Cartoon character cancelled

Discussions about Movies & TV shows not "Super" related.
ivandobsky
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 316
Joined: 10 years ago

Ah, cancel culture. I loathe it with a passion that burns stronger with every passing day! You might consider this being "mad at the internet", but it's out in the real world now. If all individuals did a little bit of work to look outside the mainstream, that might actually solve things.
User avatar
five_red
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 9 years ago

Disappointed. Saw the title "Cartoon character cancelled" and assumed it was a thread about Piers Morgan. :laugh:

R5
Damselbinder

No that would have been "fatuous, self-important, narcissistic, banal, moronic, unpleasant, self-aggrandising, pusillanimous, mendacious, irresponsible, conventional, pompous cunt cancelled"
ivandobsky
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 316
Joined: 10 years ago

Piers Morgan is an idiot who says dumb things. I don't really keep up with celeb gossip, but seems like he's getting dragged for saying something negative about Ms Markle. Seems likely this is one of the less stupid things he's said. She does come across as being particularly insufferable. She makes the average American look positively British by comparison.
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1768
Joined: 10 years ago

ivandobsky wrote:
3 years ago
Piers Morgan is an idiot who says dumb things. I don't really keep up with celeb gossip, but seems like he's getting dragged for saying something negative about Ms Markle. Seems likely this is one of the less stupid things he's said. She does come across as being particularly insufferable. She makes the average American look positively British by comparison.
-----

No fan of his is. There was a far more interesting test pattern to watch Sunday night.

But working out Monday morning, seeing the highlights: I agree with him Markle is lying, I don't believe a word she said.

Harry is a miserable son and his grandfather is in the hospital and he does the interview? Remember this is the guy who dressed up in Nazi garb for a costume party.
User avatar
Heroine Addict
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 13 years ago

I'm not convinced Piers Moron's departure from Good Morning Britain can really be called "cancel culture". He threw a tantrum and walked off a live show because another presenter gave him a very small amount of pushback over his personal grievance with Markle. (She stopped meeting and communicating with the slimy little creep after she started dating Harry.)

Storming off a live TV broadcast and leaving everyone else to clean up the mess is almost certainly "pissing on one's own chips" in that industry. Good riddance to the oxygen-thieving cunt.
"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."
User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

Dazzle1 wrote:
3 years ago
ivandobsky wrote:
3 years ago
Piers Morgan is an idiot who says dumb things. I don't really keep up with celeb gossip, but seems like he's getting dragged for saying something negative about Ms Markle. Seems likely this is one of the less stupid things he's said. She does come across as being particularly insufferable. She makes the average American look positively British by comparison.
-----

No fan of his is. There was a far more interesting test pattern to watch Sunday night.

But working out Monday morning, seeing the highlights: I agree with him Markle is lying, I don't believe a word she said.

Harry is a miserable son and his grandfather is in the hospital and he does the interview? Remember this is the guy who dressed up in Nazi garb for a costume party.
He's probably the one who said about the baby's colour. :giggle:
I didn't know Grandpa Hewitt was in hospital.
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1768
Joined: 10 years ago

Heroine Addict wrote:
3 years ago
I'm not convinced Piers Moron's departure from Good Morning Britain can really be called "cancel culture". He threw a tantrum and walked off a live show because another presenter gave him a very small amount of pushback over his personal grievance with Markle. (She stopped meeting and communicating with the slimy little creep after she started dating Harry.)

Storming off a live TV broadcast and leaving everyone else to clean up the mess is almost certainly "pissing on one's own chips" in that industry. Good riddance to the oxygen-thieving cunt.
Were you refering to his cohost, the blond woman or the female guest who was throwing out the race card and interupting him?
User avatar
Heroine Addict
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 13 years ago

Dazzle1 wrote:
3 years ago

Were you refering to his cohost, the blond woman or the female guest who was throwing out the race card and interupting him?
The pathetic flounce happened after weather forecaster Alex Beresford gave Piers a tiny amount of pushback. The delicate snowflake Piers decided he couldn't cope with a two-way discussion and ran away like a petulant child.

"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1768
Joined: 10 years ago

Heroine Addict wrote:
3 years ago
Dazzle1 wrote:
3 years ago

Were you refering to his cohost, the blond woman or the female guest who was throwing out the race card and interupting him?
The pathetic flounce happened after weather forecaster Alex Beresford gave Piers a tiny amount of pushback. The delicate snowflake Piers decided he couldn't cope with a two-way discussion and ran away like a petulant child.

Oh I saw a different clip. thanks for clarfying

Forget Piers

I believe Meghan is not only lying about the racism but that she was considering suicide. she and Harry go on the attack when relatives are in hospital not only Phillip but her father after heart surgery
User avatar
Heroine Addict
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 13 years ago

I can't get too excited about Harry and Meghan. They are no longer leeching off the British taxpayers, so they're marginally better than most royals by virtue of being less parasitic.

Royalty is a bizarre anachronism in this day and age, anyway. The idea of a long line of higher beings to whom everyone should bow and curtsy may seem like a romantic ideal. However, in reality, this supposedly majestic dynasty is just a bunch of chinless, inbred twats.
"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

So some whiny man-baby believes Meghan is lying. Who cares?!

Is Piers whatshisname famous in UK or something? Or is it just that he walked out on TV set and cancelled himself?
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4597
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

theScribbler wrote:
3 years ago
So some whiny man-baby believes Meghan is lying. Who cares?!

Is Piers whatshisname famous in UK or something? Or is it just that he walked out on TV set and cancelled himself?
I thought he was in Britain, worked in the US, left and went back to Britain.
User avatar
DrDominator9
Emissary
Emissary
Posts: 2453
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: On the Border of the Neutral Zone

Solve this equation:
Piers Mogan:Meghan Markel as Peppie LePew:??
A) Rival skunks
B) White-striped cats
C) SJWs
D) Tallyho
Follow this link to descriptions of my stories and easy links to them:

viewtopic.php?f=70&t=32025
Imagineer
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 614
Joined: 12 years ago

Once upon a time, America decided the alcohol trade was inappropriate.
User avatar
shevek
Producer
Producer
Posts: 3742
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Mr. X wrote:
3 years ago

Also add that there are more native americans in the US than LGBTQ, especially trans and we see little to no representation of them. Same with Asians. FAR more Asians in the US.... where's the representation?

There has to be a consistent set of rules here. Some people have got to stop trying to be offended on behalf of others.



9 out of 10 native Americans don't care about the name RedSkins.
That's all true, just like the vast majority of Mexicans either don't care about Speedy Gonzales or even consider him a hero.

Actually, Mr. X, there are various progressive organizations and some shows pushing for Asian representation and some for American Indians as well. These days, we're seeing Asian representation in every major superhero series, for example. There's been a recent media push by Asian rights advocates against a handful of attacks that have taken place against East Asians in the U.S. (Vietnamese, Thai, Chinese)...without of course mentioning that many of the incidents were actually committed by black kids (just like with the attacks on ultra-Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn).

As for Native Americans:
If you saw my review of recent Resident Alien episodes...one episode depicted a whole family of Native Americans in Colorado,
and two of the main characters in the show are from that depicted tribe.

I hope that the Cleveland Indians don't change their name. They are called that because they needed a name change in 1914, and just before that time, their star player was a Penobscot Indian, Louis Sockalexis. He died at age 42, and the team renamed themselves the Indians in his honor. That's pretty deep, actually.
Bert

shevek wrote:
3 years ago
There's been a recent media push by Asian rights advocates against a handful of attacks that have taken place against East Asians in the U.S. (Vietnamese, Thai, Chinese)...without of course mentioning that many of the incidents were actually committed by black kids...
A cursory search on recent Asian discrimination turned up this Feb 13 CNN piece:

"Stop AAPI Hate began collecting reports of racism and discrimination against Asian Americans on March 19 last year, after seeing instances of xenophobia as the virus started spreading in the US. From then through the end of 2020, the organization received more than 2,800 firsthand reports of anti-Asian hate across 47 states and Washington, DC, according to data released this week.

The majority of those incidents -- about 71% -- were cases of verbal harassment, while shunning or avoidance made up about 21%. About 9% of the incidents involved physical assaults, and 6% included being purposely coughed or spit on, according to a Stop AAPI Hate news release."

Almost 3,000 incidents, 250 of them violent, seems like more than "a handful" to me. When a large, diverse nation like the U.S. has a leader who repeatedly uses pejorative terms like "kung-flu" and "China virus" in public statements, it foments racial abuse. The president of the United States has enormous power. His words carry a lot of weight, which is why presidents have chosen their words carefully, until Trump. The first time Trump trotted out these terms he was criticized for speaking in a way that could encourage discrimination against Asian-Americans. He kept doing it - for 10 months.
User avatar
Maskripper
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1091
Joined: 7 years ago
Contact:

I wanna bring an older example from Germany to this discussion.
Some of the.....hardliners....here may be calling it an early example of "cancel culture"....

Here in Germany (and I guess in many other countries) we have these sweets:
Image

I don't know how they are called in other countries.
Basically is some sort of fluffy sweet cream surrounded by a waffle (as a ground base) and chocolate cover around it.

Here in Germany these things were called "Negerkuss" for a long time until the late '90s or early 2000s....I guess.
Negerkuss would translate into something like "Negrokiss".....which would be the more harmless version of the translation.

But finally, some folks realized that calling them like that isn't appropriate and quite offending to some/many.
Back then it was a huge debate.
Many complained that they were renamed into "Dickmanns" (Brand name) or "Schokoküsse" (chocolate kisses) or "Schaumküsse" (foam kisses? - hard to translate).
Many said: "We called them like that for so many years! Why now change it? We are so used to it".
Many thought that the name wasn't offensive/racist. :giggle:

But it was a totally unfitting name. And yeah, it was a racist term after all.
And most people here realized that sooner or later.
Even some still call it like that because they can't learn or for whatever reason holding onto it like it would be a heavy burden for them to use another term. Funny how offended these folks are about it. Like someone would rob them of something.
So that old name wasn't "canceled" or anything. It was changed for the better.
Because "it was always called like that" isn't an argumentation. With that kind of logic, the military would still use muskets or swords or maces (aka "why change something? It worked so good all the time").
Things change, perspectives change, times change.
As a kid, I used the term as well, as I didn't know better and everybody called them like that.
If something was right yesterday, it can be wrong tomorrow.
And mistakes should be corrected sooner or later.
-
I could bring on newer examples from my country incl. the gender discussion on the german language.
But that would go too far here as some might get a heart attack ;)
-
Vist my blog and its Youtube channel:
http://www.maskripper.org
https://www.youtube.com/c/MaskripperOrg

Masked women in action! Superheroines, burglars, villainesses are waiting for you...
User avatar
Heroine Addict
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 13 years ago

The Pepe Le Pew thing seems like a no-win situation for Warner Bros.

Option 1: Having Pepe behave exactly as he did in the 1940s would definitely seem weird to modern audiences and generate backlash.

Option 2: Showing Pepe being taught about consent (as Lebron would have done in the reportedly cut Space Jam 2 scene) would send YouTube's army of neckbearded slobs into a rage about history being rewritten and their childhoods being raped. Or something.

Option 3: Quietly brush the rapey skunk under the carpet. Hardly anyone liked him anyway.

The third option seemed the most logical. Until news of his omission was leaked and now people who haven't given a shit about Pepe Le Pew for many years (if ever) are suddenly screaming about "Cancel Culture".
"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1768
Joined: 10 years ago

Heroine Addict wrote:
3 years ago
The Pepe Le Pew thing seems like a no-win situation for Warner Bros.

Option 1: Having Pepe behave exactly as he did in the 1940s would definitely seem weird to modern audiences and generate backlash.

Option 2: Showing Pepe being taught about consent (as Lebron would have done in the reportedly cut Space Jam 2 scene) would send YouTube's army of neckbearded slobs into a rage about history being rewritten and their childhoods being raped. Or something.

Option 3: Quietly brush the rapey skunk under the carpet. Hardly anyone liked him anyway.

The third option seemed the most logical. Until news of his omission was leaked and now people who haven't given a shit about Pepe Le Pew for many years (if ever) are suddenly screaming about "Cancel Culture".
Except that it just the latest example of what is one of the most noxious aspects of 2021.

Because a tiny group of self assigned purity czars complain, everyone caves in.

You can't criticize Meghan Markle because she self identifies as a minority. She files a complaint with British censors because Morgan said she lied
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 725
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

Heroine Addict wrote:
3 years ago
I can't get too excited about Harry and Meghan. They are no longer leeching off the British taxpayers, so they're marginally better than most royals by virtue of being less parasitic.

Royalty is a bizarre anachronism in this day and age, anyway. The idea of a long line of higher beings to whom everyone should bow and curtsy may seem like a romantic ideal. However, in reality, this supposedly majestic dynasty is just a bunch of chinless, inbred twats.
Yes, but they are born into being chinless twats. In America we have to elect them. And you only have to listen to them a couple of times a year, ours can tweet eighty time a day from their golden shitter.
Image
ivandobsky
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 316
Joined: 10 years ago

Maskripper wrote:
3 years ago
Many complained that they were renamed into "Dickmanns" (Brand name) or "Schokoküsse" (chocolate kisses) or "Schaumküsse" (foam kisses? - hard to translate).
They should be called Dickwamannsküsse. After all, it's 2021. Don't be on the wrong side of history.
User avatar
Heroine Addict
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 13 years ago

Dazzle1 wrote:
3 years ago

Except that it just the latest example of what is one of the most noxious aspects of 2021.

Because a tiny group of self assigned purity czars complain, everyone caves in.

You can't criticize Meghan Markle because she self identifies as a minority. She files a complaint with British censors because Morgan said she lied
Let's look at the recent examples of Cancel Culture which have generated media hysteria:

The Muppet Show - Not censored or cancelled at all. There is merely a brief disclaimer about the content.

Peter Pan, Dumbo and The Aristocats - As above, but with the content not accessible to unsupervised child viewers.

Mr Potatohead - No real change to the individual Mr Potatohead toy. The overall toy line has been rebranded as Potatoheads. Nothing was cancelled.

Meghan Markle - Piers Morgan cancelled himself by walking off a live show. As for the complaint by Markle, anyone is entitled to complain about a perceived sustained attack by the British media. Broadcasting in all countries is regulated to some extent. It's not a new thing.

Dr Seuss - The company that owns the rights to his books chose to withdraw six titles. If you wish, you can negotiate for the rights to those books and republish them yourself. That's how the free market works. Unless you're advocating some sort of literary socialism under which everything goes straight to the public domain?

How many examples can you cite of specific identifiable people getting anything cancelled? It's always a nebulous "THEY" who are coming for your books and cartoons. Why can't anyone name them specifically? And, even if I grant that there is indeed a shadowy cabal of politicians, academics, blue-haired students and corporate infiltrators, why is blame deflected from the rights holders of these intellectual properties? Y'know, the people who actually control which content remains in circulation. Are the Disney and WB execs so very feeble that they're scared of a few gobshites on social media?
"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."
User avatar
Femina
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1473
Joined: 14 years ago
Contact:

Dazzle1 wrote:
3 years ago
Except that it just the latest example of what is one of the most noxious aspects of 2021.
Simply because something follows a trend doesn't necessarily make it the wrong decision. More likely, the fact that there is a trend simply pushed forth the need to make a decision, and the people in charge decided that the right course of action was to follow the trend.
Because a tiny group of self assigned purity czars complain, everyone caves in.
This is nonsense. People complain about shit all the time. They're complaining about cancel culture and it's still a thing. How come the complaints about cancel culture haven't canceled cancel culture?

Maybe, just maybe, it's because cancel culture isn't a result of listening to a tiny group at all? Cancel Culture only appears to work where it involves the issue of tolerance. Pepsi hasn't been cancelled because Coke is annoyed they have competition. Television shows don't get cancelled when a segment of viewers become annoyed that the show has become a meme of itself (Just look at The Walking Dead). Cancel Culture only seems to affect people who publicly indicate their intolerance (cancel culture on PRODUCTS seems a little bit more open but follows a similar thread). The solution to this phenomena is both simple and difficult all at once.

The simple solution is for people to quit publicly declaring their intolerance in a society that has grown intolerant of intolerance, but this is AMERICA (some of you) may say, we should be free to say and do whatever we want! Which is TRUE! To which the more difficult aspect of the solution presents itself, the solution is you have to just BE tolerant, really and truly. If that's impossible for an individual, well that's actually also fine, but they may be forced to ask themselves some difficult questions like 'am I just an asshole?' and if the answer is yes maybe they should recognize that the right to be an asshole doesn't mean that everyone else has to, nor should they, just STFU and eat your shit.
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1768
Joined: 10 years ago

Heroine Addict wrote:
3 years ago
Dazzle1 wrote:
3 years ago

Except that it just the latest example of what is one of the most noxious aspects of 2021.

Because a tiny group of self assigned purity czars complain, everyone caves in.

You can't criticize Meghan Markle because she self identifies as a minority. She files a complaint with British censors because Morgan said she lied
Let's look at the recent examples of Cancel Culture which have generated media hysteria:

The Muppet Show - Not censored or cancelled at all. There is merely a brief disclaimer about the content.

Peter Pan, Dumbo and The Aristocats - As above, but with the content not accessible to unsupervised child viewers.

Mr Potatohead - No real change to the individual Mr Potatohead toy. The overall toy line has been rebranded as Potatoheads. Nothing was cancelled.

Meghan Markle - Piers Morgan cancelled himself by walking off a live show. As for the complaint by Markle, anyone is entitled to complain about a perceived sustained attack by the British media. Broadcasting in all countries is regulated to some extent. It's not a new thing.

Dr Seuss - The company that owns the rights to his books chose to withdraw six titles. If you wish, you can negotiate for the rights to those books and republish them yourself. That's how the free market works. Unless you're advocating some sort of literary socialism under which everything goes straight to the public domain?

How many examples can you cite of specific identifiable people getting anything cancelled? It's always a nebulous "THEY" who are coming for your books and cartoons. Why can't anyone name them specifically? And, even if I grant that there is indeed a shadowy cabal of politicians, academics, blue-haired students and corporate infiltrators, why is blame deflected from the rights holders of these intellectual properties? Y'know, the people who actually control which content remains in circulation. Are the Disney and WB execs so very feeble that they're scared of a few gobshites on social media?
How about Gina Carano, most fans want her back

How about the banjo player for Mumford and sons forced to quit because he dared compliment Andy Ngo's book on antifa

How about the star trek cartoon actor who was banned from conventions because of unsusubstaniated claims
User avatar
Heroine Addict
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 13 years ago

Dazzle1 wrote:
3 years ago

How about Gina Carano, most fans want her back

How about the banjo player for Mumford and sons forced to quit because he dared compliment Andy Ngo's book on antifa

How about the star trek cartoon actor who was banned from conventions because of unsusubstaniated claims
Again, you're not being specific about who was ultimately responsible for each cancelling. Are the decision makers at Disney, Mumford & Sons and Paramount all so pathetic that we can't hold them responsible for anything? Are they mysteriously under the control of a mob which is somehow small and weak while simultaneously being overwhelming and powerful?

Gina had a long history of shitposting conspiracy garbage about COVID and election fraud without any credible evidence. The holocaust comparison was just the final straw. Any large company would want to sever ties with such a liability.

As for the majority wanting her back, how can you possibly measure that? Has a representative sample of Star Wars fandom been surveyed scientifically by an unbiased polling company? Unscientific polls which allow self-sampling and petitions don't count.

Even if a majority really do want Gina back, is employment by a huge corporation now a matter of democratic will, regardless of the employee's conduct outside work? When it comes to Cancel Culture - and only Cancel Culture - people who you wouldn't expect to be socialists suddenly espouse very, very, very socialist views. Strange.

Besides, when it comes to Star Wars, the decision to not re-hire an actress (in the loosest sense of the word) who wasn't even under contract anymore pales into insignificance next to the cancellation of the original trilogy since 1997. The fan outrage over crap like "Greedo fired first", "Nooooooo!" and excessive CGI vandalism is far greater than any sentiment that a conspiracy chud is somehow entitled to a job after a shitposting spree. Yet there's no political angle to a creator changing his "vision" and making the original versions unavailable, so Fox News doesn't care about a long-running anti-cancellation campaign which doesn't have a nefarious unspecified "THEY" to resent.
Last edited by Heroine Addict 3 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."
User avatar
five_red
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 9 years ago

Heroine Addict wrote:
3 years ago
Mr Potatohead - No real change to the individual Mr Potatohead toy. The overall toy line has been rebranded as Potatoheads. Nothing was cancelled.
Yep, there's still going to be a Mr and Mrs variation of the toy, it is just that both versions will carry the single brand "Potato Head" on the box. But it is obvious from the box art which version you're getting.
Meghan Markle - Piers Morgan cancelled himself by walking off a live show. As for the complaint by Markle, anyone is entitled to complain about a perceived sustained attack by the British media. Broadcasting in all countries is regulated to some extent. It's not a new thing.
The irony here is that the FCC is frequently complained about because it regulates tv too much, while it's British equivalent, Ofcom, is frequently complained about because it doesn't regulate enough. To be sure, there are differences in the ways the two countries censor content, and some things that are allowed in the US that would probably be restricted on UK tv, but there's also a lot of edgy material that gets banned outright from tv in the US, that runs in regular re-run schedules without even a warning in the UK.

EDIT: To clarify: Family Guy airs in the UK with a brief "Next up is Family Guy, so expect adult humour..." disclaimer before every episode. But I'm not aware that the US banned episodes have special disclaimers in the UK, just the standard line they use for all the episodes.

The irony is that Fox News Republicans made a big deal about companies being able to force their 'corporate conscience' onto others when they defended the right of Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A to prevent its employees from using the company's healthcare plan to fund contraception (because every sperm is sacred!)... but then rant and rave about companies that remove or rebrand their own products due to 'corporate conscience'. If Hobby Lobby is permitted to take a stand against birth control and safe sex, then Penguin Random House is surely permitted to take a stand against racism(?) :D


R5
ivandobsky
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 316
Joined: 10 years ago

Plenty of people complain that Ofcom regulates too much. Ofcom regulates too much.

https://melonfarmers.co.uk/ow.htm
Imagineer
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 614
Joined: 12 years ago

So, how about that American Rescue Plan?
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 725
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

five_red wrote:
3 years ago
Heroine Addict wrote:
3 years ago
Mr Potatohead - No real change to the individual Mr Potatohead toy. The overall toy line has been rebranded as Potatoheads. Nothing was cancelled.
Yep, there's still going to be a Mr and Mrs variation of the toy, it is just that both versions will carry the single brand "Potato Head" on the box. But it is obvious from the box art which version you're getting.
Meghan Markle - Piers Morgan cancelled himself by walking off a live show. As for the complaint by Markle, anyone is entitled to complain about a perceived sustained attack by the British media. Broadcasting in all countries is regulated to some extent. It's not a new thing.
The irony here is that the FCC is frequently complained about because it regulates tv too much, while it's British equivalent, Ofcom, is frequently complained about because it doesn't regulate enough. To be sure, there are differences in the ways the two countries censor content, and some things that are allowed in the US that would probably be restricted on UK tv, but there's also a lot of edgy material that gets banned outright from tv in the US, that runs in regular re-run schedules without even a warning in the UK.

EDIT: To clarify: Family Guy airs in the UK with a brief "Next up is Family Guy, so expect adult humour..." disclaimer before every episode. But I'm not aware that the US banned episodes have special disclaimers in the UK, just the standard line they use for all the episodes.

The irony is that Fox News Republicans made a big deal about companies being able to force their 'corporate conscience' onto others when they defended the right of Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A to prevent its employees from using the company's healthcare plan to fund contraception (because every sperm is sacred!)... but then rant and rave about companies that remove or rebrand their own products due to 'corporate conscience'. If Hobby Lobby is permitted to take a stand against birth control and safe sex, then Penguin Random House is surely permitted to take a stand against racism(?) :D


R5
Remember, it is your right as a Christian to turn away gay wedding cakes, but god help you if rapey skunk (or Presidents) get cancelled. Just think of all those poor Christians that were unaware that PLP was being dragged behind the shed and double tapped....
Image
Damselbinder

sneakly wrote:
3 years ago
five_red wrote:
3 years ago
Heroine Addict wrote:
3 years ago
Mr Potatohead - No real change to the individual Mr Potatohead toy. The overall toy line has been rebranded as Potatoheads. Nothing was cancelled.
Yep, there's still going to be a Mr and Mrs variation of the toy, it is just that both versions will carry the single brand "Potato Head" on the box. But it is obvious from the box art which version you're getting.
Meghan Markle - Piers Morgan cancelled himself by walking off a live show. As for the complaint by Markle, anyone is entitled to complain about a perceived sustained attack by the British media. Broadcasting in all countries is regulated to some extent. It's not a new thing.
The irony here is that the FCC is frequently complained about because it regulates tv too much, while it's British equivalent, Ofcom, is frequently complained about because it doesn't regulate enough. To be sure, there are differences in the ways the two countries censor content, and some things that are allowed in the US that would probably be restricted on UK tv, but there's also a lot of edgy material that gets banned outright from tv in the US, that runs in regular re-run schedules without even a warning in the UK.

EDIT: To clarify: Family Guy airs in the UK with a brief "Next up is Family Guy, so expect adult humour..." disclaimer before every episode. But I'm not aware that the US banned episodes have special disclaimers in the UK, just the standard line they use for all the episodes.

The irony is that Fox News Republicans made a big deal about companies being able to force their 'corporate conscience' onto others when they defended the right of Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A to prevent its employees from using the company's healthcare plan to fund contraception (because every sperm is sacred!)... but then rant and rave about companies that remove or rebrand their own products due to 'corporate conscience'. If Hobby Lobby is permitted to take a stand against birth control and safe sex, then Penguin Random House is surely permitted to take a stand against racism(?) :D


R5
Remember, it is your right as a Christian to turn away gay wedding cakes, but god help you if rapey skunk (or Presidents) get cancelled. Just think of all those poor Christians that were unaware that PLP was being dragged behind the shed and double tapped....
Sacré bleu!
User avatar
Heroine Addict
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 13 years ago

sneakly wrote:
3 years ago

Remember, it is your right as a Christian to turn away gay wedding cakes, but god help you if rapey skunk (or Presidents) get cancelled. Just think of all those poor Christians that were unaware that PLP was being dragged behind the shed and double tapped....
I have to admire the astounding cognitive dissonance of Fox News Conservatives' views on the rights of private businesses: A private business owner should be allowed to deny service to any Other group while simultaneously being compelled to serve my group. Even when that means forcing them to produce or sell products that are no longer in demand and that I don't personally intend to buy. They must also provide lifelong employment to that person who shouts various slurs in the town square because it's "silencing conservative voices" if they don't.
"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4597
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

Bert wrote:
3 years ago
shevek wrote:
3 years ago
There's been a recent media push by Asian rights advocates against a handful of attacks that have taken place against East Asians in the U.S. (Vietnamese, Thai, Chinese)...without of course mentioning that many of the incidents were actually committed by black kids...
A cursory search on recent Asian discrimination turned up this Feb 13 CNN piece:

"Stop AAPI Hate began collecting reports of racism and discrimination against Asian Americans on March 19 last year, after seeing instances of xenophobia as the virus started spreading in the US. From then through the end of 2020, the organization received more than 2,800 firsthand reports of anti-Asian hate across 47 states and Washington, DC, according to data released this week.

The majority of those incidents -- about 71% -- were cases of verbal harassment, while shunning or avoidance made up about 21%. About 9% of the incidents involved physical assaults, and 6% included being purposely coughed or spit on, according to a Stop AAPI Hate news release."

Almost 3,000 incidents, 250 of them violent, seems like more than "a handful" to me. When a large, diverse nation like the U.S. has a leader who repeatedly uses pejorative terms like "kung-flu" and "China virus" in public statements, it foments racial abuse. The president of the United States has enormous power. His words carry a lot of weight, which is why presidents have chosen their words carefully, until Trump. The first time Trump trotted out these terms he was criticized for speaking in a way that could encourage discrimination against Asian-Americans. He kept doing it - for 10 months.

You're doing the same thing Pelosi did. The vast majority of these perps are not white men or maga hat wearers. They are blacks and muslims. But somehow the narrative is to blame Trump and white men. Trump did NOT ferment anything. And Biden clearly acknowledges the virus came from China. I really doubt blacks are watching Trump then doing what Trump says nor are MAGA hat wearing hillybillies driving into San Fran to commit hate crimes. Its blacks clocking Asians. Muslims stabbing Asians. Trump also went golfing. Did the golfing ferment Asian hate? And these attacks are happening in the wokest community in the US, San Fran. So is progressivism broken?
Damselbinder

Mr. X wrote:
3 years ago
Bert wrote:
3 years ago
shevek wrote:
3 years ago
There's been a recent media push by Asian rights advocates against a handful of attacks that have taken place against East Asians in the U.S. (Vietnamese, Thai, Chinese)...without of course mentioning that many of the incidents were actually committed by black kids...
A cursory search on recent Asian discrimination turned up this Feb 13 CNN piece:

"Stop AAPI Hate began collecting reports of racism and discrimination against Asian Americans on March 19 last year, after seeing instances of xenophobia as the virus started spreading in the US. From then through the end of 2020, the organization received more than 2,800 firsthand reports of anti-Asian hate across 47 states and Washington, DC, according to data released this week.

The majority of those incidents -- about 71% -- were cases of verbal harassment, while shunning or avoidance made up about 21%. About 9% of the incidents involved physical assaults, and 6% included being purposely coughed or spit on, according to a Stop AAPI Hate news release."

Almost 3,000 incidents, 250 of them violent, seems like more than "a handful" to me. When a large, diverse nation like the U.S. has a leader who repeatedly uses pejorative terms like "kung-flu" and "China virus" in public statements, it foments racial abuse. The president of the United States has enormous power. His words carry a lot of weight, which is why presidents have chosen their words carefully, until Trump. The first time Trump trotted out these terms he was criticized for speaking in a way that could encourage discrimination against Asian-Americans. He kept doing it - for 10 months.

You're doing the same thing Pelosi did. The vast majority of these perps are not white men or maga hat wearers. They are blacks and muslims. But somehow the narrative is to blame Trump and white men. Trump did NOT ferment anything. And Biden clearly acknowledges the virus came from China. I really doubt blacks are watching Trump then doing what Trump says nor are MAGA hat wearing hillybillies driving into San Fran to commit hate crimes. Its blacks clocking Asians. Muslims stabbing Asians. Trump also went golfing. Did the golfing ferment Asian hate? And these attacks are happening in the wokest community in the US, San Fran. So is progressivism broken?
Bert never said it was only white men who could be influenced by Trump. You assumed that.
User avatar
five_red
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 9 years ago

ivandobsky wrote:
3 years ago
Plenty of people complain that Ofcom regulates too much. Ofcom regulates too much.

https://melonfarmers.co.uk/ow.htm
Well, yes, porn web sites like the one linked are worried about the UK Government's recent decision to extend Ofcom's control into protecting UK citizens online. According to the site you linked, this only applies to sites physically hosted in the UK, however. To quote Ofcom's site:
Does this mean Ofcom will be censoring the internet?
We won’t censor the web or social media. Free expression is the lifeblood of the internet and it’s central to our democracy, values and modern society.

Our role in upholding broadcasting standards for TV and radio programmes means we’ve gained extensive experience of protecting audiences from harm while upholding freedom of expression. An important part of our job will be to ensure online platforms do the same with their systems and processes.

Isn't there too much content on the internet for anybody to regulate it at all?
We won’t be responsible for regulating or moderating individual pieces of online content.

The Government’s intention is that online platforms should have appropriate systems and processes in place to protect user; and that Ofcom should take action against them if they fall short. We’ll focus particular attention on tackling the most serious harms, including illegal content and harms affecting children.
You can decide for yourself whether this is too much.


R5
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4597
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

Damselbinder wrote:
3 years ago
Bert never said it was only white men who could be influenced by Trump. You assumed that.
He did assume this was caused by Trump. Its not. And its not any of Trump's so called minions.
ivandobsky
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 316
Joined: 10 years ago

sneakly wrote:
3 years ago
Remember, it is your right as a Christian to turn away gay wedding cakes, but god help you if rapey skunk (or Presidents) get cancelled. Just think of all those poor Christians that were unaware that PLP was being dragged behind the shed and double tapped....
eh? many appear to be making the assumption, that seems to me to be quite bizarre, that criticism of "cancel culture" is a demand that the state force individuals to "just bake the cake, bigot!".

People are simply saying that if people refuse to bake the cake, maybe they should get a cake from somewhere else. That's how free markets are supposed to work.
Damselbinder

Mr. X wrote:
3 years ago
Damselbinder wrote:
3 years ago
Bert never said it was only white men who could be influenced by Trump. You assumed that.
He did assume this was caused by Trump. Its not. And its not any of Trump's so called minions.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2 ... -data-say/
ivandobsky
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 316
Joined: 10 years ago

five_red wrote:
3 years ago
You can decide for yourself whether this is too much.
I can decide for myself that they appear to be lying, or at least, are interpreting the English language in a way far beyond the creative capabilities of an honest human being.

Will they be censoring the internet or won't they?
User avatar
shevek
Producer
Producer
Posts: 3742
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Into the hornet's nest we go:

Heroine Addict- There are tons of examples of both well-known figures and average Joes/Janes being cancelled recently: their social media wiped out, their jobs lost. These stories come up all the time. The example of the Mumfords banjoist is prominent (which you didn't respond to) but there are many more. There are also many stories of racial epithets being hurled from progressive sources - one of more egregious ones was calling the parents who want their kids to go back to California school white Karens, when in fact the majority of the kids that this policy hurts in cities like L.A. are non-white. One teacher who complained about her own union was grilled about what her ethnic background was due to her possibly ambiguous last name (in a typical progressive move, they assumed she was Iranian because it's L.A., but she turned out to be Afghan). Have you been following all of these reports?

Why do you think so many people are moving to Florida, Texas, Tennessee, South Dakota, Idaho, etc? Along with the obvious financial factors, it's in part because they know their entire lives won't be 'cancelled' in those areas. Do you think I'm happy living in Pennsylvania where comic book conventions have been cancelled until fall 2021 (all of the spring events just gave up the ghost this week) because of the "25%" limitation on gatherings, while such Cons can move full steam ahead in red states? I wish I could move but my roots are way too deep. If I was still in my twenties, I definitely would move. And yes, I am conflating cultural cancellation with covid cancellation - it's often the same forces doing both.

Bert- Unlike the ADL, which was founded in 1913, the "AAPI" which you are quoting was founded in 2017.

Here in Pittsburgh, there are thousands of both East Asians and South Asians mostly located in and around a specific university area (a couple of Asian university students actually played heroines in our series, and have done an incredible job) because we have a well-developed "Eds, Meds and Tech" sector in this region. I have never, and I mean *never*, heard of one single anti-Asian hate incident of any kind in our city. Not even reported by the two local leftist alternaweeklies (one of which proudly puts the term 'Woke Commie Rag' on its T-shirts and mugs), and you know they would run to hell and back with a story like that if they had one
(and I am on the e-mail list for both of those publications). Meanwhile, as you are probably aware, we unfortunately had one of the biggest anti-Semitic events in modern history. Compare and contrast, please.

So here's my take: This number is exaggerated, and the small number of attacks that do happen can often be attributed to street-criminal miscreants (regardless of race). What this organization is trying to do is to establish Asians, in the broadest sense, as "victims" in the United States the way that Jews have been. But this isn't the era of the Japanese internment camps. Various Asian empires and ethnic groups have been doing immeasurably worse things to each other for millennia (and are still doing it today, just ask the Uygurs or the Rohingya). Somehow, "Asians" are well aware of each other's differences, even if the AAPI is not. And who the heck knows what "shunning" even means, in an age where I see people purposefully avoid *everyone else* on the street because of covid while visible moving away from each other (This covid shunning action is magnified and 'performative' in hipster progressive areas, such as where I live, but if you go to the centrist/conservative suburbs, nobody cares and restaurants are packed).

The situation with anti-Semitism, however, is a lot more serious, and even this article says that it's moving away from just the triangle of hate from "far-left, far-right and radical Islamist" sources. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/ant ... in-decades Although the reason that Jews have been moving out of France for the past couple decades is pretty specific to Islamism. That's one reason why such companies over-react to such phenomena as Gina Carano, who is no way shape or form is even vaguely an anti-Semite. She is as sweet a person as can be.

We can keep arguing if you like, Bert, but I'd rather not.

Also, I don't care about anything ever having to do with the UK royal family. It shouldn't exist as a publicly supported entity (last year, the "Sovereign Grant" was £82.4 million). I'm far from being any kind of communist or "decolonizer", but my opinion is that they should be left with just their titles and maybe a small inheritance, and have to actually work for a living like everyone else. Like the descendants of the Tsars or the Shahs, etc.
User avatar
five_red
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 9 years ago

ivandobsky wrote:
3 years ago
five_red wrote:
3 years ago
You can decide for yourself whether this is too much.
I can decide for myself that they appear to be lying, or at least, are interpreting the English language in a way far beyond the creative capabilities of an honest human being.

Will they be censoring the internet or won't they?
As it says on their site, more than once, no they won't.

What the site claims is that they're ensuring that UK-based sites have measures in place to protect their users from harm, specifically kids. Presumably this is related to the recent concerns about extreme cyber bullying, online harassment, doxing, creep shots, revenge porn, etc. They say repeatedly they are not planning to censor content, and protection of users is their only aim. The only materials they intend to get involved in preventing, as their site says, is the most extreme illegal content -- particularly stuff related to children. As child porn is already illegal and censored, I'm assuming this is stuff like 'revenge porn' (posting nudes of your ex) and doxing, both of which were recently made illegal. There's been some concern of immature teenagers posting compromising photos of their partners on chat systems; the BBC even did a recent documentary about reality tv star, Zara McDermott, whose boyfriend pestered her into sending him naked photos when she was just 14. When she finally gave in, he immediately sent the pics to friends at her school, who shared them with their friends, and so on... I assume that Ofcom wants proof that UK-hosted sites have procedures to deal with such materials when posted.

The worst argument you can make is that protecting users is the start of a slippery slope towards something bigger... and perhaps you're right in that. But for now, 'something bigger' is very clearly stated to not be on their agenda.

Now, obviously, if you claim that they are lying then there's little point in discussing the benefits of downsides of this. If they're lying then you can claim that they are doing all kinds of things in secret, and you're immune from any counterargument. I mean, the Ofcom site doesn't say that they're planning to strangle your grandma and poison your cat, and if you asked them I'm sure they'd say they would never do such terrible things... but if they're simply lying then anything is possible, and can't be refuted..! ;)


R5
ivandobsky
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 316
Joined: 10 years ago

five_red wrote:
3 years ago
The worst argument you can make is that protecting users is the start of a slippery slope towards something bigger... and perhaps you're right in that. But for now, 'something bigger' is very clearly stated to not be on their agenda.
We're already there. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-o ... regulation

"protect the general public from criminal content and material likely to incite violence or hatred."

"Hate" is an overused, nebulous, politicised term, as is "harm". Why shouldn't people hate? People make the case for pornography causing "moral" or "societal harm". Horror movies cause people to enact real violence. "Silence is violence" is a contemporary insanity. People claim that "questioning their identity" will drive them to commit violence against themselves.

Further, "criminal content and..." implies that their remit is not limited to enforcing existing prohibitions (which, FWIW, is still censorship). This will be used as a vector to attack political and sexual expression between adults.

The problem of children accessing rude things on the internet would be better addressed by some certification scheme, provision of software to restrict browsing to sites that have opted in to Ofcom certification.

It's true that a workaround is to host elsewhere, but what if you live in airstrip 1 and want to self host a website? Why should you need to obtain 3rd party hosting a free country? Why can't we be the free country like things used to (appear to) be?
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1768
Joined: 10 years ago

Heroine Addict wrote:
3 years ago
Dazzle1 wrote:
3 years ago

How about Gina Carano, most fans want her back

How about the banjo player for Mumford and sons forced to quit because he dared compliment Andy Ngo's book on antifa

How about the star trek cartoon actor who was banned from conventions because of unsusubstaniated claims
Again, you're not being specific about who was ultimately responsible for each cancelling. Are the decision makers at Disney, Mumford & Sons and Paramount all so pathetic that we can't hold them responsible for anything? Are they mysteriously under the control of a mob which is somehow small and weak while simultaneously being overwhelming and powerful?

Gina had a long history of shitposting conspiracy garbage about COVID and election fraud without any credible evidence. The holocaust comparison was just the final straw. Any large company would want to sever ties with such a liability.

As for the majority wanting her back, how can you possibly measure that? Has a representative sample of Star Wars fandom been surveyed scientifically by an unbiased polling company? Unscientific polls which allow self-sampling and petitions don't count.

Even if a majority really do want Gina back, is employment by a huge corporation now a matter of democratic will, regardless of the employee's conduct outside work? When it comes to Cancel Culture - and only Cancel Culture - people who you wouldn't expect to be socialists suddenly espouse very, very, very socialist views. Strange.

Besides, when it comes to Star Wars, the decision to not re-hire an actress (in the loosest sense of the word) who wasn't even under contract anymore pales into insignificance next to the cancellation of the original trilogy since 1997. The fan outrage over crap like "Greedo fired first", "Nooooooo!" and excessive CGI vandalism is far greater than any sentiment that a conspiracy chud is somehow entitled to a job after a shitposting spree. Yet there's no political angle to a creator changing his "vision" and making the original versions unavailable, so Fox News doesn't care about a long-running anti-cancellation campaign which doesn't have a nefarious unspecified "THEY" to resent.
You can google it you know.

In the case of Carano, just look at the petition to get rid of her as opposed to the one to bring her back. BTW there is plenty evidence of election fraud.

As far as the corporation making the decision they were cowards who bowed to woke fascists
User avatar
shevek
Producer
Producer
Posts: 3742
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

You asked? Here you go.

Ariel Pink dropped from his label, and I would also assume his booking agency. Fans backlashing against him bigtime.
https://www.billboard.com/articles/news ... ttendance/
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a ... n-fox-news

Not sure what is happening to John Maus - or what the stance of his labels (Ribbon Music/Upset the Rhythm) are.
But it's prescient that in 2011, he put out an album called "We Must Become the Pitiless Censors of Ourselves".

I own Ariel Pink and John Maus albums. In fact, the editor of the first 13 episodes of Heroineburgh (who has since moved
back home to Central PA) is a huge fan of both artists - a much bigger fan than I am, and he clearly leans very left.
He and I went together to see John Maus a couple years ago at a venue in Cleveland, and I bought "Pitiless Censors" there.

Is everyone who continues to own and play their records now a fascist who should be cancelled?

Here's the tweet by Alex Moyer which placed the three of them in a hotel after attending the rally:
I'm rather surprised she hasn't removed it.

User avatar
Heroine Addict
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 13 years ago

Fill me in if I'm missing some vital detail of the Mumford thing. From a quick look at the story the key details appear to be:

1. Winston Marshall sent a tweet recommending Andrew Ngo's new book.
2. A Twitter shitshow ensued with people accusing him of supporting fascism.
3. The band and their manager asked him to leave.
4. He deleted all his tweets, apologized and left the band.

So it comes down to the rest of the group thinking that a vocal right-winger would be bad for business when they perceive much of their audience to be left-leaning. Does that sound like an accurate assessment?

Who are you blaming for Marshall's cancellation? The tweeting twats who argued with him? The band and their management who thought that his politics would be damaging? A sinister cabal of blue-haired student trolls being controlled by nefarious hidden academic and political forces?

Remember when The Dixie Chicks openly criticized George W. Bush and the Allied invasion of Iraq? How very odd that Country fans and Country radio stations reacted so badly to open criticism of a wartime Republican President. It's almost as if expressing particular political views is unwise if there's a chance of it alienating a fair proportion of your audience. Who woulda thunk it?

There's a very good reason why a lot of bands and artists refuse to discuss politics at all. Those that do risk it make a calculation that it will have a negligible effect on sales or even enhance sales.

In any business where you're engaging with clients/customers, it's generally considered bad practice to open a side discussion about politics, religion or sport. Unless, of course, you're extremely confident that the other party is on the same page as you and such a discussion will enhance rapport.
"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."
User avatar
five_red
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 9 years ago

ivandobsky wrote:
3 years ago
"protect the general public from criminal content and material likely to incite violence or hatred."
Yup, so it is basically a requirement that video sites where the servers are hosted in the UK have to take reasonable measures to prevent children from accessing adult videos, and they have to take down content that promotes hate and violence if that content would be considered illegal under UK law.
The problem of children accessing rude things on the internet would be better addressed by some certification scheme, provision of software to restrict browsing to sites that have opted in to Ofcom certification.
They aren't certifying anything. Ofcom aren't a certification body (you're confusing them with the BBFC, who put age guidelines on movies, games, and DVDs in the UK.) They aren't threatening to force users to certify their videos. If your site implemented a voluntary certification scheme of its own for videos, they'd presumably be happy with that so long as you enforce it. Basically all they're asking for it seems, when it comes to videos, is that you do what YouTube does and not show adult videos to users whose user accounts suggest they aren't adult. There isn't even any mention -- no mention at all -- when you read the PDF guideline docs that you have to do any kind of age verification (like insist on a credit card.) The guidelines don't mention 'verification' of any kind at all. Not once.

Your proposed official Ofcom-run certification scheme is worse than what Ofcom are actually asking for. Basically they're suggesting that if you are a commercial video hosting site, open to the general public, and hosted in the UK, that you can prove you've taken reasonable steps to stop adult material from being accessed by kids (they aren't asking for the videos to be taken down), and remove extreme illegal hate content (which, yes, they will ask to be taken down.) What you're suggesting is that everyone's videos have to be submitted and classified like cinema releases or DVDs.
It's true that a workaround is to host elsewhere, but what if you live in airstrip 1 and want to self host a website? Why should you need to obtain 3rd party hosting a free country? Why can't we be the free country like things used to (appear to) be?
The guidelines aren't the nightmare you claim they are -- like I say, the worst argument you can make is this is the start of a slippery slope. And spoiler alert... on the internet it doesn't matter where your data is hosted. If you don't like the regulations in one country, copy your data to a different server somewhere else. Hosting your data closer to where the majority of your customers live, rather than where you live, is actually beneficial. And, to be honest, if you're dealing with high bandwidth content like video, you're much much better off in terms of bandwidth costs and reliability being on one of the big cloud providers like Amazon S3 (based in the EU and US.)


R5
Last edited by five_red 3 years ago, edited 2 times in total.
ivandobsky
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 316
Joined: 10 years ago

five_red wrote:
3 years ago
big cloud providers like Amazon S3 (based in the EU and US.)
That bastion of free expression. Hilarious!
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1768
Joined: 10 years ago

Another poll supporting Carano

ivandobsky
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 316
Joined: 10 years ago

five_red wrote:
3 years ago
What you're suggesting is that everyone's videos have to be submitted and classified like cinema releases or DVDs.
I am *not* suggesting that. I am suggesting that the government implement a *voluntary* scheme, similar to the current scheme, where companies can choose whether to adhere to such restrictions, and consumers can choose whether to take advantage of such guarantees of "safety". Curation of content, "safety" from offensive content is something that some want and that many people want for their children. Some don't, though. Why should we all be treated like children?
User avatar
Heroine Addict
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 13 years ago

Dazzle1 wrote:
3 years ago
Another poll supporting Carano

As I said before, self-sampled polls are unscientific and generally show the result that the person posing the question wanted. Polling needs to be conducted with an independently sampled group which reflects the demographics of the audience being analyzed.

Self-sampled polls mean Jack Shit. The same goes for petitions.

Edit: Just had a look at the poll and it appears it was conducted by self-described Republican pollster Public Opinion Strategies on behalf of The Daily Wire. I can't see any details about sampling methods used or the specific phrasing of the questions. However, the client for the poll is clearly paying in the hope of getting newsworthy responses. The Daily Wire's business relationship with Carano also gives the client a vested interest in seeking a particular result.

As they say in the video you posted, it could well be a confirmation bias poll.
Last edited by Heroine Addict 3 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."
Locked