected right to speak. It is neither ethical nor unethical. What one chooses to speak about can be either ethical or unethical (or neutral, I suppose).

MLK Jr.'s use of speech: ethical.
Hitler's use of speech: unethical.

Speaking out against MLK's use of speech: unethical.
Speaking out against Hitler's use of speech: ethical.

Removing ethical speech from one's platform because it hurt's one's profits*: unethical or neutral
Removing unethical speech from one's platform because it hurt's one's profits*: ethical or neutral

"Canceling" is not inherently ethical or unethical. Like most things, it depends on the context. Is it unethical to remove ethical speech from one's platform, if it means that the platform can no longer afford to operate and, thus, can't show any content at all?

I also feel like these are not so much a SI&CE issue as it is a R&P issue.


* the actual "canceling"

smartcooky 2nd November 2021 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13645722)
Well, that isn't what I said at all. You need to read the next sentence after the ones you quoted.

First you will have to teach d4m10n not to quote you while removing the words and sentences that give context to what you wrote (so that he can twist what you said into something other that what you meant).

Good luck with that!

Matthew Best 2nd November 2021 01:12 PM

Terry Gilliam's Into the Woods cancelled by Old Vic after reports of staff unease

A new production of Into The Woods, set to be co-directed by Monty Python star Terry Gilliam, will no longer be staged at the Old Vic.

...[i]ndustry publication The Stage has reported some staff were unhappy with previous controversial remarks made by the actor.

Some members of the Old Vic 12, a group of young writers, producers and directors who work on projects for the theatre, have referred to the cancellation of Gilliam's show on social media.

"This should have been scrapped over a year ago, but it's taken them this long to do something right for ONCE," tweeted Nassy Konan.

https://twitter.com/nasikonan/status...16675342127108

and there are some replies to that Tweet.

d4m10n 2nd November 2021 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13645747)
But that is all that "cancel culture" is.

The proof of this assertion is left as an argument for the reader. [emoji14]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13645779)
"Canceling" is not inherently ethical or unethical.

I've said this over and over upthread.

Quote:

Like most things, it depends on the context.
Yes, exactly.

Upchurch 2nd November 2021 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13645946)
The proof of this assertion is left as an argument for the reader. [emoji14]

Iím all ears. What else is it?

angrysoba 2nd November 2021 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13645670)
Agreed [emoji106]

Notice, for example, that the "Fire Kathleen Stock" movement explicitly called out student fees.


I'd hope we can agree that it was unethical for them to do do. :)

I donít think we can chalk this up to capitalism, per se. universities in the UK are public ones so all universities charge the same amount. And recently those fees have become ridiculously high.

d4m10n 2nd November 2021 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13645961)
I’m all ears. What else is it?

Let's step back just a minute, since I'm not sure if we're talking about the same phenomenon.

I defined "cancel culture" upthread as follows:

Quote:

[C]ancel culture is the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.
Notice that there is no mention of capitalism or free speech, though it may reasonably be claimed that performance on social media is an exercise of free speech (at least in the parts of the world where speech is relatively free) and that canceling public figures doesn't really work in non-capitalist frameworks. I'm not terribly confident of either of those claims, and I'm at least somewhat skeptical of the latter one.

Upchurch 2nd November 2021 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13645971)
Let's step back just a minute, since I'm not sure if we're talking about the same phenomenon.

I defined "cancel culture" upthread as follows:

Quote:

[C]ancel culture is the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.
Notice that there is no mention of capitalism or free speech, though it may reasonably be claimed that performance on social media is an exercise of free speech (at least in the parts of the world where speech is relatively free) and that canceling public figures doesn't really work in non-capitalist frameworks. I'm not terribly confident of either of those claims, and I'm at least somewhat skeptical of the latter one.

How does one withdraw support from public figures or companies? Do you think companies care if you remove social media likes or stop following them? That is only a means to an end and that end is buying a product or a service, or providing a view that they can charge others for. People withdraw support by withholding their money. Boycotts are about withholding money. It's all capitalism.

Social media is doing the same thing the printing press, radio, and TV all did before it: expanding the reach of people's speech. The same kind of speech that may be curated or dismissed by distributers, but not by the government. It's free speech through a different channel.

"Cancel culture" is a capitalist decision based the rise or fall of profits due to public opinion informed by free speech feedback. Just like always. The only difference is the media, which isn't that different, just faster.

Your definition only supports my point.

d4m10n 2nd November 2021 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646028)
How does one withdraw support from public figures or companies?

By any number of ways. One could, for example, ask that the municipal and school libraries avoid platforming authors whom you find objectionable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646028)
Do you think companies care if you remove social media likes or stop following them?

I don't care to speculate on this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646028)
People withdraw support by withholding their money.

Among other methods, yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646028)
Boycotts are about withholding money. It's all capitalism.

Do you happen to recall the 1984 Summer Olympics boycottWP?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646028)
Social media is doing the same thing the printing press, radio, and TV all did before it: expanding the reach of people's speech.

Relatively few people have access to printing presses, radio towers, etc. Nearly anyone can have access to social media.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646028)
"Cancel culture" is a capitalist decision based the rise or fall of profits due to public opinion informed by free speech feedback.

Some of the time, this is true. On other occasions the decision is made by political party leaders who are primarily concerned with (re)electability, university bureaucrats mostly worried about public relations, or even non-profit leaders expressly concerned with keeping people safe.

Dr. Keith 2nd November 2021 08:51 PM

Latest example that free speech is a hollow promise for True Christians out there working hard.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna4335

Checkmite 2nd November 2021 09:39 PM

This entire thread, and I'm still solidly convinced that "canceling" is just boycotting and only looks different because the picketing happens online.

Darat 3rd November 2021 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Checkmite (Post 13646182)
This entire thread, and I'm still solidly convinced that "canceling" is just boycotting and only looks different because the picketing happens online.

And who can now "do" the cancelling - it used to be a privileged few who had the means, now all of us plebs can "do it" to those privileged folks.

Upchurch 3rd November 2021 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13646110)
By any number of ways. One could, for example, ask that the municipal and school libraries avoid platforming authors whom you find objectionable.

Which does what, exactly? What is the risk of allowing the objectionable author to perform/speak/whatever? (Hint: follow the money)

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13646110)
I don't care to speculate on this.

Iím not at all surprised, but in case Iím wrong, why not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13646110)
Do you happen to recall the 1984 Summer Olympics boycottWP?

Playing a little fast and loose with definitions, here. Are you saying competing in games is a form of speech? Was the USSR the one ďcancelledĒ in this scenario, even though they would have cancelled themselves, or was some other country being cancelled? Are you saying individuals are equivalent to nations in the kind of power they wield, especially when it comes to the ability to enact and enforce removing someone from a platform?

How is this similar to what weíre talking, other than in name?

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13646110)
Relatively few people have access to printing presses, radio towers, etc. Nearly anyone can have access to social media.

Thatís exactly what I said. Each new technology expanded the reach of peopleís speech. Each time, it became faster, cheaper, and more accessible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13646110)
Some of the time, this is true. On other occasions the decision is made by political party leaders who are primarily concerned with (re)electability, university bureaucrats mostly worried about public relations, or even non-profit leaders expressly concerned with keeping people safe.

This is, perhaps, the best counter argument you could make. You probably should have led with this.

I donít know anything about this situation, but it sounds as if this person was a credible physical threat to people, right? As such, their deplatforming of them is based not on their speech or views. Further, and Iím sure the organizers have genuine concern for the well-being of their attendees, there is still a financial concern over possible lawsuits if they were to let this person attend and someone were to get hurt.


You have yet to come up with an argument about how cancel culture isnít just a new phrase for labeling one aspect of the interplay between free speech and capitalism. There may be other factors to flavor that interaction, but nothing that fundamentally changes the core nature of it.

The internet is a faster, broader communication method, but it doesnít fundamentally change how communication works. We still have to articulate our ideas and style our delivery in order to persuade others.

d4m10n 3rd November 2021 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646344)
What is the risk of allowing the objectionable author to perform/speak/whatever?

I wasn't talking about speaking, but about (de)shelving books. (Sorry that wasn't clear.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646344)
Playing a little fast and loose with definitions, here.

You said "Boycotts are about withholding money," I provided a fairly clear counterexample.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646344)
Are you saying competing in games is a form of speech?

I would say that ostentatiously refusing to compete is a form of speech, intended to convey a specific message.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646344)
Was the USSR the one “cancelled” in this scenario, even though they would have cancelled themselves, or was some other country being cancelled?

I wasn't making a point about cancellation, but about the scope of what people call boycotts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646344)
Are you saying individuals are equivalent to nations in the kind of power they wield, especially when it comes to the ability to enact and enforce removing someone from a platform?

No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646344)
How is this similar to what we’re talking, other than in name?

It is similar in that it is also a boycott.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646344)
I don’t know anything about this situation, but it sounds as if this person was a credible physical threat to people, right?

Allegedly, but (IMO) probably not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646344)
As such, their deplatforming of them is based not on their speech or views.

I suppose that hinges in part on whether spoken sexual advances count as speech, but I think it's fair to say that he never spoke about his dating predilections from the podium.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646344)
Further, and I’m sure the organizers have genuine concern for the well-being of their attendees, there is still a financial concern over possible lawsuits if they were to let this person attend and someone were to get hurt.

I don't believe Carrier physically hurt anyone. If he had done so, that would be a solid reason to have him cancelled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646344)
You have yet to come up with an argument about how cancel culture isn’t just a new phrase for labeling one aspect of the interplay between free speech and capitalism.

You have yet to come up with an argument that cancellation via public shaming is an unknown phenomenon in pre- or post-capitalist societies. Which ones should we be looking at?

Upchurch 3rd November 2021 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13646377)
You said "Boycotts are about withholding money," I provided a fairly clear counterexample.
[snip]
I would say that ostentatiously refusing to compete is a form of speech, intended to convey a specific message.
[snip]
I wasn't making a point about cancellation, but about the scope of what people call boycotts.
[snip]
No.
[snip]
It is similar in that it is also a boycott.

In name only, the context is completely different, as I pointed out. It's an entirely different situation and circumstances. By your own admission, there is no actual speech in your example to cancel unless you do not allow countries to not compete, which isn't what happened. Even then, we agree that countries are not equivalent to individuals, or corporations, in terms of having the capacity to be canceled. The thread is about cancelation, the terms we're speaking of need to be within that context for it to be at all relevant. This example is nonsense.


Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13646377)
Allegedly, but (IMO) probably not.
[snip]
I suppose that hinges in part on whether spoken sexual advances count as speech, but I think it's fair to say that he never spoke about his dating predilections from the podium.
[snip]
I don't believe Carrier physically hurt anyone. If he had done so, that would be a solid reason to have him cancelled.

Again, I don't have any facts about this situation. Are you suggesting that the event organizers did not have concerns about their attendees' safety with this person presence at the event?


Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13646377)
You have yet to come up with an argument that cancellation via public shaming is an unknown phenomenon in pre- or post-capitalist societies. Which ones should we be looking at?

First of all, that's a strawman. I never made that claim, whereas you have made the claim for which I was asking for a coherent argument. In your first post in this thread (the first part), the person was asking Kroger to fire or discipline an employee. The person even @mentioned the company. It's not like they were trying to make the employee wear a scarlet "A", be tarred and feathered, or run out of town.

We're clearly talking about free speech informing a capitalist decision. One, apparently, Kroger is within it's risk tolerance for holding onto or not disciplining this particular employee. Do we have any information on whether this Andy even actually was "canceled"?


Also, evasion noted. Are you simply upset that people are exercising their right to free speech or do you just not like it when people are upset by other people, which would be more than a little ironic given this thread?

d4m10n 3rd November 2021 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646531)
By your own admission, there is no actual speech in your example to cancel unless you do not allow countries to not compete, which isn't what happened.

Once again, I was not talking about cancellation at that point, but about the conceptual boundaries of the idea of a boycott.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646531)
The thread is about cancelation, the terms we're speaking of need to be within that context for it to be at all relevant.

If you want to make an argument about how boycotts relate to cancellation, it's on you to stipulatively define what you mean by "boycott" or else allow people to bring their own experiences of how the word is used to the table.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646531)
Are you suggesting that the event organizers did not have concerns about their attendees' safety with this person presence at the event?

I would suggest that they mean "safety" in the sense of "safe space," that is, a place in which certain forms of speech are forbidden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646531)
First of all, that's a strawman. I never made that claim...

You made the claim that cancel culture describes a phenomenon at the intersection of capitalism and free speech. This claim logically implies that where either capitalism or free speech are missing, we won't see cancel culture happening. If you want to pursue this line of inquiry, we'll need a few specific cultures to look at, e.g. Maoist China.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646531)
In your first post in this thread (the first part), the person was asking Kroger to fire or discipline an employee. The person even @mentioned the company.

That specific example definitely had capitalism in the mix, but then so would any example in which a profit-based corporation was being pressured to sack an employee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646531)
We're clearly talking about free speech informing a capitalist decision.

So far n=1 but yes, of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646531)
Do we have any information on whether this Andy even actually was "canceled"?

We do, upthread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646531)
Are you simply upset that people are exercising their right to free speech or do you just not like it when people are upset by other people, which would be more than a little ironic given this thread?

I'm going to decline to answer this question since you've personalized it for reasons beyond my understanding. Can you ask what you're trying to ask without delving into my motives or feelings? (If you catch me doing that to you, please call me on it.)

This question goes out to everyone reading along:
Do you believe it is possible for people to exercise their legal right of free speech in a way that they ought not to have done?

Graham2001 4th November 2021 02:35 AM

Found this line from Dakota Johnson in 'The Hollywood Reporter'


Quote:

Some noise is impossible to block out. Like the power of the #MeToo movement and the clamor of cancel culture, which have swept through Hollywood in recent years and put so many of her former male co-stars, like Depp, LaBeouf and Armie Hammer, in jeopardy of never returning to the profession following abuse allegations and which, for some, allow no opportunity for redemption.


ďI never experienced that firsthand from any of those people,Ē she says. ďI had an incredible time working with them; I feel sad for the loss of great artists. I feel sad for people needing help and perhaps not getting it in time. I feel sad for anyone who was harmed or hurt. Itís just really sad. I do believe that people can change. I want to believe in the power of a human being to change and evolve and get help and help other people. I think thereís definitely a major overcorrection happening. But I do believe that thereís a way for the pendulum to find the middle. The way that studios have been run up until now, and still now, is behind. It is such an antiquated mindset of what movies should be made, who should be in them, how much people should get paid, what equality and diversity look like. Sometimes the old school needs to be moved out for the new school to come in. But, yeah, cancel culture is such a ******* downer. I hate that term.Ē

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/mo...in-1235040691/

smartcooky 4th November 2021 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646028)
Social media is doing the same thing the printing press, radio, and TV all did before it: expanding the reach of people's speech.

Correct

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13646110)
Relatively few people have access to printing presses, radio towers, etc. Nearly anyone can have access to social media..

Irrelevant, and in any case, entirely the wrong way to look at it.

Printing presses and radio transmitters and towers allowed speech to become more widespread - in this way, their modern equivalents are the media/social media platforms, NOT the internet itself, which is a distribution system - the modern parallel to the transport systems that distributed newspapers, and the broadcast channels that distributed the spoken word.

While it is true that not many people would have had access to a printing press or a radio tower, it is also true that not many people now have the ability to build or run a media platform. However, just like the internet now, they certainly had access to the distributed information from them.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13646028)
Social media is doing the same thing the printing press, radio, and TV all did before it: expanding the reach of people's speech. The same kind of speech that may be curated or dismissed by distributors, but not by the government. It's free speech through a different channel.

Exactly

d4m10n 4th November 2021 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13647644)
While it is true that not many people would have had access to a printing press or a radio tower, it is also true that not many people now have the ability to build or run a media platform.

Danielle did not require her own media platform in order to incite several people to call for Kroger to sack one of their employees, she only needed her own account.

Now imagine the same sort of attempted cancellation happening in the 1980s. How would she go about it?

SuburbanTurkey 4th November 2021 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13647773)
Danielle did not require her own media platform in order to incite several people to call for Kroger to sack one of their employees, she only needed her own account.

Now imagine the same sort of attempted cancellation happening in the 1980s. How would she go about it?

Considering the John Birchers were accusing everyone and their aunt of being crypto commies, I think our pre-internet ancestors had no problems wielding social cudgels.

d4m10n 4th November 2021 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13647773)
How would she go about it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13647847)
Considering the John Birchers were accusing everyone and their aunt of being crypto commies, I think our pre-internet ancestors had no problems wielding social cudgels.

Evasion noted.

SuburbanTurkey 5th November 2021 04:56 AM

The demonetization effort against Andy Ngo continues:

Quote:

BREAKING: Andy Ngo's publisher The Post Millennial has been de-listed by Sharethrough, a leading independent ad exchange.

Sharethrough processes over 160 billion advertiser bids per day, and serves 22 billion ad impressions daily across their network of 700+ publishing partners
https://twitter.com/chadloder/status...79904699011075

Activists are asking advertisers if they really want their brands associated with Ngo's radioactive fascist politics, and many are saying "no".

SuburbanTurkey 5th November 2021 05:42 AM

Thinking about the Southwest pilot who caused tremendous liberal butt-hurt by saying "let's go brandon" over the flight PA. I imagine he's in some hot water for unprofessional conduct, but he's part of a pilot's union, which likely means his job is safe.



Worried about being cancelled by the woke-mob? Unionize. :D

SuburbanTurkey 5th November 2021 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13647932)
Evasion noted.

Do you honestly think pre-internet people were totally siloed off and unable to cause a stink about some issue if they wanted to?

Some busybody absolutely would have been able to cause a local or even national freakout about some petty BS if it was the kind of thing to tap into a more broadly shared sentiment. Our pre-internet ancestors used different technology, but popular discourse was very much alive before Twitter invented it in 2006. Moral panics routinely happened.

I'm honestly baffled that you seem to be suggesting that this kind of petty freakout was not possible prior to our current moment.

dirtywick 5th November 2021 12:02 PM

https://sports.yahoo.com/aaron-rodge...173236045.html

Aaron Rodgers appears on the radio again railing on the woke pc mob for forcing him to lie about his vaccination status and then acting as if the COVID protocols didnít apply to him. doesnít consider himself anti-vax but instead a free thinker who has done his research, thanks Joe Rogan for his medical advice.

Cain 5th November 2021 12:18 PM

I was going to mention Aaron Rodgers.

Prohibited from playing football because you're unvaccinated = Good.
Prohibited from playing football because you refuse to stand for the National Anthem = Bad.

Rodgers is playing a victim that the "woke mob" is out to get him. Vaccines have nothing to do with wokeness. Rodgers telling reporters that he's been "immunized" was Clintonian.

pgwenthold 5th November 2021 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13648515)
https://sports.yahoo.com/aaron-rodge...173236045.html

Aaron Rodgers appears on the radio again railing on the woke pc mob for forcing him to lie about his vaccination status and then acting as if the COVID protocols didnít apply to him. doesnít consider himself anti-vax but instead a free thinker who has done his research, thanks Joe Rogan for his medical advice.

It's not the "woke" mob that is holding him responsible. It is the NFL, its doctors and even the players union that rejected his nonsense. But hey, Joe Rogan is on his side.

He tried to keep it hidden, until he tested positive. At that point, the question came up.

dirtywick 5th November 2021 12:47 PM

For clarity, he’s not been disciplined in any way for being unvaccinated or lying about his status. He’s been forced to sit out a game because he’s actively contagious with the virus, same as any other player vaccinated or not that tests positive. However the testing frequency and wait times are different for players depending on their vaccination status.

That said, Rodgers was participating in team activities and press events in the same way a vaccinated player would and directly lied about his status. However even then, he’s unlikely to face any penalty for it. The NFL may fine the team, but can’t impose suspension for violating Covid protocols and has pretty clearly left it up to teams to enforce discipline, and it’s impossible the team didn’t know his vaccination status when he plainly violated Covid protocols week after week.

Long story short, one of the most privileged people on the planet got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, suffers no consequences, and thinks he’s being treated unfairly

Cain 5th November 2021 01:10 PM

He's taking another hit to his reputation and giving the backup QB a golden opportunity to replace him (not necessarily immediately, but numbering his days).

d4m10n 5th November 2021 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13648228)
Do you honestly think pre-internet people were totally siloed off and unable to cause a stink about some issue if they wanted to?

I can cut-and-paste my question again, if that helps, but you cannot reasonably expect me to answer yours when you dodge mine.

d4m10n 5th November 2021 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13634870)
Rodgers...shouldn't be cancelled (of course) and I doubt very many people are tryna get him canceled, even in Chicago.

I take it back.

dirtywick 6th November 2021 02:25 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl...?ocid=msedgntp

as we all know, regardless of what you say or do, a celebrity is entitled to unconditional support from all fans including maintaining all sources of revenue. it's unjust, but the woke mob wins again

Cain 6th November 2021 03:00 PM

It seems very on brand for a health care organization to dissolve their partnership with someone who takes homeopathic treatments and listens to the advice of Dr. Joe Rogan.

d4m10n 6th November 2021 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13649262)
it's unjust, but the woke mob wins again

On rare occasions, the mob happens to be right.

(Not because mobs think things though, ofc.)

dirtywick 6th November 2021 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain (Post 13649270)
It seems very on brand for a health care organization to dissolve their partnership with someone who takes homeopathic treatments and listens to the advice of Dr. Joe Rogan.

Well thatís not fair either. We canít let this cancel culture environment interfere with an athleteís right to seek the medical advice of his personal comedian. And really, who is the international medical community to say a vaccine is any more or less effective than smearing horse deworming cream on your balls? That vaccine might make you sterile, I think a mime may have told him that Iíd have to get back to you. But he got that from somewhere credible. And even if not, everyone has a right to spread as much misinformation as they want without suffering any repercussions at all, especially on the internet or even worse, from a journalist

Anyway, anyone passing any judgement, saying anything negative, not buying his jersey, or supporting his upcoming comedy tours with Dave Chapelle and Tim Pool featuring Alex Jones is in the wrong. Textbook cancellation. Itís not for us to decide our opinions on other peopleís public actions or ideas, leave that to your betters. This is just the woke mob going insane.

dirtywick 9th November 2021 09:43 PM

https://www.wbay.com/2021/11/09/aaro...out-my-status/

Well, despite his assurances that he would not acquiesce to the woke mob in this cancel culture war, it was indeed the final nail in his cancel culture coffin. Rodgers doesn't apologize but acknowledges people may have felt misled by his comments, in which case if someone did feel misled he's takes full responsibility for the comments he made. No doubt, taking responsibility for these comments to the woke mob is going to entail something horrifying as they have done with many celebrities in the past.

Even worse, the NFL fined him $15K for his repeated COVID violations. For a man that makes a mere $146K a minute per game, this is a sum sure to cause him an even greater distress than having to acknowledge that some people may have felt misled by him.

I really don't know how anyone can hope to enjoy any kind of freedoms in an environment this dangerous and unforgiving.

Graham2001 11th November 2021 04:00 AM

Cancel culture is not the answer to anti-Semitism
 
Quote:

German journalist Nemi El-Hassan once had a promising TV career ahead of her. She was even about to start hosting a well-known science programme. But then her employer, the broadcaster WDR, pulled the plug. And just like that, her career was brought to a standstill.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/1...anti-semitism/

angrysoba 11th November 2021 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham2001 (Post 13652816)

I've heard the University of Austin is hiring. Her views will clash with those of Bari Weiss, but that's what a free-thinking university is all about, right? The plurality of views, the jousting of opinions. Nothing is Verboten!

Emily's Cat 11th November 2021 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 13652877)
I've heard the University of Austin is hiring. Her views will clash with those of Bari Weiss, but that's what a free-thinking university is all about, right? The plurality of views, the jousting of opinions. Nothing is Verboten!

You know, this is one of those situations that frustrates me. People should be able to have views opposed to the actions of the COUNTRY of ISRAEL without being labeled as "anti-semites". It's as dumb as insisting that anyone opposed to the policies of Afghanistan is "anti-muslim".

rdwight 11th November 2021 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13653191)
You know, this is one of those situations that frustrates me. People should be able to have views opposed to the actions of the COUNTRY of ISRAEL without being labeled as "anti-semites". It's as dumb as insisting that anyone opposed to the policies of Afghanistan is "anti-muslim".

To be fair, are the policies they oppose there ones based on Islamic religious doctrine? Everyone should be able to state they hate any tenants of any religion they find problematic. The anti-sematic smear that comes up all too often when any disagreement with Israel policy is way too commonplace for sure though. We should all probably be more aware of the lax justification needed to throw around labels like these. I get annoyed to have to investigate if any label thrown on people is accurate, and yet that is probably the bare minimum we all should have been doing the whole time.

Emily's Cat 11th November 2021 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdwight (Post 13653245)
To be fair, are the policies they oppose there ones based on Islamic religious doctrine? Everyone should be able to state they hate any tenants of any religion they find problematic. The anti-sematic smear that comes up all too often when any disagreement with Israel policy is way too commonplace for sure though. We should all probably be more aware of the lax justification needed to throw around labels like these. I get annoyed to have to investigate if any label thrown on people is accurate, and yet that is probably the bare minimum we all should have been doing the whole time.

Agreed.

Also... tenets, not tenants. :o

Stout 12th November 2021 09:54 AM

Not wanting to be outdone by the US and the UK, Canada steps up to the plate and cancels
a book club meeting for low income teenage girls because the featured Nobel Prize winning author who wrote a book about being kidnapped, raped and tortured by ISIS because it might foster Islamophobia.

Quote:

The superintendent, Helen Fisher, also told her that students would not participate in a book-club event scheduled for February with Nadia Murad, a Nobel Prize-winner and activist, Ms. Lee said. She said she was told Ms. Muradís book, The Last Girl: My Story of Captivity, and My Fight Against the Islamic State, would foster Islamophobia.

After that conversation, Ms. Lee said she sent an e-mail to Ms. Fisher with information about Islamic State from the BBC and CNN.

ďThis is what Islamic State means,Ē Ms. Lee wrote to the superintendent. ďIt is a terrorist organization. It has nothing to do with ordinary Muslims. The TDSB should be aware of the difference.Ē
Source

d4m10n 14th November 2021 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stout (Post 13653913)
Not wanting to be outdone by the US and the UK, Canada steps up to the plate and cancels a book club meeting for low income teenage girls because the featured Nobel Prize winning author who wrote a book about being kidnapped, raped and tortured by ISIS because it might foster Islamophobia.

In the U.S. that book club meeting would be protested/canceled just for normalizing the non-radical version of Islam.

d4m10n 16th November 2021 06:55 PM

Cancel culture database



https://www.thecollegefix.com/ccdb/


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.