This whole cancel culture myth

Saw the furore about Jimmy Carr, have people never seen him before this?

People are so precious, it was a bad taste joke, like most of his bad taste jokes...

People also had no problem slagging him off when his taxes were out of kilter either, he took some ribbing from the general public...

Cant say anything nowadays without a magnifying glass watching over you as a "public figure"

Well some might say that he should be cancelled under the trade descriptions act in the first place, but outside of that, I think "can't say anything nowadays" is downplaying this one just a tad.

His YouTube channel seems to have plenty...

That's how he earns his money I suppose...

I'm not a fan of him tbh but I don't think comedians should be cancelled for you know, being comedians....

Jimmy Carr has been doing that schtick for 15+ years, even the joke that he made is from a Netflix special that was released on xmas day. However, its only since yesterday he's getting called out on it as certain people/groups have started running with it. Shows it up for exactly what it is, the rent-a-mob will move on to someone/something else shortly

I heard about it yesterday when it said travellers, I assumed it would be an anti Irish slant, but did not actually read the story of what he said, till today. It is getting a lot of coverage.

I would not call the Auschwitz Memorial Group (official Museum) a rent a mob in any way either.

Google is your friend.

I'd say this type of flipping on positions has led to some people feeling less accepting of him than they were in the past.

Personally, I avoid his show so don't really have a huge amount of skin in the game but is it unfair of people to express an opinion on him when that is evidently (and understandably) something he does about others?

Media has become extremely polarized. It's way more polarized in the US that it is in western Europe.

So the answer is not that Rogan's podcasts must include the opposing view, but that Spotify must have on it's platform the opposing view. As far as I can see, it does. Because it hosts a wealth of podcasts. So what's the problem?

edit; Neil Young and Jodie Mitchell didn't just silently remove themselves from Spotify. They did it in protest at Rogan being on it in the hope Spotify would remove him. So it's not a case of just them expressing their opinion, but trying to silence others. They are perfectly entitled to do that, but lets not pretend what it is they are trying to achieve.

Wake up kid, it's 2022

Ireland democratically have been one of the most progressive countries on the planet in most of our lifetimes, with many of the things that have been implemented including same sex marriage, availability of divorce, the right to have an abortion having being achieved because of the willingness to discuss peoples needs and the how it is fair to allow the people to live the life they want in spite of the counter voices of staunchly conservative institutes and individuals.

The idea that the left cannot affect change through the democratic process is so laughably out of place it doesn't even refer to a situation that existed within this century. It's because they've had such success we have regressives harping back to time past wishing they existed now. They don't. Deal with it.

You most definitely are looking at it wrong if you think that it is something that 'The Left' do. Trump, a central figure in the right wing mindset of the last period of close to ten years wished, as President, that individuals who expressed an opinion he didn't like would be fired for doing so. He regularly castigated and demeaned individuals and organisations whose journalism content he didn't like and tried to ban at least one journalist from the White House.

When the Dixie Chicks expressed dislike for George W Bush because of him starting a second Gulf war, their content was removed from most country music stations in the southern US states.

The lady who flipped off Trumps motorcade was fired from her company for doing so. In the UK, the explicitly right wing focused GB News punished a presenter for expressing his individual support for the BLM cause.

Have a look at the review of books in schools going on throughout right leaning states in the US, or consider the attempts to ban books, films, music in Ireland throughout the 20th century.

Or similar in Russia or Middle East states. Or in China right now also. Where exactly do you think the thought policing is happening in a real and impactful way?

Are these Leftist administrators who are doing this? Is this more acceptable than saying someone shouldn't spread false information about a disease that has killed millions of people?

Blame whoever you want.

Doesn't change the results of the referenda that brought about progressive changes that you want to pretend didn't happen.

It's not a misreading though is it, you have previously and frequently expressed dismay at those, particularly women who advocate for their own gender or cause that affects them. Dismissing it as a 'permanent culture of victimhood' I think wss the phrase used more that once in spite of all the evidence that it took people raising their voices for their cause which was warranted in order to initiate change.

But here suggesting the right 'didn't lick it off a stone' implies they are only doing it as others have shown them how to do so and suggests that well if it was ok for the feminists to do so then of course others can, but lets remember those feminists and they definitely weren't entitled to any advocacy on their own behalf.

I am always curious when people are focused on the argument cancel culture that sprang from universities or wherever more than they are about the subjugation of thought and advocacy that was largely in practice until universities became too big for the narrative to be controlled entirely. The topic of whether or not cancel culture emerged entirely from such places and if so whether or not that invalidates it is probably worth a separate thread of its own. In the US, certainly throughout recent history, much of the policy makers came through so called ivy league places of education which was attainable largely to those only from a particular wealth and background. What type of philosophies or polices can we assume would have been nurtured in those environments which then found their way in to houses of legislation and members only clubs and board rooms do you think? Were they fine and just but a couple of hippies arguing against war in Vietnam or wherever was the foundation of mindset that is negatively impacting society more than 50 years later?

Or how about the UK? They have 7000 secondary level schools, and nearly 40% of their Prime Ministers came from just one of them, Eton college. That rises to 75% when looking at the numbers that have studied at either Oxford or Cambridge. We've seen efforts from some of these noted alumini to introduce draconian laws to impact the right to protest which led to the scenes we saw at a vigil for a murder victim last year but the introduction of that legislation causes much less concern for some than someone asking Jimmy Carr to not joke about a particular demographic being murdered en masse. Is this drawing of legislators from such a narrow pool of the UK electorate acceptable? I presume it is given those who call for change and talk about lack of opportunity or representation for others in society, who make up significantly larger numbers percentage wise are dismissed as possessing a victimhood as the status-quo is sought to be preserved.

I'm not rankled by the 'average IQ middle class women' comment, it's a view I pretty much expected, I am curious about the blinkered analysis that leads for that to be the focus. Although as I pointed out, if someone such as Hazel Chu, intelligent and qualified and all as she is, can be targeted as she has been in the past and will be in the future, and other prominent advocates from a non-stereotypical Irish background receive similarly forceful and negative attention, we can hardly be surprised that they think twice before putting themselves in the firing line.