Verdun
Premium Gold
- Oct 16, 2011
- 4,678
- 8,149
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
You guys are so bad at this.
Please answer the question.
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.
You guys are so bad at this.
You have my answer.Please answer the question.
You have my answer.
What point are you making?
I'm sorry but I can't make your argument for you.1. You do not do nuance, or have any understanding of complexity.
I'm sorry but I can't make your argument for you.
That's something you have to do on your own.
Next time, try to use your words.No need to say sorry. As I said nuance and complexity is something you do not do - that is ok.
Night night.
When did that happen, Chiefy?Ahahahaha!!
Dude follow-ups are your full time job, even after you’ve been sat on your arse!
One is a legal protection. The other is all about "offence", and generally has no basis in law.Defamation is adjucated in a court of law. Not denying it has flaws in its application. But it is a process.
Cancel culture is largely determined by a court of commercial vested interest. Unfortunately. Not always for a greater holistic view for the betterment of mankind. Tho I dont deny there are those pure at heart who rightly defend marginalisation. But its driven by voices of a populus and not an actual documented and practised process.
Colour me cynical and basic but thats how my simple minds eye sees the variance of the two.
True. But id even argue how cancel culture has any basis in law. It may transmute into defamation but the "culture" as it stands has zero basis in law.One is a legal protection. The other is all about "offence", and generally has no basis in law.
Well, some of that is in the eye of the beholder.True. But id even argue how cancel culture has any basis in law. It may transmute into defamation but the "culture" as it stands has zero basis in law.
These peanuts want to pretend that cancel culture isn't a real thing, or that it's so overstated by conservatives that even talking about it is off limits.All good. I was just really struggling to understand the argument littered over several pages. Not for the first time on BF.
That makes no difference.
Threats of defamation action still derive from legal protections against reputational damage.
Cancel culture has nothing to do with that, and it generally has no basis in law. Cancel culture is about "offence" and breaches of ideological orthodoxy. That's not what defamation law involves. You can't bring a defamation suit simply because you were "offended".
It still has basis in law, unlike cancel culture, which is simply a matter of "offence" or breaching certain orthodoxies.A defamation threat may be used as a tactic to silence a critic or may be the expression of a legitimate grievance.
And I'm generally fine with those protections, depending how "hate speech" claims are defined and assessed. And discrimination isn't a matter of speech, necessarily. It's a matter of material discrimination. Maybe you mean vilification?Couldn’t ‘cancellers’ also be expressing a legitimate grievance? There are legal protections against hate speech and discrimination.
I thought you'd like that one.Keep swingin'.
Interesting that even Mark Hamill who is probably close to far-left, liked this tweet as well.
What a bizarre thing to say. What makes you think that Mark Hamill is close to far left?
Your compass is broken.
His twitter history.
I follow him on twitter.
You clearly have no idea of what far left is.
Denial isn't a good way to deal with your cognitive dissonance.