If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)
Hi all, The AutoSave Draft feature is now disabled across the site. The decision to disable the feature was made via a poll last year. The delay in putting it in place was due to a bug/update issue. This should serve as a reminder to manually save your drafts if you wish to keep them. Thanks, The Boards Team.
Hello all! This is just a quick reminder to ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere.

This whole cancel culture myth



  • Registered Users Posts: 31,208 ✭✭✭✭ Penn

    Young made his play and Spotify's stock went up. He picked a fight and lost , simple as.

    Meanwhile , the heretics on the left will keep squealing like piglets about "misinformation" . What they really want to do is thought policing people they believe are guilty of wrong think.

    There is no law against "misinformation". There is no anti misinformation act.

    It's funny how you talk about misinformation, while also saying Spotify's stock went up after Young pulled his songs. Their stock dropped by 2bn.

    Their stock started to rebound again a few days later, but Young pulling his music and the controversy around it definitely damaged their market value.

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,401 ✭✭✭✭ Tell me how

    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?

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,401 ✭✭✭✭ Tell me how

    Well, he wasn't happy to see Rogans frequent use of the N word.

    Do you think he should just tolerate it because he didn't know it before now?

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,401 ✭✭✭✭ Tell me how

    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.

  • Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭ arthursway

    ..@TellALS@Tell me how

    You are right both sides are guilty of such acts in the past and to say otherwise would be hypocritical of me.

    Going slightly off topic but not by much I feel..

    My biggest concern on free speech going forward is with the tech giants Facebook/Instagram YouTube and Twitter.

    These companies are now the vessels on to which the dialogue of the planet is now delivered. They have power that kings and Dictators throughout history would of only dreamt of and never thought possible. If someone is deplatformed from these sites they lose their voice to Billions of people.

    These are companies and they have rules you say; Yes you are technically correct but the problem is these companies are heavily left wing that is fact:

    Facebook employee donations:

    92% to Democrats

    8% to Republicans

    Twitter political donations:

    99% Democrats

    1% Republicans.

    So you expect these same left wing employees of these companies who donate to Democratic politicans to hold no bias or let any personal or political ideologies they posesss weep into the moderation or tendencies of these companies?

    That's a big ask a very big ask and you would have more faith in humanity than I currently possess.

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,401 ✭✭✭✭ Tell me how

    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.

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,401 ✭✭✭✭ Tell me how

    There is zero evidence or argument to suggest that Facebook is Left Wing. Permitting ads to push harmful images to teens, facilitating fake news and Russian bot farms to push misinformation are most definitely happening and are most definitely not left wing.

    The employees may be more inclined to be left wing, but the fact that the above goes on while the employees donate to Democrats at the level you suggest (which I presume to be the case) shows that the company is not swayed by what its employees think for the most part.

    Also, what are big tech employees likely to be? Highly educated and urban I think is a fair bet. What type of people are more likely to be Democrat? Those who are 3rd level educated and live in big cities. It would be a surprise if these people were not leaning Democrat.

    But that aside, if we had a time machine and were back in the year 2000 or wherever, and there was this emerging technology that had a chance to literally change every thing in terms of communication, media, news, entertainment, collaboration the economy etc etc. But we also knew of some of the issues that we would be dealing with as a consequence of this some 20 years later. So just imagine that scenario and say, as is more likely to have been the case, Democrats wanted to manage or regulate how this new game changer would evolve. How do you think the Conservatives would have reacted? Do you agree that they would have pushed back against such regulation and said that it was unduly meddling in the free market and influencing the choices of individual people to select and use a platform as they wish.

    Because that's what I think that would have happened given how Conservatives, certainly where these companies are headquartered, see Government influence.

    So, we'd either be in this situation we are in now with claims that social media companies have two much influence because their employees lean democrat or we'd be screaming that government has two much influence because it interfered in the market.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,562 ✭✭✭✭ anewme

    Was George Hook not in trouble for victim blaming in a rape case?

    Nothing contrary about that?

    It would seem he cancelled himself through his own ignorance.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,656 ✭✭✭ Quantum Erasure


    Kevin Myers was completely and shamefully cancelled, on the laughable pretense of antisemitism, despite him being probably the one pro Jewish journalist about.

    came across this quote from 2010 by Stewart Lee

    “No one cares about this sort of thing any more. To the average punter there’s no difference between Jimmy Carr and Jim Davidson, between irony and intent, except that Jimmy Carr is much better and more original. But ethical and political questions are largely irrelevant to today’s comedy consumers. Comedians are little more than content providers”.

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 44,553 CMod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder

    an interview with frankie boyle, who used to write jokes for jimmy carr; and richard osman asks him about one of the most controversial ones:

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,562 ✭✭✭✭ anewme

    I looked it up there. The wording was "Is there no blame to the person who puts themselves in danger?" Now, that is not specific to that case, but promoting a victim blaming culture in general. You could say a woman puts herself in danger by going out in a short skirt? Or more recent comments in respect to recent events, women should not go out at night alone.

    This is textbook victim blaming at its most blatent.. He deserved to get into trouble on it. It also appears his colleagues on Newstalk felt the exact same.

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 44,553 CMod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder

    you have to wonder if newstalk were worried about him saying something worse - i know a guy who was on the show as a guest, and apparently the off-mic stuff was way worse than what made it onto air.

    i remember listening to his show once - one of the few times i did - and he had a male and a female guest on talking about technology. he was exceptionally rude to the female guest, really dismissive, and made no bones about it - and then read out a message from a listener. it turns out it was his daughter who messaged the show to ask the producers to get her dad to stop being a pig. he thought it was funny.

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,506 ✭✭✭✭ Mad_maxx

    That's not really a big reveal, Mark Zuckerberg is Jewish, Jewish voters have almost the highest bias towards the Democrats, something like 80%

    Only African Americans lean more blue

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,562 ✭✭✭✭ anewme

    Yes, I thought about that afterwards, he was well known for being sexist in general. It was excused as being "contrary" or "old school" but he definitely was one of those, who thought you could just say anything to people and get away with it.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 42 stellamere

    Sorry about that, i didn't realise he used the word "blame".

    I had thought he was shocked at the amount of drink and drugs involved in the case and was wondering aloud if the incident in question would have occurred if not so much alcohol and drugs was involved.

    I'm not a puritan, and have been maouldy drunk plenty of times, but I have friends who are consultants and they are seeing people as young as 19 coming in jaundiced and with liver cirrhosis. This type of drinking and its repercussions is definitely something that should be discussed, but certainly not as a way to attribute blame to a victim of assault or sexual assault

  • Registered Users Posts: 42 stellamere

    Hi Chrsty. Liver issues may unrelated, but i only raised cirrhosis to highlight that the level of drinking seems to be increasing.

    Alcohol and sexual assault are certainly not unrelated and I don't agree it's bull to say it is, because the stats are quite shocking.

    88% of defendants were binge drinking at the time of a sexual assault and 45% of complaints were. So sexual assault and alcohol go hand in hand. I don't see that it can benefit anyone to place an omerta on this link. I'm not sure if secondary school kids are told of these stats by parents or school, but they should be, so that they can see the risks involved.

    In my last line of my previous post I said that any conversation about drinking and its repercussions should not be done in any way which might attribute any blame to the victim.

    I fully agree with your point that the amount of alcohol a victim might have drunk is irrelevant . It's almost a worse crime given the additional vulnerability of the victim

    Furthermore I can understand why females don't like getting told where they can and can't go, and what the can and cannot do.

    I'm realise I'm after going completely off topic now and will probably get cancelled by the moderator myself.

  • Registered Users Posts: 327 ✭✭ BaywatchHQ

    I try not to get involved in cancel culture, if I stopped listening to a musician or stopped watching a show because I didn't like the people who made it then I wouldn't have any entertainment left. I actually go out of my way to avoid listening to interviews of my favourite actors and musicians as I know I will end up disliking them. It is better to live in blissful ignorance and just enjoy the media.

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,401 ✭✭✭✭ Tell me how

    More evidence that Facebook was/is most definitely not Left wing.

  • Registered Users Posts: 39 Just Some Young Lad

    Preface: I neither like nor endorse the following person or the comments that led to their cancellation. I am merely adding it because it fits the description of the posters question. Someone that said something, that offended a lot of people, but did not engage in criminal activity, and was cancelled as a result.

    Milo Yiannopolous was cancelled as far back as 2017. After he made comments that were interpreted to be in support of pedophilia. He was then cancelled, and for good reason. The cancel started as a mass backlash through social media, such as Twitter, then progressed to formal cancellations of books, talks, etc.

  • Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭ hawley

    "Personally, I avoid his show so don't really have a huge amount of skin in the game."

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    If you work for a .com here in Ireland chances are you have come accross some people involved. If you get to know them well, they may tell you over some pints, what its all about. I know of one group that seem to be linked to another group in Cork and they use "recommend a friend" referrells to bring people into their companies, with social media companies as well as media and entertainment in Ireland being a goal. It doesnt seem to be 1 big cabal but smaller groups with similar goals but who also bicker and fall out. I do know that there is a socialist element to it,which seems to be masked as social justice. They target people who have influence and use tactics much like people who speak out against scientology. I know at this moment in time its causing some concern within said companies, due to the amount of power thats being flexed and its being watched very closely especially after the Netflix fiasco.

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,401 ✭✭✭✭ Tell me how

    Conspiracy forum is all the way down the hall.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭ growleaves

    'I am old enough when it was the right wingers who were the censorship types.'

    If you've seen the documentary 'The Rocky Road to Dublin' there is a film portrait of a member of the censorship appeal board Liam O Briain.

    The film is meant to be a hatchet job on traditionalism but imo O Briain comes across as considered, sensitive and intelligent.

    And while it's outside the experience of Irish history, there were plenty of Stalinist students on American and European universities campuses in the 1920s who were pro-censorship, pro-Bolshevik and anti-Christian.

    They only lacked the power to clamp down on ordinary speech.