Adel Rahman and Navid Rahman sign with Komarno in Slovakia

[frattinator]

I don’t understand why certain people conflate free speech with free-from-consequence speech. Look the government isnt going to lock him up from saying shitty things. He is free to say shitty things (or even worse things if he feels like it), shout it from rooftops, print pamphlets and hand it out to people on the street and that’s his prerogative and his freedom will not be affected. But it doesn’t mean we all have to sit here and take it silently. It doesn’t mean he is shielded from the consequences of saying shitty things. Compared to 20 years ago, I would argue the biggest difference is that people who were the target of those things now actually would come out and say “hey man that’s a super shitty thing to say and you should be ashamed for saying shitty things like that.” instead of just staying low. And I would argue that’s both a good thing and also explains why there is so much backlash against this perceived “cancel culture”. It just feels like some people are suddenly being made accountable for their actions for the first time and they do not care for it (“how dare you make me feel bad for making you feel bad?! I’m being oppressed! Cancel culture!”)

[dyslexic nam]

1 hour ago, El Hombre said:

What I always find interesting is that "cancel culture" is decried by (for lack of a better term) right-wing types when it's really the most capitalist of ideas: you're giving people all the information they need to make an informed decision on what media they consume.  Couldn't be more of a free-market economy.

That is the part that has always struck me as odd.   I find many of the the staunch advocates of freedom actually only like the subset of freedoms that are convenient for them.  Because like you said, you couldn’t get a more clear cut example of market dynamics than a group of consumers using their purchasing power to enable their desired outcome.  So instead of waiting until they lose many, many customers, companies now simply proactively take action (also freedom…) to avoid that outcome.   And voila, “cancel culture”.  

23 minutes ago, frattinator said:

I don’t understand why certain people conflate free speech with free-from-consequence speech. Look the government isnt going to lock him up from saying shitty things. He is free to say shitty things (or even worse things if he feels like it), shout it from rooftops, print pamphlets and hand it out to people on the street and that’s his prerogative and his freedom will not be affected. But it doesn’t mean we all have to sit here and take it silently. It doesn’t mean he is shielded from the consequences of saying shitty things. Compared to 20 years ago, I would argue the biggest difference is that people who were the target of those things now actually would come out and say “hey man that’s a super shitty thing to say and you should be ashamed for saying shitty things like that.” instead of just staying low. And I would argue that’s both a good thing and also explains why there is so much backlash against this perceived “cancel culture”. It just feels like some people are suddenly being made accountable for their actions for the first time and they do not care for it (“how dare you make me feel bad for making you feel bad?! I’m being oppressed! Cancel culture!”)

Same idea here - and I agree 100%.  People constantly bring up the free speech argument when someone tells them that their comments are stupid or offensive, yet they are oblivious to the fact that the other person is simply exercising their right to free speech.  It is funny how selectively some of these concepts are applied.   

————

And for the record, I think Larson is screwed.   This isn’t someone who dressed up in an inappropriate Halloween costume 30 years ago before people were really aware of that sort of thing.  Putting this sort of stuff on the public record as recently as 4 years ago (with a history of similar comments) is pretty damning.   Can’t really see how he continues in his role at this point.

[bwilly11]

Yet Kurt Larson needs to be cancelled. Funny how that works. Hypocrisy

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

25 minutes ago, bwilly11 said:

Yet Kurt Larson needs to be cancelled. Funny how that works. Hypocrisy

If you can show how Trudeau could legally loose his job over that photo then you may have a point but I don’t think it would have been possible. 

[dyslexic nam]

2 minutes ago, Greatest Cockney Rip Off said:

If you can show how Trudeau could legally loose his job over that photo then you may have a point but I don’t think it would have been possible. 

It was possible.  His boss(es) have had the chance to vote on his termination - twice now.   It’s just that some don’t like the outcome.  

[JuicyHam]

1 minute ago, Greatest Cockney Rip Off said:

If you can show how Trudeau could legally loose his job over that photo then you may have a point but I don’t think it would have been possible. 

He was re elected twice after these photos came out so the people clearly don't care that much 

[JamboAl]

Shutting this down in 3…2…1.