lol.

QP has settled the argument with his opinion guys.

You could do loads more punching down in public venues in the 70s 80s and 90s, in public venues in those decades you could perform comedy or simply voice opinions that would be deemed completely unacceptable today.

Comedians who relied on such for their income, did not have an income after the 90s and it was dropping of sooner than that.

The dial of absolute freedom of speech has not just moved in one direction.

QP all you have done is restate your positon, and the counter to that position is simply the same.

People have been making the same arguments pretty much every decade since the War and in some contexts before the war.

We used to be able to say/do X, now we cant say/do X.

Same old same old.

The objective way to measure degree of cancellation is to look at the numbers.

Numbers are a good way of being objective.

Can RG still make millions of numbers of money putting out material that he wants to put out.

Yes.

/debate based on an objective data point.

Cancelation is not as strong now as it was in previous periods of cultural drift.

She may not be whining, but she did make this when she was 40.

A few counter examples is a very poor argument especially when they have extreme privilege

It's like arguing that the current holders of the key politcal jobs in the Uk proves that there's no problem of racism or misogyny in UK politics. /debate based on an objective data point.

Thje difference with 'cancel culture' is instead of denying there is something (however it is framed we should be welcoming it even though the edges are fuzzy and sometimes problematic and sometimes misguided. A healthy discourse is required including us on the elft or we just abandon it to the right who gain massively by our denial because ~no-one believes it.

You literally asked for examples got a very famous one then threw a hissy fit. If your immutable view is that free speech on campus us going through a continuous process of decline, I can see why the actual historical record is a massively inconvenient truth. But the answer is not to ignore it but to grow up and put what you call cancel culture in the proper historical context. Obviously nobody here expects you to have the facilities to do it, but that’s the answer regardless of your mental limitations.

Some arguments are settled. That the Union and Confederacy fought in the civil war cannot be denied.

That generally speaking historically societies push for more freedoms in speech and choice has been a bottom up push of 'the people' against the gov't and elite, with the people winning increasing freedoms and the push back of government and 'other' control on their speech and viewing and action choices cannot be denied. That today with the far right they are trying to re-establish gov't control over choices such as speech, and other by trying to take over the institutions of gov't cannot be denied. That today the far left, is trying to silence speech and actions by taking over institutions where they can excerpt such control and by using lies and smears that they know can ruin people as a way to get compliance, cannot be denied.

I mean, you can and will deny one component as partisans do. BUt that does not make it not true.

Partisans of today's age have adopted 'give no quarter to fact or accuracy'. This age is defined by not giving.



I am curious about your view on O.A.F.K assertion that generational expertise is of absolutely no value and does not even need to be engaged in the conversation because 'of course an older person is disconnected from today's reality'.

Does it not beg the question that younger people, not having the frame of reference on the past should also be excluded.

Thus expertise is dead?

Im not denying that.

The left has been doing that for decades.

That is what is not deniable.

I am denying its more virulent and aggressive and new phenomenon than at other times which is your argument.

Objective data points being RGs bank account.

You keep framing in the binary when its a debate about the linear.

Same old same old has been my argument about cancel culture since the very top of this thread.

Again all that has happened is that you have got older and more culturally distance from the young radical left.

So you have gone from being sympathetic to what the left was trying to make unacceptable, e.g. casual racism, to non sympathetic.

We used to be able to say/do X, now we cant say/do X.

Has been a constant, that is undeniable.

You are trying to score points via using the semantic trick of making a generalisation out of a specific.

John Cleese is talking specifically about the young, its possible that the young understand their own experience and perspectives better than an 82 year old man.

You have done work trying to ridicule that perspective but its entirely uncontroversial in anyway.

If you have an expert giving an objective opinion about an object its very different to an expert giving an subjective opinion about another entity that has its own subjectivity.

A strawman is when you substitute an example of something that does not apply to the context or specifics as if it does.


You do not get to ignore the key element and context and act as if 'gov't down subversion/control' and 'citizen up subversion/control' are the same thing.

Citizens in anything resembling democratic countries have fought consistently to lessen and remove controls (gov't and elite) from their choices both in viewing and speech. The freer a society becomes the less they want OTHERS to dictate via their preferences or sense or moral right and wrong outside laws addressing harm or other criminality.

That is a truism no matter how much O.A.F.K will feel the need to deny it or how you will scurry off now to try and cite a singular example that is tangential but does not directly speak to the issue so you can pretend you made a point.


At this point in time, the far left, supported by much of the centre like you and O.A.F.K is undertaking measures to re-institute the types of speech, viewing and thought policing that prior was mainly the purview of gov't and elite. A reversal of the historical trend. Both the far left and far right have realized the power of social media coupled with lies and slurs ('groomer', 'transphobe', 'racist') and that not an iota of truth or fact need be present to damage a persons reputation and the chill effect that then has on the masses who avoid the discussion or debate or taking a stand against their worst actions, lest they become the next victim of that tactic.


This tactic will never cease unless the remaining more centrist GOP fight it on the right, and the centre left, centre, fight on left. It can only be tackled from within the same side.

Sadly both 'sides' are intent in denying it exists at all on their side and that it ONLY exists on the other.


I am pretty sure both you and O.A.F.K have spoken about the rights use of 'groomer' in the same regard. Eyes wide open on that one. But somehow you both remain absolutely blinded and in denial of any of it on the left. You maintain it is all a fiction. The left must be perfect and protected in this area.

Another historical constant is how QP always makes an accusation of a strawman then follows up with one.

too few are interested in expertise unfortuantely

but ageism is one of the biggest problems that isn't talk about very much.

Very dishonest attempt at spin.


WE are talking about the change in the tolerance to comedy and the belief some have (the far left) that if the comedy does not fit into their politically correct lens, it is not only something they will refuse to see or support but that they should be able to block others from seeing and supporting it. Further how they have sought to control the mechanism by which to force this view on to other by being able to flex power (control of venues) to make it so.

Cleese is one amongst many who has spoken often about this and he is appalled by the shift. The shift you and e_d are intent as painting as a fabrication. As no change from the past.

You hand waved away any relevance Cleese has on the topic and stated he is irrelevant to the discussion because he is old and thus is out of tough. You basically said him being old was your clear proof of his irrelevance on a topic like this.

You then cried I would not address your points directly (hand waved them away) as you assume your authority who deserves engagement while at the same time hand waving away Cleese as an authority who deserves same.

I imagine O.A.F.K in a court of law as the Defendants lawyer.


- Prosecutor - your honour, I am calling our expert witness who has 50 years of experience in this field and has lived the changes ...

- O.A.F.K - I object. The Prosecutor has admitted he is old and by virtue of being old and living so many generations in an industry that is proof he could not possibly understand the reality today that younger people face in the industry

- judge - Are you a Trump lawyer? Sit down O.A.F.K, we are not going to entertain such a ridiculous and flawed assertion. "Experience across decades is NOT a reason to dismiss and it is absurd to think that was pass'.

Ok do you accept the perspective of the comedian The Times calls the best living comedian.

He said exactly the same thing I said about Cleese and also believes cancel culture is being framed by the right in the way I do.

Should I just dismiss your opinion for not agreeing with Stewart Lee.

Well I dont, I actually engage with your opinion, I might have dismissed Cleese, but I still dealt with the body of your argument, you have not returned that courtesy.

You hand waved and as we see in the post above, continue to do so. QP gonna QP.

However you want to frame it, suggesting that an 82 year old man might be out of touch with modern trends is absolutely non controversial.

Neither is it controversial to point out that its super duper standard to the point of cliché to have an old person suggest it was different in their day.

Cuepee,

I haven't read this whole thread so perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think that if you're focusing solely on comedy to try to make your point then you're really limiting yourself.

Young people may understand current trends better but they also be worse at viewing current trends with perspective.

The important thing though is consider Stewert Lee a young person. Old farts united

A reference chart about things CP does not understand:

- the basics of courts

- the word "strawman"

- everything else

If you can't view something with perspective then you probably don't understand it very well.

Oh boy, I would love to hear what other avenues we should explore

Other art mediums and education would be a couple-- media as well. Not sure why this is an "oh boy" thing...

Yay, more nothingburgers..

If you want to go down the cite authority route.

I will cite the ultimate authority, though they are an authority in reverse.

Everything they argue is always totally wrong.

Washoe.

Washoe has bought completely into narratives about right wing framing of cancel culture and would die on a hill defending QP position in this thread.

I cant think of anything more damning than that.

Republican citizens of the US have actually been trying to increase government control over speech in several ways recently, actually.

We are taking that as a given.

Instead we are debating how even though the left has a long history of trying to change/remove language and values about class, race, gender, sexuality and other topics, and has fought through several decades to remove systems of expression and speech about such, what the young left is doing now is somehow completely different and unprecedented and much more dangerous despite Ricky Gervais a poster boy victim of this process having a net worth of several hundred million.