- Sep 21, 2004
- 46,548
- 52,865
- AFL Club
- GWS
This makes no sense. I challenge anyone to understand your argument based on this.
It's summarising your argument. So yeah, it makes no sense.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This makes no sense. I challenge anyone to understand your argument based on this.
You run out of petrol so quickly.It's summarising your argument. So yeah, it makes no sense.
campaigner, you're half as smart as you think you are.You run out of petrol so quickly.
You wade in like you've got something to say but you are fundamentally unable to string a sentence together or connect the dots.
I wish I could summarise your argument but, as usual, you don't have one.
And it's still more than enough to have you covered.campaigner, you're half as smart as you think you are.
Your argument is flimsy. It's based on nothing.And it's still more than enough to have you covered.
Why do you keep engaging when within two posts it becomes clear that you've got nothing to say?
It's based on a series of examples. And if it's so flimsy, why are you completely unable to address it?Your argument is flimsy. It's based on nothing.
Show some introspection.It's based on a series of examples. And if it's so flimsy, why are you completely unable to address it?
Every time you try, you hit the wall in about two posts. Who do you think you're kidding?
How do you think this is an argument?Show some introspection.
You've boiled your argument down to some 'impulse'. Not a statute, or an economic outcome, or an embedded inequality.
Yeah, because you have no coherent response to the above argument. You've demonstrated it repeatedly.And yet you're keep pissing into the wind, accusing me of having a flimsy argument.
Yeah, it requires some evidence. Not just you regurgitating what you saw on some site.Does the fact there is no statue, economic outcome or embedded inequality mean it doesn't exist? Is that your magic rule?
My evidence is a statement from the National Black Justice Coalition. Is it inadmissable because it appears in a news report online? Is that another of your magic rules?Yeah, it requires some evidence. Not just you regurgitating what you saw on some site.
Jog on.
In response, civil rights advocacy group the National Black Justice Coalition asked Netflix to remove the special from their catalogue.
“With 2021 on track to be the deadliest year on record for transgender people in the United States — the majority of whom are Black transgender people — Netflix should know better,” executive director David Johns said.
“Perpetuating transphobia perpetuates violence. Netflix should immediately pull The Closer from its platform and directly apologise to the transgender community.”
You either think content should be removed because some folks are "offended", or you demand a much better reason than that.
Feel free to make an argument any time. I'm frankly not sure where you're coming from any more, after you demanded I explain cancel culture and then disappeared into the hedge once I did so.ie better get that defamation going!
Feel free to make an argument any time. I'm frankly not sure where you're coming from any more, after you demanded I explain cancel culture and then disappeared into the hedge once I did so.
I've already explained the difference between defamation law and cancel culture.
Its not transphobic. The problem with people who want a specific narrative, they refuse to allow any talk that isn't positive. They don't even want the conversation. The same things happen with racism. Any discussions regarding a specific race, like the state of aboriginal communities etc often are shut down due to racism accusations. It was considered racist through the narrative to even talk about it, if you are white that is. This is what the trabs community is trying to do. Shut down any and all non positive discussion even if it's calling something like it is.My evidence is a statement from the National Black Justice Coalition. Is it inadmissable because it appears in a news report online? Is that another of your magic rules?
So these folks insist Dave Chappelle's special is "transphobic". How exactly?
They also claim that it needs to be removed. It's not enough for them to not watch it. It's so offensive that no one should be able to watch it. That is the essence of cancel culture.
And they also want you to believe that Dave Chappelle's special actually "perpetuates violence" against trans people. This is petty, illiberal nonsense, recasting speech as a form of symbolic violence in its own right, and we should reject such thinking wherever we encounter it.
You're yet to formulate a response to this, beyond an association fallacy that we shouldn't condemn this rubbish because sometimes conservatives talk disingenuously about cancel culture. That's a ridiculous, intellectually bankrupt argument that does absolutely nothing to address the issue.
You either think content should be removed because some folks are "offended", or you demand a much better reason than that.
Stop pretending. These points have both been addressed.No mate, I was at work - not sure what you do during the day.
You have explained nothing, nothing on cancel culture nothing on defamation law.
Nothing.
You have given your OPINION no facts. Spend a lot of time havi
Mere "offence" is not the basis of a defamation suit.Do you believe that anyone has ever used defamation law when they are 'offended' to shut up / cancel others?
To be clear, I don't object to folks criticising or even protesting. But when that tips over into demands for it to be removed, because it's "offensive", we should resist that. IMO there should be a very high bar to start removing content on those grounds.Its not transphobic. The problem with people who want a specific narrative, they refuse to allow any talk that isn't positive. They don't even want the conversation. The same things happen with racism. Any discussions regarding a specific race, like the state of aboriginal communities etc often are shut down due to racism accusations. It was considered racist through the narrative to even talk about it, if you are white that is. This is what the trabs community is trying to do. Shut down any and all non positive discussion even if it's calling something like it is.
Many who are criticising Dave haven't even bothered to watch the special and I even doubt that the trans employee at netflix even watched it. I think they had their back up he even got the special and were going to complain no matter what.
Yeah you keep posting the same article. Other LGBT groups happy to criticise, the netflix employee thing never asked for a removal.My evidence is a statement from the National Black Justice Coalition. Is it inadmissable because it appears in a news report online? Is that another of your magic rules?
Irrelevant. You can think it's fine, other are perfectly enttled to think it's transphobic. You're hard pressed to argue it isn;t when he identifies himself with 'team terf'.So these folks insist Dave Chappelle's special is "transphobic". How exactly?
Who is we? Who are you speaking for?And they also want you to believe that Dave Chappelle's special actually "perpetuates violence" against trans people. This is petty, illiberal nonsense, recasting speech as a form of symbolic violence in its own right, and we should reject such thinking wherever we encounter it.
People are free to criticise, although I question the allegations of transphobia. But criticism alone is not cancel culture. That relates to the push to have content removed.Yeah you keep posting the same article. Other LGBT groups happy to criticise, the netflix employee thing never asked for a removal.
Yet you fixate on one statement. An indication of where you're at, and lack of argument.
The allegations of "transphobia" are central to their criticisms, so it's entirely relevant. Folks are entitled to their own opinion, and sure, they can label anything as they like.Irrelevant. You can think it's fine, other are perfectly enttled to think it's transphobic. You're hard pressed to argue it isn;t when he identifies himself with 'team terf'.
But irrelevant. You can piss and moan; others are within their rights to label something bigoted.
I am making the case for liberal values generally, and rejecting the illiberal idea that speech or content should be removed simply because some people were "offended". It's illiberal when it comes from the left. It's illiberal when it comes from the right.Who is we? Who are you speaking for?
I haven't said that. Try again.If you're making the argument that de-humanising speech can't lead to dehumanising actions, you're ******* deluded.
Its happening now. Two years ago the way things got cancelled is because sponsors got targeted by a loud minority for potential boycott threats and sponsors got scared and as such helped put pressure on tv channels to remove a TV show or sack an actor etc. That's why the media ran to optus to see if they will demand Tex get sacked. They had become accustomed to it. But the tone from sponsors is they are after money. While they don't want to be dragged through the mud, at the same time they are learning to just let things play out. A loud minority is generally a toothless tiger. Sponsors have learned not to flinch. Which is good. What we are seeing now as a result is these loud minorities being frustrated and they are doing disruptive violent protesting to get their way. It's not working.To be clear, I don't object to folks criticising or even protesting. But when that tips over into demands for it to be removed, because it's "offensive", we should resist that. IMO there should be a very high bar to start removing content on those grounds.
Stop pretending. These points have both been addressed.
You can't just bluff your way through.
Mere "offence" is not the basis of a defamation suit.
Defamation law is a legal protection against reputational damage. You can't file a defamation suit saying "I was offended".
Mere "offence" is not the basis of defamation law. That's what distinguishes it from cancel culture.If you do not think defamation law is not used for those that feel 'offended' and have more power than others to use the law for their benefit you are naive. The ability to use a defamation suit for the mere offence occurs.
Clueless. The narrative being pushed by this defamation stuff is to 'shut the * up'. Powerful men, using the implicit threat of being inAnyvolved in the legal system to chill speech.Mere "offence" is not the basis of defamation law. That's what distinguishes it from cancel culture.
Mere "offence" is not the basis of defamation law. That's what distinguishes it from cancel culture.
Read that again slowly if you must.
Defamation law is a legal protection against reputational damage.Clueless. The narrative being pushed by this defamation stuff is to 'shut the fu** up'. Powerful men, using the implicit threat of being inAnyvolved in the legal system to chill speech.
I'm not the one asserting a connection.It's not a flashy, woke or edgelord statement, but its white wealthy men controlling access to speech and determining those who are heard. This notion of a cancel culture oppressing these people is patently ******* dumb. Anyone who buys into it is a halfwit.
Can you string a sentence together?Defamation law is used continually by the offended, by those who can afford it against those who can not.
Cancel cutlure
catch up.