In most cases it isn't "people deciding" it is venues/platforms being pressurised not to by hoardes of activists being directed to their targets all the time in order to stop other "people deciding." Should Graham Lineham not be able to do stand up because he is argues against the current transgender argument? When he does get a booking the platform is pressured into cancelling because of his view on this one issue! Is it not cancel culture? If it were a theatre or other platform that decided of their own free will then it might be an argument but when they cave into pressure from one side then it is quite literally cancel culture. One side is deciding that other people should not be able to watch a comedian because they don't like his views. Why are they so vociferous in their intents to tell other people what they can and can't see because of their own political views all the while they sigh about Apple's manufacturing processes while they continue to use their iphones? It is cancel culture because other people are picking and choosing what other people should and shouldn't be able to make their own choice on. There is a reason that some comedians have given up on trying to get certain gigs or the hope of actual TV shows and moved onto avenues almost accepting they have been cancelled from mainstream avenues. Comedians like Andrew Doyle (co writer of the earlier Jonathan Pie and now on GB news) Simon Evans (now writes for Spiked when he used to be prominent on CH4s stand up show) We aren't talking about racist or homophobic comedians here. We are talking about people who disagree with the current narrative, quite often single issues they veer from the narrative on. Much as I hate people like Bernard Manning or Chubby Brown or even Mike Reid (yes ugly duckling & Eastenders) if thats the **** they want to turn out as comedy then I don't think it should be my choice to make for others. If they think thats funny, poor them! Let them waste their money on tripe. But it should be their choice not other people deciding what other people can watch or do.
What a waste of time that response was. Elon Musk owns Twitter. Elon Musk pushes some unsavoury views on Tiwtter. Companies need to decide whether the platform they use represents their values. People have freedom of choice to do that. Everything you just posted was irrelevant. Elon Musk is not a victim. He is a multibillionaire who chooses to say things on Twitter. If people dislike what he says they don’t have to pay to advertise on his platform. Just like earlier when you said people get what’s coming to them if they post unsavoury things on Twitter , so does Musk. In this case he loses revenue. He could just stfu but he chooses to push what is acceptable and it costs him money.
You accuse me of not reading properly yet you are terrible at it. Are my posts too long for yout TLDR scanning tendencies? I was replying that cancel culture is a thing. It is not "people" deciding not to advertise on a platform. It is companies being pressurised by groups into not advertising. I have no sympathy for Musk personally on this issue as he said at the start "If you don't like us then **** off" but what is happening here is that a group is making its own monopoly in choosing who and who should not get advertising space and then controlling that. It is collusion. This is big business building a "preferred glossary" of companies to tell other business 'advertising businesses' who they should be advertising or not. The "Its Elon Musk" aspect is by the by. It is most definitely other people pressurising companies to stop you being able to decide what you should be able to see! So if you go on (example youtube) they are trying to make sure you only see Ads from their approved list of companies. Nothing to so with people choosing. They are controlling who can advertise to you, and thus increasing the reach of their "preferred partners." you seem to follow an angle in that if it is Mr Baddie (in your eyes?) then its OK but if it happens to Mr Nice (in your eyes) then it is not OK? A lobby group controlling what product's adverts you are allowed to see is bad on any terms. That isn't a choice. People seem to have lost the understanding of what freedoms and choice means.
Mate, you have issues. We both agree cancel culture exists. We are discussing Elon Musk. Everything I have posted has been about Elon Musk. You are hilarious!
As I noted - we disagree on where the scale of left and right falls it seems But we do agree that Bruce talks too much on question time and is terrible at it. And we also agree that Laura K is awful and should be got rid of. I expect in her case she was mainly kept on because right up until the election build up she was so unapologetically pro government she might as well have had a cabinet spot for communications.
He absolutely did start it. Unless you are using a very nebulous definition of the word “it”. You seem to be using it generically as “insults on Twitter”. That is stupid in this context. He waded into our issues with no knowledge and tried to put American talking points over the top. Uninvited. So he did start it. It’s not like Starmer or the Labour government fired shots at him personally so that he felt the need to rub it in their faces when things went wrong in the UK. He had no reason to get involved and did anyway. So he started it And advertisers are within their rights to not advertise on his platform if he’s going to use it like a dick head and not control it in anyway. That isn’t cancel culture. Companies don’t want their adverts appearing next to nazi messages and porn. And dear god is there now loads of random scantily clad women posting replies to nearly every well responded tweet regardless of the context He of course if trying to claim this is unfair because his ego won’t let him believe he is wrong about anything. Much like Trump who he has endorsed
It isn't just choice righties that do this stuff! Hope not Hate do it too! See something and post before checking:
Yeah - as it apparent I have listened to a fair amount of James O’Brien and he refers to them as “forelock tuggers” and that explains how we are so deferent to people who are rich and went to Eton/top public schools. I think in America you only need to be rich but I think you need to be even more rich to break through the pseudo-aristocracy barrier
Political correspondents tend to appear nicer to governments and opposition front benches because that is how they get their leaks and their scoops. If they actually did interrogation like Andrew Neill used to then they would lose those "favours." She has always been a pretty soft touch with Labour and Tory because thats how she gets her snippets "I am hearing rumours that......." and we nowadays hear what is going to be said way way before it is announced. And political advisors/press officers/communications are very often moving from left to right throughout their lives. Its a job to them and its all about advancement, not actual political beliefs. Its not their job to tell you what they believe. Its their job to get you to side with their current boss.
It’s becoming increasingly apparent that the bullet didn’t get near his ear. Glass or shrapnel cut him and he smeared the blood. Ears do not heal quickly and especially not on 78 year olds with a poor diet
In which case your previous comment that I was replying to made zero sense as I expected. You suggested Musk was justified in attacking the U.K. because the “left wing commentariat” (I presume you mean from the U.K.) - “started it” with attacks on him and American politics. Which is nonsense. I expect he doesn’t know who a single one of the people you listed are. It is also not his place to “stand up” against criticisms of America and their politics by criticising ours. He’s a wealthy businessman. That is it. I thought for one moment you might have been talking about attacks on the US published on this forum but wanted to clarify because that would have made even less sense But this exchange is getting lost in waffle now
Yeah both are at it! Do you have many example of the UK following suit with right wingers "cancelling stuff that is spuriously in the public good" other than the impending smoking ban on age?
No - wasn’t that person much further back? I don’t think it’s even conspiracy that the bullet might not have grazed him. The report hasn’t been released. I assume deliberately. And I would expect the main person in control of it would be the patient
He must have had one of those little fake blood things to pop. Being serious if it was faked his reaction was better than most actors I have seen....and well played the guy shooting who volunteered to be sacrificed.
I don’t believe it was fake. I just wouldn’t be surprised if the bullet didn’t graze his ear. But maybe it was such a light graze that it could have healed. I just thought ears are flimsy and mostly cartilage and quite slow to heal. As are old people. So it seems like there should be marks there still
I never said he was justified. I said he has been attacked from the left since he took over. What he posts is up to the same scrutiny as other people posting rubbish. He might feel he is justified but I did not say he was. I agree with most of what you say about him however its up to him what he says and what he posts. And he isn't losing revenue because of you or I switching off. He is losing revenue because a "affiliate group" is creating a who's who of who should get advertising revenue, in effect deciding who makes money without any input from the user and that means that what you get to view trying to persuade you to buy is being controlled by others. Its not just about letting you or I know who is a good company that you should buy from. It is also a pressure for companies to sign up to be seen as being nice. And if you look closely bottom left............twitter is on there! X isn't! So its a member's club of those that are then lobbied to advertisers ot prefer over others. BP? Hmm. facebook? Hmmm. Google has already been done over manipulating their search engine results! and they are on there? It isn;t actually about Musk. It doesn't matter whether you or I like him or like X or like social media. It does matter if a clique is able to control which companies are allowed to be advertised to you. I daresay he doesn;t care about the extra money or forcing companies to advertise on his platform and his main thing is stopping other groups pressurising companies to not advertise on certain platforms or they will be kicked out of the preferred partners group!
It is weird he says his lobe but touches the cartilage at the too of the ear. That cartilage is very slow to heal.
