Mate, we all know that people’s lives and careers can be impacted by their opinions/beliefs.
What you need is terminology which reflects that, because “cancel culture” is easily refuted.
There have been several of the most popular comedy shows on TV that are no longer shown on the BBC because they are considered offensive, like Little Britain and others.
How is it offensive?
If people can’t see a massive shift in what is considered offensive or how comedians, writers, or anyone who doesn’t hold the same views as wokists, are being vilified, then they are part of the problem.
When perfectly rational people like Rowling, Linehan, Cleese, Getvais, Fry, etc, are saying it’s gone too far, there must be something in it.
1 Like
Little Britain is still available to watch on BBC iPlayer. They just edited out the character that used blackface.
I’m not against some programmes being banned though - for example, I wish more people would get offended by Mrs Brown’s Boys.
What about this one? A recent one and from a non-right wing source. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/08/us/hamline-university-islam-prophet-muhammad.html
Should she lose her job over showing a picture? In a “free” country?
Isn’t she cancelled?
On top of that, this isn’t some Charlie Hebdo caricature. It’s from a 14th century archive:
The painting shown in Dr. López Prater’s class is in one of the earliest Islamic illustrated histories of the world, “A Compendium of Chronicles,” written during the 14th century by Rashid-al-Din (1247-1318).
She lost her job over this, because some muslim sudents took offence and complained with her being fired as a consequence.
Curious if this is hard evidence of cancellation for @shamrockgooner and @JakeyBoy
But the argument will be, she still has a job and earns a living, so she hasn’t been cancelled.
It’s pedantic, but it works.
2 Likes
From a brief scan of the article I’d say yes.
This is what a tangible cancellation looks like I’d say.
1 Like
You wouldn’t have to ask if you’d really read what I’ve been saying. Being fired is a tangible consequence or punishment, one that you could use to clearly demonstrate damages, both financial and reputational.
What you have provided is precisely the kind of thing I’m saying needs to be provided to back up claims of someone like Rowling being cancelled. Tangible damages, not “oh but you don’t know about the hypothetical work she may have got but missed out on”, because that’s an argument which is literally impossible to ever refute.
1 Like
Well I am glad we agree that my example is a tangible cancellation.
To support @Leper and @Trion claim: cancellation can also occur intangibly.
I’d like to hold you and Shamrock in high estimation for intelligence, as I think you both are. But, it is strange you cannot apply some inductive logic to this topic. It’s pretty obvious from a reasoning point of view that we can observe: that if a neutral or supposedly left-leaning individual making a statement contrary to woke politics leads to an outctry leads to a negative impact on the person making the statement.
What those consequences exactly are, are indeed often intangible. It is simply logical to reason this.
I was looking for a video with someone of some experience of cancel culture and thought this was an interesting conversation.
Im not aligning myself with anyone’s views in this video (especially not Peterson) but it contains views that would support both sides of the current discussion.
I think comedy is an area particularly vulnerable to cancel culture and Carr has in the past gone out of his way to show that with some of his material. Im not his biggest fan but I certainly don’t mind watching his stuff and I think the point he makes here about context and understanding of how something is put across is valuable.
1 Like
Didn’t even our gay friend Stephen Fry (who’s wit and writing I am big fan of) argue against political correctness (which I think is closely related to cancel culture) in some debate and he was on team Peterson? Was an interesting watch as well.
I understand the reasoning being offered. I don’t agree with it.
If a claim is being made that harm has occured you need to be able to show that. If you think that’s too simple an interpretation that’s up to you but I don’t think there is anything wrong with my view here and I’m curious as to what other scenarios you would accept this reasoning?
Alright, I can live with that. 
I certainly agree with this.
It’s offensive to anyone who likes comedy. 
Nobody wants to or is able to respond to my point that the bar is set so low for cancellation that literally any claim of cancellation is now irrefutable, if the only “evidence” you need is to point to hypothetical, currently non-existent work that they may have been offered in an alternate timeline.
If you can point to Rowling and say she has been cancelled because she may have had work or opportunities offered to her that now haven’t been, without providing a single example, you can say that literally anyone has been cancelled, and there’s nothing that can be said to disprove the assertion, because the only thing backing it up is a hypothetical that cannot be proved or disproved.
It’s such a shoddy basis for making an assertion. In any other arena, if I made strong assertions and said that I don’t need to provide any evidence, and that the sole basis for my opinion was unprovable hypotheses which had literally no evidential basis, you’d fucking laugh at me.
Yes, anyone has been cancelled. You, I, others on here. Probably every single human being has been cancelled in one way or another for either their political views they hold, the gender they are, their race, their creed, their whatever sets them apart from others and on the basis of that they have been cancelled. Would you agree with this?
Do we have tangible evidence for every single person for this? Nope.
Did it occur, 99.999% certainly it did.
In the case of Rowling, I don’t know much about it, nor am I the one going in circles about her in this thread. I came in, showed a tangible example of cancellation and made the point of intangibly consequences as well by way of inductive reasoning.
I am sure, deep down somewhere, behind your pride you do understand the point the others are making in here and perhaps even silently agree. But, you made a case from your initial argument and you will keep going on for it until the end of times. It is what it is. 
The problem is cancelled is an incorrect term 99.999% of the time.
1 Like
Perhaps it is, my native language is not English so I won’t delve into this. I trust you and other Englishmen/women/it can make that argument amongst yourself.
I am sure though most of us here are smart enough to understand what we are talking about, when we are talking about cancellation.
I absolutely understand what everyone means when they use the term, and to a large extent agree with them.
But it’s also easily disproven because it’s the wrong word to use.
1 Like
Right, well cancellation just means something different to us.
None of us have been fucking cancelled lmao
1 Like