“Cancel” / Knee-Jerk Culture of 2020 and beyond

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

9 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

 

...pretty sick stuff......I taught my kids to treat people, regardless of sex, race, creed, color religion, orientation et al in the manner you hope to be treated.....those that don't will weed themselves out.....the old moral fiber in this society of respect and tolerance is sadly LONG GONE......

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

GLEICHSCHALTUNG: 

 

Pinterest will now lecture you if you search for Halloween costumes that “appropriate cultures” (but only some cultures, of course).

 

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

26 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

GLEICHSCHALTUNG: 

 

Pinterest will now lecture you if you search for Halloween costumes that “appropriate cultures” (but only some cultures, of course).

 

I have never seen that before, so I went and did the Day of the Dead costumes search. I attached the image of my top line.

 

[Joe Miner]

9 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

GLEICHSCHALTUNG: 

 

Pinterest will now lecture you if you search for Halloween costumes that “appropriate cultures” (but only some cultures, of course).

 

 

 

 

 

Appropriating cultures = bad

 

Appropriating genders = good?

[Dragoon]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-shows-seattle-area-teacher-023006521.html
 

What a horrible person. Liberals will even bully children. Disgusting. 

7 hours ago, Joe Miner said:

 

Appropriating cultures = bad

 

Right. I think. Unless it’s minorities appropriating white culture which is ok. Ya know, like with Hamilton. In fact it’s beyond beautiful. 
 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[dhg]

Sean Lennon nails it

 

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/sean-ono-lennon-mocks-portland-statue-vandals-the-pyramids-should-be-torn-down-immediately

[Reality Check]

I happen to like cancel culture. Voting with your dollars is where democracy and capitalism converge. That is why confiscating your income via taxation and redistributing it is so important to some people. I love it when my customers have a gun pointed to their heads. Highly profitable.

[B-Man]

 

 

[RiotAct]

lol, my wife and I will joke occasionally if I’m being cranky that I’m having my “meriod”.  Who knew it was actually a thing?

[Taro T]

On 10/3/2020 at 11:17 AM, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

Can assume what the loon posted, but it looks like her account was suspended.  (Guessing it was suspended by her.  Based on other comments around her now suspended tweets, doesn't seem to be the type of posting twitter usually takes issue with.) 

[RiotAct]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/14/the-cleveland-indians-baseball-team-name-change.html

[Big Blitz]

It's over.  Public education has failed.  None of this ends well for anyone (fyi this was always the most important thing Trump said after Charlottesville...that next would be all the Founders and that puts everyone and everything on the table...this is straight outta the Mao/Che playbook):

 

 

School may remove Lincoln’s name because he didn’t show ‘black lives mattered to him’

 

San Francisco may remove Abraham Lincoln’s name from a high school, because a district committee says the 16th president — who abolished slavery — did not demonstrate that “black lives mattered to him.”

 

Lincoln is one of dozens of historical figures who the city school district’s renaming committee argued led lives so rife with racism, oppression or abuse that their names should not grace its buildings, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.   

 

“Lincoln, like the presidents before him and most after, did not show through policy or rhetoric that black lives ever mattered to them outside of human capital and as casualties of wealth building,” Jeffries said.

 

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/Abraham-Lincoln-was-once-a-hero-In-some-S-F-15798744.php

Edited December 16, 2020 by Big Blitz

[JaCrispy]

On 10/14/2020 at 8:07 AM, dhg said:

Sean Lennon nails it

 

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/sean-ono-lennon-mocks-portland-statue-vandals-the-pyramids-should-be-torn-down-immediately

Now, THIS is 4D chess! 👍

[JaCrispy]

On 10/24/2020 at 2:07 PM, B-Man said:

 

 

That’s funny, because all those ‘bleeders’ look like women to me...🤣🤣

 

In all seriousness, though- I really feel sorry sorry for all these females who seem to have such a deep seeded loathing for who they are...I truly hope they are able to find peace, and learn to love themselves, as they are all made in the image of God...

[Warcodered]

12 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

It's over.  Public education has failed.  None of this ends well for anyone (fyi this was always the most important thing Trump said after Charlottesville...that next would be all the Founders and that puts everyone and everything on the table...this is straight outta the Mao/Che playbook):

 

 

School may remove Lincoln’s name because he didn’t show ‘black lives mattered to him’

 

San Francisco may remove Abraham Lincoln’s name from a high school, because a district committee says the 16th president — who abolished slavery — did not demonstrate that “black lives mattered to him.”

 

Lincoln is one of dozens of historical figures who the city school district’s renaming committee argued led lives so rife with racism, oppression or abuse that their names should not grace its buildings, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.   

 

“Lincoln, like the presidents before him and most after, did not show through policy or rhetoric that black lives ever mattered to them outside of human capital and as casualties of wealth building,” Jeffries said.

 

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/Abraham-Lincoln-was-once-a-hero-In-some-S-F-15798744.php

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/san-francisco-lincoln-blm/

[SoTier]

3 hours ago, Warcodered said:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/san-francisco-lincoln-blm/

 

Thank you for finding the truth about the original SFGate article.  I tried to read the original myself but it's behind a paywall, which I'm sure is why the RW media latched on to it, knowing that most readers wouldn't fact check their lies.

[Big Blitz]

4 hours ago, Warcodered said:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/san-francisco-lincoln-blm/

 

 

Lol.

 

So everything about the story is true.  Snopes is such a joke.   

 

The reason they deem the story false was bc the headline was misleading???

 

Quote from loon Chair on SF SB:

 

“Lincoln, like the presidents before him and most after, did not show through policy or rhetoric that Black lives ever mattered to them outside of human capital and as casualties of wealth building.”

 

 

 

WHAT?  This is misleading because hey guys.....it wasn't just Lincoln---it was ALL the Presidents before him.  That's even worse.  And he only saw them as human capital??  For what?  I thought that's what the South thought?  Was Lincoln hell bent on bringing Slavery North??

 

Then, to confirm this is in fact actually being discuss, Dopes quotes the mayor:

 

.....the name-change proposals have been controversial within the city itself.

 

San Francisco’s Democratic mayor, London Breed, issued a statement in October 2020 blasting the process as a poor use of public resources amid an ongoing pandemic and resulting school closures, saying it was “offensive” to consider while parents and children struggle with distance learning. Breed’s statement read, in part:

 

Look, I believe in equity. It’s at the forefront of my administration and we’ve made historic investments to address the systemic racism confronting our city. But the fact that our kids aren’t in school is what’s driving inequity in our City. Not the name of a school. We are in a pandemic right now that is forcing us all to prioritize what truly matters. Conversations around school names can be had once the critical work of educating our young people in person is underway. Once that is happening, then we can talk about everything else. Until those doors are open, the School Board and the District should be focused on getting our kids back in the classroom.

 

 

 

 

Lemme fact check Snopes here saying this proposal is "controversial" in the city itself:

 

VERDICT:     FALSE

 

Why?  Snopes presents the proposal as one that's "controversial" in the city and that the mayor doesn't support.  Reality:  The mayor has no problem discussing and changing the names but would like to wait till the Pandemic is over.  

 

 

Big Blitz rates Snopes claim that an actual event happened but wasn't thrilled with how it was headlined does not mean said event didn't happen.  And trying to claim that it was Lincoln's treatment of Native Americans that was what was actually what drove them to consider this, is 1. Misleading and 2. Disturbing.  We would like to ask the SB Chair if we should just cancel the United States.  

 

 

We also wish they took the time to do that with left wing sensationalist headlines of stories that are actually indeed fake but we cannot find any because that's not why Snopes actually exists.  

Edited December 17, 2020 by Big Blitz

[Warcodered]

5 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

Lol.

 

So everything about the story is true.  Snopes is such a joke.   

 

The reason they deem the story false was bc the headline was misleading???

 

Quote from loon Chair on SF SB:

 

“Lincoln, like the presidents before him and most after, did not show through policy or rhetoric that Black lives ever mattered to them outside of human capital and as casualties of wealth building.”

 

 

 

WHAT?  This is misleading because hey guys.....it wasn't just Lincoln---it was ALL the Presidents before him.  That's even worse.  And he only saw them as human capital??  For what?  I thought that's what the South thought?  Was Lincoln hell bent on bringing Slavery North??

 

Then, to confirm this is in fact actually being discuss, Dopes quotes the mayor:

 

.....the name-change proposals have been controversial within the city itself.

 

San Francisco’s Democratic mayor, London Breed, issued a statement in October 2020 blasting the process as a poor use of public resources amid an ongoing pandemic and resulting school closures, saying it was “offensive” to consider while parents and children struggle with distance learning. Breed’s statement read, in part:

 

Look, I believe in equity. It’s at the forefront of my administration and we’ve made historic investments to address the systemic racism confronting our city. But the fact that our kids aren’t in school is what’s driving inequity in our City. Not the name of a school. We are in a pandemic right now that is forcing us all to prioritize what truly matters. Conversations around school names can be had once the critical work of educating our young people in person is underway. Once that is happening, then we can talk about everything else. Until those doors are open, the School Board and the District should be focused on getting our kids back in the classroom.

 

 

 

 

Lemme fact check Snopes here saying this proposal is "controversial" in the city itself:

 

VERDICT:     FALSE

 

Why?  Snopes presents the proposal as one that's "controversial" in the city and that the mayor doesn't support.  Reality:  The mayor has no problem discussing and changing the names but would like to wait till the Pandemic is over.  

 

 

Big Blitz rates Snopes claim that an actual event happened but wasn't thrilled with how it was headlined does not mean said event didn't happen.  And trying to claim that it was Lincoln's treatment of Native Americans that was what was actually what drove them to consider this, is 1. Misleading and 2. Disturbing.  We would like to ask the SB Chair if we should just cancel the United States.  

 

 

We also wish they took the time to do that with left wing sensationalist headlines of stories that are actually indeed fake but we cannot find any because that's not why Snopes actually exists.  

If you read all of what Snopes said you'd of seen that the Black lives was one guys opinion and that the reason the school named after Lincoln was on the list of names to review was his treatment of Native Americans which apparently was as bad as usual for the time period. But more than that it's just on a list of schools to review doesn't seem all that likely that it'll actually change.

[Big Blitz]

The Left is just gone.  Those of you that vote Democrat but don't support this and countless other idiotic and slippery slope "ideas" just because Republicans bad need to start speaking up and take your party back or head straight into the abyss with it.  

 

 

 

[LeGOATski]

7 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

The Left is just gone.  Those of you that vote Democrat but don't support this and countless other idiotic and slippery slope "ideas" just because Republicans bad need to start speaking up and take your party back or head straight into the abyss with it.  

Its a cycle of equal and opposite reactions from both sides.

 

The Republicans were supposed to "take their party back" 4 years ago before electing a millionaire TV narcissist to the Presidency.... 🙄

[Big Blitz]

6 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

Its a cycle of equal and opposite reactions from both sides.

 

The Republicans were supposed to "take their party back" 4 years ago before electing a millionaire TV narcissist to the Presidency.... 🙄

 

 

Back?

 

We were fighting to take it.  You agreed with and support the Neo Con Bush Era?

 

Didn't think so. 

 

I'll ask what Donald did that made the Left uncomfortable with anything in this country?  Did their worst fears come to pass under the Donald or no?  Did they feel like the right hijacked the GOP?  

 

You missed realignment in case you are currently extremely confused.

[Warcodered]

8 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

The Left is just gone.  Those of you that vote Democrat but don't support this and countless other idiotic and slippery slope "ideas" just because Republicans bad need to start speaking up and take your party back or head straight into the abyss with it.  

 

 

 

It's an opinion piece by a guy that basically exclusively talks/writes about racism how does that equal the entire left?

 

I mean the whole idea comes off as naïve wishful thinking and excessive. There is already an institution to deal with racist/biased laws/government actions it's the Judicial branch.

[LeGOATski]

2 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

Back?

 

We were fighting to take it.  You agreed with and support the Neo Con Bush Era?

 

Didn't think so. 

 

I'll ask what Donald did that made the Left uncomfortable with anything in this country?  Did their worst fears come to pass under the Donald or no?  Did they feel like the right hijacked the GOP?  

 

You missed realignment in case you are currently extremely confused.

Donald made everyone uncomfortable, not just the left, lol. That's why he's the first president in a while not to be reelected.

 

In this day and age, you gotta be pretty terrible for that to happen. He was horrible and we voted him in despite all the bad signs along the way. It's pretty embarassing.

[Big Blitz]

1 hour ago, LeGOATski said:

Donald made everyone uncomfortable, not just the left, lol. That's why he's the first president in a while not to be reelected.

 

In this day and age, you gotta be pretty terrible for that to happen. He was horrible and we voted him in despite all the bad signs along the way. It's pretty embarassing.

 

 

Cool.  He makes "everyone" uncomfortable.

 

 

How does this make you feel.....here is what Covid has taught Comrade Duh Blahsio:

 

 

[LeGOATski]

29 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

Cool.  He makes "everyone" uncomfortable.

 

 

How does this make you feel.....here is what Covid has taught Comrade Duh Blahsio:

 

That kind of talk has been going on for decades dude. We have a system in place that allows the will of the people to prevail. Be thankful for that and avoid sensationalism.

[Big Blitz]

The America we deserve.

 

*waits for white guilt filled libs to defend this*

 

 

 

 

 

[716er]

Can someone square the Republican push to end cancel culture with multiple Republicans, such as Cassidy, Romney, Burr, Toomey, and Cheney, who are being censured by their state GOP committees for their impeachment votes?

Edited February 15, 2021 by 716er

[njbuff]

Fvck cancel culture.

[Orlando Tim]

5 hours ago, 716er said:

Can someone square the Republican push to end cancel culture with multiple Republicans, such as Cassidy, Romney, Burr, Toomey, and Cheney, who are being censured by their state GOP committees for their impeachment votes?

Are you comparing a politician being censured for not doing their job  to normal citizens losing their jobs for saying things that are not popular in their private life? Not an intelligent comparison.

[oldmanfan]

9 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Are you comparing a politician being censured for not doing their job  to normal citizens losing their jobs for saying things that are not popular in their private life? Not an intelligent comparison.

Except that the politicians being censured did, in fact, do their jobs by voting in the way they felt proper.  And except that companies can decide to let people go from their jobs if their behavior will negatively impact the company.

 

Other than that your comparison was intelligent.

[Orlando Tim]

5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Except that the politicians being censured did, in fact, do their jobs by voting in the way they felt proper.  And except that companies can decide to let people go from their jobs if their behavior will negatively impact the company.

 

Other than that your comparison was intelligent.

So you agree they are not the same thing at all- not sure how you think you are disagreeing with me.

[oldmanfan]

44 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

So you agree they are not the same thing at all- not sure how you think you are disagreeing with me.

I may have misinterpreted your comment.  To me the Republican senators that voted to convict did their jobs.  They took an oath to be impartial, they listened, and they voted based on their interpretation of the evidence nd followed their conscience.  As for folks getting fired for expressing opinions in their private life,  I think people routinely get the first amendment right to free speech wrong.  You can speak out against the government all you want.  You can also speak out against your employer all you want, express private opinions on things all you want that may affect the business of your employer.  But then you must accept the consequences of that behavior. 

Edited February 16, 2021 by oldmanfan

[716er]

11 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Are you comparing a politician being censured for not doing their job  to normal citizens losing their jobs for saying things that are not popular in their private life? Not an intelligent comparison.

 

No.

 

I'm comparing politicians doing their jobs who are censured because their party disapproves of their vote to cancel culture as a whole.

 

Why do you narrowly define cancel culture as "normal citizens losing their jobs for saying things that are not popular in their private life?" This is a part of it, yes, but when I hear about "cancel culture" in the media, it is often about citizens banding together to boycott a product (ie Goya, My Pillow) or to ignore a person (ie Kaepernick, Trump).

[Unforgiven]

This Jennifer Aniston–David Letterman Clip From 1999 Has the Internet Feeling Disgusted

 

 

 

 

 

Remind anyone of someone...

Guess creepiness against hollywood elites is bad,

ok when it's kids?

Hypocrites.

[T master]

🤔🙄😢

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/02/six-dr-seuss-books-will-be-discontinued-because-of-racist-and-insensitive-imagery.html

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

25 minutes ago, T master said:

🤔🙄😢

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/02/six-dr-seuss-books-will-be-discontinued-because-of-racist-and-insensitive-imagery.html

Book banning? 

 

ironically the sneetches story by the convicted racist perpetrator is pretty anti racist. 

[B-Man]

https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2021/03/03/the-left-is-now-trying-to-sell-the-idea-that-cancel-culture-doesnt-exist-n336504

 

The Left Is Now Trying to Sell the Idea that Cancel Culture Doesn't Exist

by Brandon Morse

 

 

The left has a habit that it practices when it runs up against undeniable hypocrisy and it’s doing so now with cancel culture. It’s a tactic that first requires the denial of a thing existing, and then redefining the word to better fit their needs.

 

Cancel culture is an undeniable thing happening in our society right now. People, businesses, organizations, movies, shows, and more have been absolutely ruined because the left gets together a mob who trends something or someone into infamy. This person or thing becomes too unsafe to work with for brands and that person is effectively left with very little and with few prospects. Sometimes the person being canceled lands on their feet, or sometimes it will just cost a brand their reputation, but oftentimes it results in the ruination of lives.

 

Cancel culture is clearly unpopular with the American people. As reported by Politico, 49 percent of Americans believe cancel culture has gone too far while only 27 percent think it’s a positive force in America.

 

The problem is that cancel culture is too useful of a tool for the left to just drop. Even the threat of being canceled keeps a lot of people in line and agreeing with whatever the left tells them to agree with on any given instance. So what to do?

 

Redefine it.

 

We’ve been hearing from the left lately that there’s no such thing as “cancel culture,” as if the cancellations we’ve seen over the past couple of years weren’t blindingly obvious. They try to put new names on it to spin it. Briant Stelter called the cancellation of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” over advertisers not willing to associate themselves with the program after his stance that the election was stolen “consequence culture.”

 

{snip}

 

It’s hard to square the left’s logic with actual logic but the leftist bubble can’t allow itself to be mistaken or wrong about anything. It wants to have its accusatory cake and eat it too, and what we’re witnessing right now is the left’s attempts at coming up with a way to do the horrible things they do while still looking like the good guys, or even better, the victims.

 

To see the outcome of this, we can look at how the left redefined racism.

 

Racism is, pure and simple, hatred or prejudice against a certain race or skin color. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.

 

In its cultural conquest, however, the left needed villains to turn people against and it found a solid patsy in the form of white people. The left has made white people a cultural villain for years now, blaming almost every problem under the sun as something white people caused in the first place. Comedians, movies, and television shows can make white people the butt of a joke for their skin color while doing so to any other race is absolutely forbidden. Blue check journalists on Twitter can actually make overtly racist statements against white people with no blowback whatsoever.

 

The answer is, redefine what constitutes racism.

 

Professors in universities began trotting out racism as being prejudiced or hateful against a certain race or ethnicity, but now in order to constitute “racism,” it must now also include power. So (racism = prejudice + power).

 

With this in mind, they can proclaim that white people have all the power and their racism can continue, now redefined as reactive feelings toward white oppressors. It’s weaponized self-victimization.

 

The left is now trying to do the same with cancel culture. It cannot allow cancel culture to be lost but it also can’t have it used as an example of just how the left is not, in fact, full of victims. It needs to continue the illusion that it’s the side doing the right thing and fighting for the oppressed and downtrodden.

 

The left is far from innocent. It’s racist, intolerant, and ready to destroy anyone who disagrees with them or gets in their way. No one is safe, including the cancellers.

[All_Pro_Bills]

On 2/16/2021 at 8:47 AM, oldmanfan said:

I may have misinterpreted your comment.  To me the Republican senators that voted to convict did their jobs.  They took an oath to be impartial, they listened, and they voted based on their interpretation of the evidence nd followed their conscience.  As for folks getting fired for expressing opinions in their private life,  I think people routinely get the first amendment right to free speech wrong.  You can speak out against the government all you want.  You can also speak out against your employer all you want, express private opinions on things all you want that may affect the business of your employer.  But then you must accept the consequences of that behavior. 

You are right once  again here.  The 1st amendment protections apply to the prohibition of government actions to restrict free speech.  When you walk into the workplace you lose your Constitutional rights and you are at the mercy of your employer.  Which to a large extent is true.  There are many things you cannot do inside the workplace environment regardless of what the Constitution allows.

 

In the case of individuals being targeted by cancel culture, individuals can be targeted for something they said at some point in their life or something they did or didn't do at some point in their life.  it doesn't matter if it has anything to do with your conduct on the job.  The general idea behind the proponents of cancel culture is to punish these people by depriving them of employment or the ability to earn a living by coercing or influencing their employer or management to fire them.  Sometimes it might be for something they said or did 20 or 30 years ago as there's no statute of limitations cancel culture follows.  The objective is to control everyone's behavior, and words and actions by making examples of others.  Like the Roman practice of decimation.  Killing every 10th prisoner.  The origin of the work decimate.  It keeps the remaining group in line with the program through fear and terror.   

 

Giving in to the mob can leave an employer open to a lot of lawsuits for "wrongful termination".  Can you fire someone "for cause" because of something they said 20 years ago?  Or in a private setting last week?  I guess it depends.  On the terms of employment and the nature of things like employer code of conduct and ethical standards and rules for governing employee behavior.  

 

But in the end it all works this way.  The mob descends on somebody for something they "said" and then fires up the outrage machinery on social media.  There's pressure on the persons employer at some point whether their job has anything to do with the situation or not.  Soon the employer is targeted for allowing a "terrible" person to work at their firm.  Rather than have the fortitude to stand up to the mob and tell them to MYOB the firm takes the easy way out and looks to dismiss and terminate the employee.  But the legal department warns them there's a big risk of litigation.  So they call in the employee and his representation and hold a meeting.  They give some sob story about how their hands are tied and they're sorry but they need to let the person go for the "good of the company".  But in order to avoid any legal issues or negative publicity they offer the employee a substantial and generous severance package bundled with a non-disclosure agreement.  Everybody walks away happy.  The mob gets their blood, the employer skates away without any business impacts, and the fired employee gets a generous package. 

 

So what's the point of it all?  It proves some mob of idiots can get you fired and force your employer to give you a few hundred thousand dollars and health care coverage to keep your mouth shut about the whole thing. 

Edited March 3, 2021 by All_Pro_Bills

[Motorin']

 

Cancel Culture! strikes again!

Edited March 3, 2021 by Motorin'