A big part of “cancel culture” is just self promotion on the part of people claiming to be canceled.
“I’ve been canceled so hard that you all can’t stop talking about me!”
Very much this.
Chappelle has pivoted to just yelling “I’m cancelled!” on stage for 45 minutes.
The clip we’ve been given doesn’t have enough context for me to see even what point he was going for, but it seems fairly clear to me from his tone of voice that he’s not saying, “Hitler had a good point” or anything. His tone is very clearly mocking the words he is actually saying.
It was a debate. The Cambridge Union is debating society.
The motion they were debating was “This house believes there is no such thing as good taste”.
They usually have a few invited speakers on each side. At the end of the debate, the audience votes for which side has won.
Andrew Graham-Dixon is an art historian, journalist, and TV presenter of programs on art.
He was arguing that there is such a thing as good taste. His argument was that Hitler had bad taste in art, and nobody would deny that, so therefore there must be such a thing as good and bad taste.
However, the way he presented his argument was also in bad taste, which kind of proves the point itself – but I don’t think that was intentional.
They haven’t posted this debate (and I doubt that they will), but here’s a full example of another debate:
Looks pretty intentional to me. I think the guy meant his performance to be in bad taste.
Not the best performance, but nothing blindingly offensive.
Don’t forget the corollary - “just because you’re offensive doesn’t mean you’re funny, talented, or should be provided a platform.”
Do we need to cancel Mel Brooks and Taika Waititi now?
Actually there was a move to cancel Mel Brooks, especially over Blazing Saddles. It just showed how ignorant some are in my opinion.
I was actually thinking The Producers (Springtime for Hitler).
The existence of this movement has been called into question.
To Be or Not To Be would be the most on-the-nose comparison.
I guess they could play the shithole game like Cleese is doing and cancel themselves.
But no, there isn’t really any movement calling for any such thing, as much as the right wing agitators would like you to believe there is.
Right, there’s just a movement that such things “should be discouraged”.
So, any criticism whatsoever is a woke mob coming to cancel you?
People either need to get thicker skin, or get out of the public. They shouldn’t be demanding that people silence themselves for fear of upsetting their fragile egos by daring to say anything negative about them.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism, it does not mean freedom from consequence. When the most reviled form of speech is criticism of other speech, we no longer have free speech.
I think this should apply to both the left and right wings. And both are guilty of being snowflakes.
If we define “getting wet” as “applying water to something” then, no, I can’t disprove it: The ocean does get wet when it rains.
If we define it as “applying water to something which is dry” then the sentence doesn’t make sense as stated and is probably the wrong definition to use. The first is probably the correct definition or the statement maker needs to go back to the drawing board on their statement.
As to why try? If John believes that murder is bad and John agrees with all logic and statements that murder is bad, but John is going around stating that we should kill Larry, then John is going to need to explain where he went wrong on the whole “murder is bad” thing.
Similarly, here, if there’s a word which means “too X” - and it genuinely describes a legitimately negative form of over-Xness - and you’ve deciding to back it because evil people like to point out that “too X” is legitimately negative, then that would say that you believe that there’s something incorrect about at least one of the two statements I gave.
I don’t see where either one is incorrect. I believe that they are both accurate statements that will bear all review.
I’m talking about public figures here. Are you?
I meant everybody, society in other words. And I still plan to watch Don Rickles on YouTube, and All in the Family reruns.
Cleese’s move is plainly self-promotion, but besides that I can see a valid point. It is dispiriting to think that students, of all people, feel the need to ban someone for being provocative and offensive in their delivery (the speaker clearly isn’t a nazi apologist). There’s education in pushing boundaries.
And as a life-long liberal I find it dispiriting that I’m probably on the ‘wrong side of history’ by not fully buying into the modern liberal puritanism. It just seems so bloodless to me.
Man, Cleese really longs for the days when he was relevant, doesn’t he, when he was the upstart tweaking the fogeys, and not the fogey being tweaked? I’m all for people reliving their glory days in their golden years, but damn, man, this one’s just a little sad.
Cleese, your current stuff isn’t relevant, and your old stuff is funny in the way Punch and Judy are funny.
Just because you’re younger than Cleese doesn’t mean you aren’t the fogey in the situation.