They're not.
Cleveland Indians name and logo controversy - Wikipedia
The Atlanta Braves attract similar criticism.
Society/Culture Has cancel culture gone too far?
- Thread starter Sweet Jesus
- Start date
- Tagged users None
They're not.
The Atlanta Braves attract similar criticism.
- Sep 17, 2019
- 22,310
- 35,355
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #1,627
No, he is whinging because the media aren't covering Kayleigh/Trump propaganda as much as they used to.
So Pete Evans is getting his most recent book pulled from shelves because he shared an image on instagram that is associated with the far right neo-nazi types.
I'm all for shitting on Pete Evans because he's a complete imbecile and full of s**t, but this stuff still irks me. I'd say it more likely than not that he didn't understand the background to the image (it was part of a political cartoon that was also s**t) and the targeting of book stores by people is also a concern.
His cookbook isn't a harmful thing. If people want to waste their money supporting him, then so be it. It's only barely tangentially related to his personal political views since he gets money from the sales. If it was an outright racist book the they might have a justification. But otherwise, just leave it alone IMO.
I'm all for shitting on Pete Evans because he's a complete imbecile and full of s**t, but this stuff still irks me. I'd say it more likely than not that he didn't understand the background to the image (it was part of a political cartoon that was also s**t) and the targeting of book stores by people is also a concern.
His cookbook isn't a harmful thing. If people want to waste their money supporting him, then so be it. It's only barely tangentially related to his personal political views since he gets money from the sales. If it was an outright racist book the they might have a justification. But otherwise, just leave it alone IMO.
They're not.
Cleveland Indians name and logo controversy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Atlanta Braves attract similar criticism.
Ok so anything is fair game now, question remains why and who would take umbrage for using a certain race as a moniker in reverence? It's bizarre!
The Atlanta 'Braves', the word 'braves' is the exact opposite in nature to anything derogatory, how can anyone possibly take offence to that?!
What I'd like to understand from the noisy offended minority is why is the reverence offensive? Or is the reverence just naively ignored?
Where does this end? Can anyone explain the ridicule of all this?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,630
I'm sure you can find online an explanation of why people have objected.
Wouldn't find anything that is practical.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,632
Your first time using the internet?
That's a very broad analogy SJ 'the interwebby' and very haha. You and I and everyone else knows I'm referring to the illogical offence taking of revering.
The only possible reason for taking offence to that is because it mentions a particular race of people, in reverence no less. There is no known universe where a club would adopt a mascot / moniker for the purposes of denigrating it.
If that was the case the WC Eagles could be labeled as specist. Same with the Tigers and the Lions, or cats or dogs, you get the picture.
How about the bombers? How are the offended going to find offence to the bombers moniker to cancel it? And the power, are there people in the world who are going to take offence on behalf of the weather? (I'm assuming there are actually people in the world who are inherently that hyperbolic).
Yes I know that is ridiculous argument, but it matches the ridicule of the argument of being offended just because a race is used as a mascot / moniker in reverence.
How'd I do the second time round on the interwebby lord SJ?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,634
This is gibberish.
If you want to absorb the arguments about why people objected, it will take you five minutes to find them. If you're too dumb to do that, why would anyone bother walking you through it?
You succeeded in confirming that you've got McFlurry between your ears.
Ok, then if you're so confident that there is a reasonable explanation for taking offence to revering a race I'd like to hear it.
Good luck with that.
Maybe stick a straw in your ear and blow out that McFlurry.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,636
I'm not offended but you can quite easily find the explanations of why some people objected.
If that's beyond you then you've got some problems.
How about a reasonable and practical explanation, again good luck.
The problem is not with me, the problem is with the people who take offence where there is none.
Maybe re engage with the op, oh that's right it's you!
It irks me that it is this of all things that have led so many brands / media to wash their hands of him. The bullshit detector has been registering 11 out of 10 on this guy for years and he's gotten away with it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no Nazi apologist - but I think his charlatanism has been and could be more damaging to more people than one sharing of a cartoon. I just don't see him as the type to rally a bunch of bigoted skinheads into performing hate crimes. But I do see him as someone who can make thousands of people make poor choices for their health.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,639
You're online. You can find those explanations and then make your own judgements. If that's beyond you, why would I walk you through it?
See you've been taking fishing lessons SJ, this fish ain't bitin though. I'm not 'insisting' anyone find a reasonable explanation, in part because there is none.
There is no known universe where anyone on this earth can reasonably take offence on behalf of something /someone / race whatever when it is revered.
Maybe you're challenged in comprehension.
Clue: emphasis on the words reasonable and practical. Not just some nut jobs summation purely because a something /someone / race whatever is mentioned and then 'make your own judgements'
I can find a gazillion explanations for someones offence for a moniker / mascot that is used in reverence - none are reasonable or practical.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,641
Good luck with your quest for knowledge.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,642
Give me a spell... the naughty words!
www.dailymail.co.uk
The Pogues tell Laurence Fox to 'f*** off' in BBC censorship row
The broadcaster decided to edit the words 'f****t' and 'sl*t' from the track - released by The Pogues and Kirsty MacColl in 1987 - in an apparent bid to avoid causing offence over the festive period.
YippeeYiYeo
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jun 21, 2015
- 9,087
- 14,295
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Banned
- #1,643
when does crap this like get cancelled?
- Sep 17, 2019
- 22,310
- 35,355
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #1,644
First you complain about being thread banned, and now you want others to be cancelled?
quotemokc
Brownlow Medallist
He just wants equality
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,647
YippeeYiYeo
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jun 21, 2015
- 9,087
- 14,295
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Banned
- #1,648
So woke....
There is one piece of information missing there among the myriad of whatever whitey's are 'superior' at.
That is, does that qualify every single white person? Seems no solid parameters just 'general'
Pretty sure the homeless white vietnam vet wouldn't feel so superior, musn't be white, because they're all privileged and superior if that is the intended impression of that video.
