Biden was perfect for 2020. An experienced, responsible, and evolving adult that isn’t radical to scare off centrists or some republicans who actually is pushing us forward.
Brooklyn High School coach Tim McFarland and his players repeatedly used the word “Nazi” as a playcall in a game against Beachwood High School. Beachwood, a Cleveland suburb, is roughly 90% Jewish, according to the latest survey, published in 2011, by the Jewish Federation of Cleveland.
However, several Brooklyn players continued to direct racial slurs at Beachwood players during the game, the statement read.
The statements did not mention disciplinary action toward the players involved.
Suspension and removal from football team for those players and have the team take a loss any time this happens. Seems like a basic response for hate speech, harassment, racism and bullying.
“This is not the first time Beachwood student-athletes have been subjected to antisemitic and racist speech,” Hardis also said. “We always hope it will be the last.”
This school clearly doesn’t give a shit, and it will continue to happen with this attitude.
What attitude? That’s a quote from Beachwood Schools Superintendent Robert Hardis. What power do you think he has to enforce anything against a school in Brooklyn? Did you just read it wrong?
Seriously, having a defected US soldier in North Korea is a huge PR and propaganda win, he must've been the dumbest pain in the ass to be not worth keeping.
There have been a few other US defectors to the DPRK, and iirc they weren’t treated terribly. Though they did feel quite isolated culturally, I suppose you must anticipate that before you do something like that.
He was escaping assault charges and didn’t “defect” for ideological reasons. Norks prolly think they will score more diplomatic points by handing him over back to the US.
I think their hands are kind of tied. He’s not a valuable asset, he is a fuckup. He doesn’t hold the same value as a random citizen tourist that didn’t have the intention of defecting. He’s not in a position to provide valuable intel. They either kick him out or treat him like a god and let him go home to tell everyone how awesome North Korea is. Punishing him only hurts their image.
I don't think it would hurt their image at all. They would be well within their rights to imprison him for the crossing. The US would do the same. I think they more want to exemplify US soldiers as incompetent fuckups by using him as an example.
There’s a Lions led by Donkey’s Podcast episode about cutting a tree in North Korea, and it ended in North Koreans taking turns chopping into pieces an US Officers body for hours. I don’t think they care much about image.
There was also that NK guy who used sneak a kick in the balls to SK and US soldiers, that guy was famous. That episode was kind of hillarious.
It’s why the right wing invented ‘cancel culture’, to try to demonize people banding together to change things. This kind of public pressure is a form of people-power. There’s a nasty side to it all, but this is an existential battle for the writers and a mild inconvenience to Drew and Bill. I know what side I’m on.
Well there were the Dixie Chicks getting canceled by conservatives for opposing the war. Probably not an example the fella you’re replying to wants to admit to, tho.
You could call it cancel culture or your could just call it pissing off your fanbase. This has always existed and will always exist. I don’t agree with the old dixie chicks fanbase but if they thought they could be antiwar and keep playing on country radio they were very misled.
Jenna Marbles? Kentaro Kobayashi? Pretty much anyone who got “cancelled” for stuff they said or did 10 years before?
People should be held accountable for what they’re currently doing, ruining a career for something that happened ages ago which no one at the time found wrong is just stupid.
EDIT: Meanwhile, can you tell me some other examples of cancel culture actually doing something good? Because looking at common examples it seems pretty much every time it targeted someone who actually deserved it nothing came out of that (JK Rowling, Chris Brown… even people like Hulk Hogan or Kanye West are still around and doing sold-outs)
It’s not a matter of “not supporting”. Marbles was harassed into closing her channel and Kobayashi lost probably the most important job of his life. Those have nothing to do with the “free market”.
Who are these people? They sound like virtual nobodies. I doubt they were ‘cancelled’ by anyone. They probably said something very stupid and got kicked off some social media app or other. Or, worse, gasp demonetized! Better get selling more Soylent.
Did you even look them up for a second? I can remotely imagine you think that about Jenna Marbles (and I don’t think a “virtual nobody” can get a wax statue at Madame Tussauds honestly), but Kobayashi was supposed to be the Director of the Tokyo Olympics Opening Ceremony. So not really a nobody either, much less virtual since he barely did anything online.
Did you just google the first name and skimmed through the results page without even opening them?
So you just wanted to chip into an argument without any knowledge whatsoever, mock people you don’t know anything about and then dip out. Peak internet discussion I guess?
I’m “throwing a hissy fit” over people chiming into discussions and giving their opinions on stuff they know zero about. If people are talking about something I don’t know, I either look it up or ignore the discussion.
Your comment had the same depth as a 7-years old commenting on YouTube “I don’t know who this Ukraine guy is, but if people are angry at them I guess they did something bad”. And it’s a shame because I see you usually do your research in other comments.
I only insulted you once but whatever, do what you want, for some reason it doesn’t seem like you want to discuss in a civil manner with me specifically anyway.
“Cancel culture” is a bit of a loaded term and so the replies to you have been somewhat charged. Most people view the situations public figures find them in as just the necessary consequences of their actions. And like you, I agree that each situation should warrant a measured response from individuals based on the severity of the issue. It’s okay to not want to support people you don’t agree with, especially when the reason is agregious or harmful to others. The issue then is that everyone uses the same cudgel in the same manner for every crime regardless of severity.
But sure, if you don’t want to support someone for even the smallest of infractions, that’s your right. No one can take that from you. I may not agree but I support your right to do so. My only wish is that we at least give pause to think about the high bar for acceptable behavior we’re putting on public figures. I am as much for accountability as the next person, but I also think we’re humans capable of mistakes and capable of change. And right now, I don’t think a culture of grace is necessarily present online. We don’t have to tolerate hate or harm, but we can leave room for redemption. Maybe I’m being naive, I don’t know. But that’s my take.
It’s not about not supporting, it’s generating outrage online about stuff nobody cared about until the day before.
I’m all for not supporting people who don’t deserve it, I regularly do it too. But one thing is ignoring and another is actively harassing people for stuff they probably already forgot about.
Uhh… yes? Are you trying to frame me as some sort of right-wing nutjob? People who complain online about Drag Shows and Vaccines are not okay in the head, but what does that have to do with the discussion?
Oh you meant people who get harassed because they complain about those things. I thought you were saying the opposite.
Well then no, it’s the opposite of what I was saying. Arguably everyone was on board with the fact that vaccines were good before covid, and then it became “controversial”. No one is getting “cancelled” because of a 10-year old tweet against vaccines, because if they tweeted that 10 years ago people would’ve already been angry at that time.
I’m talking specifically about the times a satirical thing from ages ago that no one cared about at the time gets dug up and ruins careers because if it was said now it would be problematic.
The person I replied to brought up the thematic of “cancel culture” as a whole, and I said what happened in the article was good. I get why people misunderstood but I think I was clear enough in my first comment in saying this is a (rare) instance where it achieved a good thing and I wasn’t talking about that.
This discussion aside, I’m genuinely curious how much you fight back on posts supporting right-wing views vs. cancel culture.
Something tells me you try way harder to fight against one than the other, and when you’re called out you just say, “oh yeah that other thing is bad too. Trust me guys.”
Just because I’m against cancel culture it doesn’t mean I’m right-leaning. Even Obama complained about it. I don’t think there’s a single American right-wing view I share (no, not even about cancel culture because they love doing it as well), and probably the only American politician I like is Bernie.
Take a look at my profile and see if you find anything similar to what you’re “accusing” me of, you really got the wrong person.
Most of the times I see the term in regards to people, not products/brands/companies, so I think the boycotting part is way less prevalent and rightfully called just “boycotting”.
I’ll admit I haven’t researched the origin of the term (and it’s probably on the same level as “woke” in number of different definitions), but to me it’s mostly about people saying or doing something “controversial” and getting harassed/ostracized for that.
And I say it’s terrible because when it affects fragile people, or generally people with a conscience, it works and ruins careers. When it’s towards ones like J.K. Rowling or Kanye West they just don’t care and keep working, making money like crazy while still being openly transphobic/racist.
I don’t think anyone sane found jokes about Trans Rights funny 10 years ago, but yes, kind of like the ‘f’ word.
And what’s the point of “growing up” if mistakes of the past keep being brought up to you? No point in becoming a better person and supporting minorities if the one thing you said 10 years ago will still ruin your life sooner or later, right?
“Cancel culture” is a catch-all slur. You can tell it’s effective because of how you phrased your post instead of considering who is being “canceled” and the reason for it. Bad guys are trying to catch a free pass by highlighting less serious offenses and calling it the same thing.
I don’t really see it like that, unless it’s something mainly done on right-wing circles.
If people don’t want to stay on Twitter or Facebook because of all the stuff their owners are doing, that’s not Cancel Culture, that’s just having a brain. To me, a response to serious offenses is definitely not cancel culture, you can’t “cancel” billionaires.
If not “cancel culture” though, what would you call what happens to those “less serious” offenders? Just “large-scale harassment”?
Again, as I said in other comments, I’m not talking about boycotting. You obviously shouldn’t support people you don’t like. But you also shouldn’t create online campaigns against them, unless they’re currently doing something bad and you want it to stop, which is not the case most of the time.
So for example Harvey Weinstein gets a pass on all his shitty rapey behavior? How long in the past does it need to be? What is the ‘statute of limitations’ on shitty activities?
The Marbles woman did some shitty stuff. She agreed what she did was shit but issued the standard non-apology apology that she didn’t intend to hurt anyone with her shitty awful shit. Also she just quit. Apparently she made so much money it didn’t matter.
I have no idea who kobayashi is other than a guy who quit the hot dog eating competition.
If this is all you’ve got, it’s pretty thin sauce.
Weinstein did slightly worse than a blackface on youtube. The stuff he did would’ve been clearly seen as wrong even when he did them, it’s just that people didn’t know.
No one cared about a random youtuber painting their face for a satirical video in 2011. But suddenly when it got dug up 10 years later she was the most horrible person on earth. That’s just hypocrisy.
Kobayashi is a Japanese comedian that was chosen to direct the Tokyo Olympics opening ceremony. Suddenly a guy online posts one sketch from 20 years earlier where he mentioned the holocaust and poof, job gone. Because you wanted to be a little edgy on a comedy sketch about “stuff you can’t say on tv” on Japanese TV in 1998. Is that okay to you?
“Boycotts” are large scale campaign. Nobody cares if a few odd people don’t buy a product; it’s en-mass or it’s just belly aching. You’re making a distinction that does not exist.
I think you are getting confused about the definition of cancel culture.
Definition one: Not supporting celebrities when their problematic actions come to light. This is the one that was made to prevent people from banding against or facing consequences for their actions.
Definition two: A harassment campaign where people bring up actions from years ago even when they changed, taking things wildly out of context, and calling out in bad faith to bully small-scale content creators.
The commentor is talking about definition one here, and it seems that you are talking about definition two.
Exactly. But there’s not really a distinction in the term.
I said it’s terrible as a whole, because actions taken in case one rarely have any considerable effect, while I can list a few for case two. If they were two separate terms I would’ve obviously been against the second definition only, but they’re all under the same umbrella.
Not to mention people can make bad faith arguments for both (“yeah we just found out that guy raped 27 girls last year, but after that we don’t know anything so he’s changed!” / “ok, the only racist remarks that person did were 40 years ago, but have they really changed or are they just hiding it?”) so the line gets blurry.
Overall, the number of “campaigns” that actually worked at “cancelling” a bad person is way too small to justify the harassment to all the other people. That’s why I think it’s not worth it, just support who you want, let people live their life and only harass them if they’re currently doing something bad (or if the bad thing they did in the past was straight-up illegal like the aforementioned Weinstein).
And what I said was “Let’s not excuse it because of some rare cases where it achieved something good.” I’m not trying to frame this specific case as a bad thing, I absolutely don’t think it was.
There are other examples though. Lots of them. I agree with your premise, but the evidence is that the threat of cancellation does trigger action in many celebrities and public figures.
I honestly didn’t see much of that, except in cases where it was a legal issue like Weinstein or Kevin Spacey. Rowling is still around and didn’t care in the slightest. Kanye can’t shut his damn mouth and still sells like crazy. Not to mention Musk who keeps getting worse. It seems unless the law is involved, it only works on small creators and people with a slight sense of guilt.
So if someone ever said something barely racist in a satirical context or whatnot and then went on to have a successful career by joking about less offensive stuff they should live in fear of that one thing getting dug up and their whole life crumbling in front of them.
Cool, I guess you’ve never changed your views on anything during your life, good for you. I mean, what’s the point of becoming a better person if the one mistake you did is forever etched in history.
That’s not what “cancel culture” is outside of the right-wing media network. I’m very staunchly progressive, all my friends and most of my family are left leaning, and we literally NEVER engage with “cancel culture” the way your media says we do. In fact, I don’t know a single person that has ever talked about canceling anyone, ever, as far as I’m aware. This, along with all the attempts to make it seem like the left supports perverts and killing literal infants is all part of a very, VERY obvious attempt to paint MILLIONS of people as some sort of boogeyman. People on the left react to you the way they do because you believe in and spread nonsense that only exists to demonize them, all from atop some kind of high horse made up of default human values, as if you’re proud of being a basic human (protecting children/property/public wellbeing). The right literally fabricates stories, then tells you millions of regular Americans support pure evil, and you guys eat that shit up every single time, not because it has any basis in reality, but because you’re addicted to feeling reviled by, and better than others.
I believe that every human has the ability to be rational and do good in the world, and I also believe that every human can be misled and manipulated into living a terrible fear-ridden life of baseless hate and paranoia towards others. Which kind of human do you want to be?
“Your media”? “You guys”? My guy I’m not right-leaning. I’m not even American, and if I was I would’ve wanted Bernie in charge. But I’ve seen a lot of times people facing backlash for stuff like that. Those news get on mainstream media as well (talking mainly about Kobayashi, Oyamada fits the definiton too but that’s way less excusable). Not to mention, if you follow content creators online you get to know about the backlash firsthand (like with the dumb #Jojisoverparty that luckily didn’t gain traction).
For someone who isn’t right leaning, you’re pretty good at sharing text book right wing talking points. If the American propaganda machine were a boat, the online content you consume would be in it’s wake. Further, it doesn’t matter if you don’t watch the propaganda directly if you’re watching “content creator’s” who watch it and then relay the information to you in an easy-to-digest “here’s how you should think about this” 20 min video.
What “text book right wing talking points”? That cancel culture is mostly bad, when they push to ban books because they mention gay people existing? They love it as much, if not more, than the left. Even if they might’ve “coined” the term, it’s very much a bipartisan issue.
And no, I’m not talking about that kind of “content creators”. I’m talking people who don’t talk about politics at all and get their comments stormed by people complaining because they found a tweet from when they were like 15 using the n-word.
The worst thing about that is when people stopped buying it because they immediately did a 180 on it. And the media said it was all because of rightwingers even after the company did what they wanted.
So what they are saying is basically large companies have a ridiculous margin and can raise wages (but will not, unless unemployment rate is too low because efficiency) and small companies will go broke or loose all of their workers if bigger ones raise.
That almost sounds like a systemic problem, ain’t it?
Yep. I have to go into the office 3 days a week. I get up for my first meeting, do some light work, then shower and get ready during my working hours, and leave on the bus. I’ll get there around 11-11:30 usually. Then I’ll leave to be home around 5. I’m not wasting my time on this bullshit. Working from home is way more relaxing and efficient.
I think this headline sounds sensationalist. It’s not untrue, but transiting the Taiwan Strait is something the US, Canada, and several other countries do pretty regularly to ensure they are still treated as international waters.
This headline makes it sound like an escalation when actually it’s pretty normal operating procedure.
Ah yes, Woody Allen - the paragon for appropriate relationships with women. We should certainly listen to him about what is and isn’t acceptable behavior.
I joined a " we are family" company and got shouted at by the founder because I wasn’t a mind reader and didn’t do something I had no idea needed done.
Sounds exactly like family, except I was hired into the position of toddler.
I’m reminded of this guy I fired after he ghosted me when he no-call-no-showed.
“Wait? You don’t treat everyone like family?”
“No. I treat everyone like employees.” The look on his face was kinda priceless.
(For the record, I do try to take care of my employees, and the minimum there is paying what they’re worth- but the relationship is definitely employer-employee. The relationship is inherently transactional; pretending otherwise is exploitation)
Ninja, literally, “invisible”, or perhaps generously, “spy” is such an insane term for a business to use anyway.
It connotates someone who is willing to break the law - kill if necessary- to bring down the opposition. Not someone connecting a new API node for Slack notifications
They probably actually mean Stakhanovite, but wouldn’t bring themselves to use a communist term (/s).
Imagine throwing away your life because a different party is rightfully elected. Your wife is gone. She’s not staying around, because in 17 years you will both be different people. Your kid is gone. You will never know your kid, even when you get out.
It’s stupid, because presidents promise so much, but do so little. You threw away your life for pretty much nothing.
Yeah, to be fair I also didn’t know you couldn’t appeal a date set by the court. I know I’ve personally requested court dates changed because I would be on vacation, so why couldn’t Trump?
“Mr. Trump posted a link to his website and a photo of his mug shot in his first new post on X since Twitter banned his account after the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. “Never surrender!” the caption under the mug shot read.”
Captioning “Never surrender” Under a pic of him after surrendering to the authorities. LOL
Hopefully doesn’t need to, as long as it ties up Trump’s resources and Trump himself it will also hopefully kneecap any kind of campaign he fields next year
Nah, he has plenty of rich people willing to pay for him, he doesn’t care about campaign funding regulations, what little there is, and he doesn’t pay his bills anyway.
The way people treat school buses on the road is despicable. Every illegal pass of a stopped school bus should be punished far more harshly, if someone can’t stop for a bus filled with kids they don’t deserve to be on the road at all.
I’m a school bus driver and last year someone drove around my bus on the left while my 8-ways were on and the stop sign was out and hit a student who was crossing the street after exiting the bus, bumping her in the shoulder and running over her foot. I got the plate number but the cops did nothing with it. Passing the bus in the opposite direction is something I even expect these days (although it’s still illegal of course) since people are too busy looking at their phones to pay attention, but going around a lit-up bus in the same direction means seeing a stopped school bus and then consciously deciding “fuck them kids”.
Fortunately, the girl was not hurt somehow, but it still made me want to fuck that driver up bad.
Horrible to hear about the incident and the fact that the police did not care. In my mind school buses should be the most protected vehicles on the road, treated the same way as first responders.
They said that with only the plate number and not a sighting of who was driving, they couldn’t charge anybody. I talked to the girl who was run over and she said she saw the driver very clearly. I relayed this to the police and they still did nothing.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.