• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

Stout said:
As does every other source making the original unsourced claim that the BBC is too terrified to offer up the "sixth" episode via regular broadcast due to a feared backlash from the right wing bogeyman only worth repeating around a late night campfire with a flashlight held under your chin.
Click to expand...

Across the aisle they shiver with fear of capitalist marketing their goods.
 
wareyin said:
What can you expect when one's reading comprehension is so low they can't even do a word search on this page of this forum? They're only in it when it stokes their confirmation bias and gives them a sweet, sweet hit of poutrage. They're definitely not in it to find the actual facts.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Attenborough knows how many episodes he filmed. The fact that there were 5 episodes left after the 6th episode was cut is somewhat irrelevant to the conversation. Nor does it change anything to call it an epilogue or follow up, it was still cut and apparently still cut for the stated reasons of being critical of the government (The only type of "cancel culture" anyone should be concerned about)
 
lomiller said:
I'm pretty sure Attenborough knows how many episodes he filmed. The fact that there were 5 episodes left after the 6th episode was cut is somewhat irrelevant to the conversation. Nor does it change anything to call it an epilogue or follow up, it was still cut and apparently still cut for the stated reasons of being critical of the government (The only type of "cancel culture" anyone should be concerned about)
Click to expand...

Utter Bollocks!

Wild Isles was never at any time intended to be, or going to be, a six-episode series The BBC commissioned five episodes only, and that was back in 2017. The RSPB and WWF were only brought on board as co-production partners in 2018 by the producers, Silverback Films- a year later.

It wasn't until 2021- three years later, that the WWF and the RSPB independently commissioned a separate, stand-alone programme "that celebrates the extraordinary work of people fighting to restore nature in Britain and Ireland"

The BBC acquired this separate film for iPlayer in January of this year.

All of this has been confirmed by someone who actually knows about it - Alastair Fothergill, the Director of Silverback Films and Executive Producer of Wild Isles

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...c-wild-isles-episode-rightwing-backlash-fears

.
.
 
Last edited:
catsmate said:
You don't have a clue what Countryfile is, do you?
Click to expand...

I do, and I have no difficulty believing that the magazine got some details wrong when they first excitedly reported what they'd heard about the upcoming series last year. The archived article even says

Here's everything there is to know about the series so far - and we will update details as we find out more...
Click to expand...
 
Interesting think piece from Jesse Singal, who himself is only mildly cancelled, on the proposed deplatforming of fellow Harper's Letter undersigner Matthew Yglesias:
I think at the end of the day there’s a (lower stakes and more online) version of “the cruelty is the point” at work here, whatever you think of that theory. There are certain people who, as a result of trauma or personality disorders or boredom or resentment or some combination of these and other factors, have a strong will to hurt others. They can’t just go torment some random weak, hapless person, because in bien-pensant lefty circles such bullying is in theory verboten. In theory. But if you can find someone who is a bad person (because everyone says they are), then all bets are off: You can bully them and call them a piece of **** and seek to inflict so much harassment on them they flee a social media platform. That’s just social justice, baby! That’s the kind of fearless activism favored by organizations that are “abolitionist, anti-capitalist & anti-imperialist collective amplifying the voice of the people through direct action, public ed + community space.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Interesting think piece from Jesse Singal, who himself is only mildly cancelled, on the proposed deplatforming of fellow Harper's Letter undersigner Matthew Yglesias:
Click to expand...

Why are you trying to cancel the many people who think Yglesias's opinions suck?

A recurring theme of these cancel culture martyrs is how much they seem to dislike social media like twitter, in no small part because there's very little preventing the everyman from telling them that their ideas suck or that they are generally not very bright. They desperately crave the coddling that is so common in older forms of media.

Yglesias always has the option to either 1) get smarter, or 2) grow a thicker skin. I don't see how his failure to do either is anyone else's problem.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
Why are you trying to cancel the many people who think Yglesias's opinions suck?
Click to expand...
There are plenty of people whose opinions suck (IMO) but I'm not trying to get them deplatformed, disbarred, defrocked, etc. nor do I "seek to inflict so much harassment on them they flee a social media platform." This includes Alex Goldman.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
There are plenty of people whose opinions suck (IMO) but I'm not trying to get them deplatformed, disbarred, defrocked, etc. nor do I "seek to inflict so much harassment on them they flee a social media platform." This includes Alex Goldman.
Click to expand...

you really have to back yourself into a corner to believe that free speech culture must mean people not being allowed to be rude on social media. There's no coercion being put to work here, just a rude attitude. Sucks, but that's speech baby.

An excellent of how this whole cancel culture thing is just a cynical pretext for those that are accustomed to not being challenged wish to codify their own personal privilege as some important societal virtue. Matt Yglesias should go back to uncritical, lazy publications if he wants to be shielded from public opinion. It's tough out there on the streets and those with weak minds and ideas will get eaten alive.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
you really have to back yourself into a corner to believe that free speech culture must mean people not being allowed to be rude on social media.
Click to expand...
Whether Twitter allows tweets like "Let's bully Yglesias off Twitter!" doesn't tell us anything about whether such tweets are ethical in the first place. Refraining from targeted harassment is a good thing, regardless of whether the platform lets it slide.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Why are you trying to cancel the many people who think Yglesias's opinions suck?
Click to expand...

He isn't doing anything of the sort. Jesse Singal on the other hand is descrbing a sad bunch of losers in the self styled "Peoples City Council of Los Angeles" as a gang of psychologically damaged bullies who enact their pathetic fantasies of domination by attacking those who don't happen to ride the same ultra left wing hobby horse as they do.

I'm sure you're not a member of such a toxic organisation so it should be no skin off your nose...
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Whether Twitter allows tweets like "Let's bully Yglesias off Twitter!" doesn't tell us anything about whether such tweets are ethical in the first place. Refraining from targeted harassment is a good thing, regardless of whether the platform lets it slide.
Click to expand...

Excluding voices is often a useful and necessary part of expression. The right to association also means a right not to associate, and like minded people are often justified to exclude those that don't share similar attitudes.

I'm not really seeing how this squares with the "cancel culture" crowd who act like these basic truths are some affront to liberal values.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
The right to association also means a right not to associate, and like minded people are often justified to exclude those that don't share similar attitudes.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you are justifying the existence and use of a block button rather than bullying someone off a global public platform.


b527f52759313db2e73fb9e2a7a5f0da.jpg
 
Last edited:
Who knew that some folks would prefer targeted harassment to making an argument?


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 
This probably could go in many threads like the Rightwing Terrorism thread, but more LGBTQ support is being cancelled because 'moderates' are cancelling Target. (AP Link)
 
d4m10n said:
It's bad when the bad people do it.
Click to expand...

Or, the act is justified or not based on the merits of the specific case.

Telling people not to support a celebrity because they said something stupid and hateful is usually pretty justified.

Telling people to attack Target pride displays, threaten their employees and boycott it because "Target hired a satanist to convert YOUR children into their sex cult." when Target did no such thing and only sold things designed for people you hate for not a single valid reason, is completely unjustified.

I know it doesn't matter to you, but hey, there's no risk of you cancelling me so I'm not worried. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom