Um, In the given example, it seems explicitly clear that nobody pre-edited the jokes, and they weren't ****ing funny, hence nobody liked it and the comedian was likely not asked back.

Oh noes! Cancel culture!

You're right though. Things are different than they were in the past. In the past, students were expected to stick around and listen to an apparent sex pest tell his shitty jokes and keep their mouths shut. Now they vote with their feet and their dollar, exactly as the right has requested for decades.

"Free market! Except for when you don't buy the **** we want you to buy!"

Is this the part where you deliberately gaslight and make up people's opinions as a sort of weird revenge because you think your adversaries are gaslighting you (they aren't)? It is absolutely INSANE to leap to the idea that anyone ITT was "demanding to pre edit" material. Completely bonkers. So my question was when you said this, were you deliberately gaslighting as you admit you regularly do?

It's so hard for these people to grasp that the helicopter joke just isn't that funny and young people don't want to pay to hear it.

Yes thank you for making my point so clearly.

I have explained to you guys for months here how people do not see their own biases. None of you here or the folks in the BFI, each seeing yourself as unique unbiased bubbles but the minute your bubbles are disturbed you sure as **** notice that.

So in 3 universities your experience is everyone is just like you. YOU, the most ideological hard left prototypical, Ooboo, woke shaming, cancel culture extremist with a hair trigger sensitivity and a penchant for lying and smears. YOU, don't see as anyone in the universities as different than you, is about the worst indictment you could make but exactly in line with the increasing reports we keep hearing about the culture in University staff now.

Comics are increasingly not playing the University venues, that prior were considered the bastions of freer speech and pushing boundaries, you nit.

I said they can still play elsewhere.

cheers!

Explain to me this suggestion of yours that in the past students were somehow acting under coersion and could not just leave or choose to not see a comedian.

I see no difference in the audience having the ability to vote with their feet then and now, but please elaborate.

I do a see difference between students being able to see the range of performers they used to so they can vote with their feet and dollars. That we now have empanelled Ooboo's who are pre screening and filtering the comedians to all fit one PC mold. That difference is explained clearly up thread.

But you go. Demonstrate you mean and can defend what you say and explain how kids prior could just not go, or leave a show (vote with their feet) as you say they could not?


You seem so very confused with your "Free market! Except for when you don't buy the **** we want you to buy", up is down, type nonsense.

Oh and here is uke like Ooboo'ing were they get offended in advance and upon the behalf of other students and try to ensure they never have to be...

Trolly ready to pre-edit the comics material as he knows better.

But also afraid to allow that comic to come to campus and do his material to see if no one wants to pay to hear it. You know, the way students used to vote.

But today's society is full of Trolly's. Guys who are so convinced of their opinion on what is funny or proper they are comfortable deciding in advance for others.

You aren't doing a good thing of listening. I am saying that everyone in 3 universities is NOT like me, regardless of how silly your caricature of me is. Your claim is that universities are homogeneous (and specifically homogeneous in being hard left). That isn't my lived experience. Instead, universities are pretty heterogenous, with plenty of disagreement.

But mostly, it is all just much less dramatic than you imagine. Stuffy department meetings disagreeing over inane policy details relevant to that department like whether the big room down the hall should be used for more grad offices or shared meeting space, or whether we should hire an analyst or an algebraist the next time someone dies and we get a new job opening. Riveting stuff.

I'll give you some of the biggest most woke far left things I've done so you can have a sense of an upper bound. I put a rainbow sticker on my door to be welcoming to LGBT students. I put a territorial acknowledgment in my outline to be welcoming to first nations students. I sat on an EDI committee that organized a movie night about a famous female mathematician. Maybe you think this is crazed ideological hard left stuff, I don't know. I'm not claiming as a STEM faculty to necessarily be representative, but your claims have almost nothing to do with my experience.

Literally no one besides you has suggested this. You're not a well person right now.

we need a wellness thread. a spa of sorts, to luxuriate and self-actualize.

come join Carlos and I in the spa thread.

This!!! Every public speaker/entertainer/lecturer understands that what is said or not said is often (if not usually) audience-dependent.

And yet the bolded in the article outlines, how that is in actuality already happening.


The far left targets to seize the apparatus of power so they can suppress and control speech and diversity of view while imposing the 'One True Thought' that they deem acceptable.

Once they gain power suddenly you are faced with 'You cannot say these words, you cannot touch on these themes, you cannot tell those certain lines of jokes' in this deliberately created Red List of no go zones, based on a far left ideological world view being imposed on the entire student body, that allows for no diversity of views or choice. They will say 'you can always still hear these views somewhere else (they are not REALLY cancelled), but just not here.

It is exactly mirrored by the far right who sees the far left working at grass roots level to suppress diversity of thought and ideas and who then look to do same, but as the far right does by taking it up a level.. So now they seize power at the local levels and are using it to create Red Zones of books and things teachers can say. Just like the far left, the right will say 'oh you can still buy those books and hear those views... just not here'.

So you see, both say they are not cancelling anything as you can get it elsewhere as BOTH act as thought police and feel they have every right to grab control and dictate what the other will be exposed to and see.

And BOTH SIDES are wrong. One begets the other. One prompts and feeds the other.


(this is where you reply back with 'no, it is only a problem on the right... we are pure on the left... how dare you' as you hand wave all the lefts most deplorable actions away)

These whole-cloth fabrications of Cuepee are just getting increasingly deranged. Like there was a time when the made up nonsense positions Cuepee would allege of us where distortions of reality, or exaggerations of reality, or misinterpretations of reality but at least had some vague connection to something someone actually said. But this is just absolutely fantasy land concoctions from absolutely zero either of us have ever said.

And then this guy has the gall to ever accuse anyone else of gaslighting ever?

I've had several friends over the years who were professional entertainers (comics and magicians). Long before "PC" was a thing, hosts of events would almost invariably inform my friends of the general type of audience (usually based on the main age-group in the audience) so the performer could select appropriate material.

which is very different than the selection boards set up today, to both prescreen and select out anyone who does not fit the allowed 'one line of allowable thought' we have today where if you are found to have transgressed the 'one line of allowable thought' prior you may be forever banned, and if you cross an area during your routine that crossed the 'one line of allowable thought', they use their network to ensure you are banned up and down the line at all the venues they now control.

Todays far right and far left are both trying to seize all mechanisms and areas of prior freer thought and speech, and ensure there is only one path to walk down them and each side is convinced they are correct in what they think is the 'one line of allowable thought'.

And both will point at the other and say 'it's not me, its you' as they defend their side doing it while condemning the other.

+1

One of the "sad but true" ironies of our time is that we have moved from college campuses being the home of the "Free Speech Movement" to now being the home of the "Safe-Spaces with Fainting Couches Movement"

Milo's scheduled talk at Berkeley cost the city about a half a million dollars in damages because Milo was offending the "wrong people."

This is where we are today with the far left and the one line of allowable thought...



In a world where the far left loves to rush out and shame (rightly imo) and do so with an eagerness and zeal, over such things as mask wearing re covid and cigarette smoking and so many other, that we are to the opposite when it comes to being addicted to hard core drugs.

I am all for legalizing all drugs and getting the support to the troubled people who want it, but this is yet another wrong headed, will do more harm than good, body positivity movement that is pushing to people that obesity is empowering and healthy and then tries to shut out not only any critical voice but also actively tries to make it toxic for anyone to celebrate more healthy bodies or choices or the work ethic that most need to maintain them.

I have said it before that these are well meaning but extraordinarily dangerous leftists. They believe they are acting from compassion to make dealing with ills of society easier for the afflicted, while they turn a blind eye, to their role in increasing the amount of the afflicted and the depths of the problems they deal with. To that though they will say 'we always have more compassion for this growing group of increasingly ill people' as if their compassion is what is important. No. Reducing the ranks of ill is what is important, even if it means some who remain ill may feel 'shame' as they fail the battles that others succeed at.

And why one should never dive deeper down Twitter discussion holes as now I see these 'how too' guides...

QP, do you see more far left Leftists.... or far right Rightists.... in America today?

Is Cuepee just completely dropping any pretense that this thread is about trans issues and instead just ranting at the clouds at anything he doesn’t like on his Twitter timeline?

If those billboards are real, then it's now official:

Civilization is at a point of no-return.

Seems the opposite to me, the normal prohibitive criminalisation of drug use is perhaps one of the most hysterical and irrational legacies of our current civilisation and is in absolute opposition to all technocratic understanding of drug use.

Do you really think someone is going to be nahh wont do hard drugs today, oh, look a billboard, oh yea I will do hard drugs today.

Drug addict gonna drug addict and providing them with rational information that might mitigate the damage of their addiction is of the course the humane and rational course of action.

I'm not keen on the use of the word "empowered" but I really don't think this is a body positive far left thing. I think they're trying to prevent ;loss of life among addicts and that's not a bad thing and supersedes personal disapproval some may have with addiction. I don't think it's new either or even especially radical. It's akin to centres giving out free needles to addicts to reduce hepatitis or HIV, or even a methadone clinic. Years ago in the UK (In Liverpool I think but m not sure), there was free heroin given to hard core addicts and petty crime was drastically reduced as a result and some even managed to gain employment and function to a better degree in society. There's pamphlets available over my way on how to crush cocaine properly for example due to its widespread use and a desire to prevent OD's and reduce heart problems.

When I was a kid and again as a very young adult my original neighbourhood was ravaged by heroin epidemics and today it's crack or meth.
I've known a lot of addicts in my time, some of them good people who just made a fundamental mistake in their lives. The life of an addict is pretty $hitty. If such programmes can help reduce overdoses and maybe one day helps them to recovery, then I don't really have an issue with it. I don't think it'll lead to more addicts but may help existing ones.
And again I don't think this is a far left thing, many health professionals from either political stripe, may deem it necessary. I reckon most addicts feel shame or at the very least very negative regarding their addiction, after a point.
I think this is a case of the pros outweighing the cons. Better to have some disapprove of it than others dying before their time.