Who’s Been Cancelled??

Started by screenexile, June 20, 2020, 11:56:52 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Lar Naparka

Quote from: restorepride on January 11, 2021, 08:51:14 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on January 11, 2021, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 11, 2021, 06:12:53 PM
That people who were all over #jesuischarlie but are complaining about this sketch are fools is a personal opinion

That they are liars and hypocrites is fact

And neither are they critical thinkers - you've done a fair job lumping yourself into that category too

Not once have you provided any sort of justification for an apology
sid, believe it or not, I am beginning to feel sorry for Rossfan.
I know next to nothing about Angelo and I used to think you were just a harmless nutcase but I'll now take Rossfan's opinion of you as proven beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt.  ;D ;D ;D

Lár na Páirce - do you mind me asking if you believe that 'The Blessed Virgin' was impregnated by 'God'?


The short answer to both queries is no- I don't mind you asking and I don't believe in the Virgin birth.
However, my personal beliefs  are, well, personal and I do not attempt to foist mine on others who may disagree with me.
Had advance warning been given that the sketch in question contained material that could give offence to some viewers and had a more suitable broadcast being chosen, I doubt that I would have [paid much, if any, attention to the presentation.
THe time chosen to air this sketch was a time when families throughout the country were settling down to watch the celebrations marking the change of year.  That meant that considerable numbers of elderly, devout Christains and equally huge numbers of impressionable young children would be tuned in. For once I agree with sid, when he says the purpose of the exercise was to cause offence.
I am not naive enough to think that sid is the only one who thinks there should have been no apology but he is the only one to date who has said so publicly- to te best of my knowledge.
According to what I have read on extra.ie and a number of other media outlets, over 5,000 watchers have lodged formal complaints. Not a single reference to a mention of an opposite view.
If majority rights have an meaning, you'll find it here.
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi

Rossfan

#301
I suspect ye both are getting the Immaculate Conception wrong. :P
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

sid waddell

5,000 people is a very small minority

I'm still waiting for an actual reason as to why there should have been an apology given

If God didn't impregnate Mary, who did?

Jell 0 Biafra


Lar Naparka

Quote from: sid waddell on January 11, 2021, 11:30:07 PM
5,000 people is a very small minority

I'm still waiting for an actual reason as to why there should have been an apology given

If God didn't impregnate Mary, who did?
You're nothing if not a trier!
For the umpteenth time, I never said only 5,000 objected too the sketch being broadast/ demanded an apology or whatever you are trying to imply.
I gave my source when I said over 5,000 viewers had formally objected, which is a different matter entirely.
All I've got from you are banal assertions.  Looks like you've usurped the pope's job and go about declaring your views are infallible.
As for your last question, htf am I expected to know or even believe what you've asked??
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi

sid waddell

Quote from: Lar Naparka on January 11, 2021, 11:44:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 11, 2021, 11:30:07 PM
5,000 people is a very small minority

I'm still waiting for an actual reason as to why there should have been an apology given

If God didn't impregnate Mary, who did?
You're nothing if not a trier!
For the umpteenth time, I never said only 5,000 objected too the sketch being broadast/ demanded an apology or whatever you are trying to imply.
I gave my source when I said over 5,000 viewers had formally objected, which is a different matter entirely.
All I've got from you are banal assertions.  Looks like you've usurped the pope's job and go about declaring your views are infallible.
As for your last question, htf am I expected to know or even believe what you've asked??
If 4.8 million people formally objected, it still wouldn't make any difference

Your rationale is clear, you think apologies should be given based not on the merits or demerits of the actual sketch itself, but because of bullying

You're the person acting like the Pope here and attempting to force your views onto others!

sid waddell

Brass Eye Paedogeddon was brilliant

But it was the most complained about television programme in UK history

Should an apology have made by C4, Lar?

Lar Naparka

#307
Quote from: sid waddell on January 11, 2021, 11:54:53 PM
Brass Eye Paedogeddon was brilliant

But it was the most complained about television programme in UK history

Should an apology have made by C4, Lar?
I know literally nothing about this programme sid so I cant possibly give you an opinion on this one.
Edit:
Ahoy sid, are you still here?
I don't see any reason to object to the show being broadcast if plenty of advance notice had been given that some viewers might be offended by the contents.
Freedom to express one's point of view is one thing but, IMO, there is  no justification for deliberately intending to cause offence to others.
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi

sid waddell

Quote from: Lar Naparka on January 12, 2021, 12:15:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 11, 2021, 11:54:53 PM
Brass Eye Paedogeddon was brilliant

But it was the most complained about television programme in UK history

Should an apology have made by C4, Lar?
I know literally nothing about this programme sid so I cant possibly give you an opinion on this one.
Edit:
Ahoy sid, are you still here?
I don't see any reason to object to the show being broadcast if plenty of advance notice had been given that some viewers might be offended by the contents.
Freedom to express one's point of view is one thing but, IMO, there is  no justification for deliberately intending to cause offence to others.
Yes there is

It's called comedy, it's called satire, it's called debate, it's called life - an integral part of which is offence

There is a big difference between giving deliberate offence and hate speech - which is what we don't want

So, you now see nothing wrong with the sketch - except the apparent lack of trigger warning?

But the complaints weren't about the lack of trigger warnings

Anyway, I thought trigger warnings were what so called "snowflakes" wanted - well that's how they've satirised by much of the religious right - in a painfully unfunny manner - in my opinion

Turns out that it was the religious right who were the ones who desperately wanted trigger warnings, political correctness gone mad and censorship all along

Who could have guessed they never believed a word they say

Note that I am not calling you a member of the religious right -  I have no idea of your beliefs - but you have been suckered into adopting their framing on this topic

sid waddell

As regards the Brass Eye Paedogeddon programme, C4 did indeed apologise

They cancelled the Brass Eye series

And they were wrong to do so

20 years later, the programme is remembered as one of the finest and most daring ever broadcast on UK television, and is still extremely relevant today - especially with the bizarre phenomena of QAnon, so called "paedophile hunters" and the far right's extremely creepy obsession with paedophilia in general - which smacks of extreme denial

Angelo

Very brave of Twitter, Facebook etc to ban him once his presidential term is coming to an end.

If they felt that way why didn't they do it midway through his term?

All for optics.
GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

sid waddell

Quote from: Angelo on January 12, 2021, 11:29:27 AM
Very brave of Twitter, Facebook etc to ban him once his presidential term is coming to an end.

If they felt that way why didn't they do it midway through his term?

All for optics.
Of course it's all for optics, it isn't brave at all, like, duh

They've only acted now when they think they have more to lose by leaving him there, plus they fear regulation by the incoming administration

They should have banned him years ago - he has always been a clear and present threat, well before he was president, and so have his supporters

Social media companies have profited massively from far right hate speech




imtommygunn

On the subject of far right interesting to see that parler shut down - by amazon as well. (I am not 100% sure it was far right but anything I have read suggests that)

sid waddell

Quote from: imtommygunn on January 12, 2021, 11:40:21 AM
On the subject of far right interesting to see that parler shut down - by amazon as well. (I am not 100% sure it was far right but anything I have read suggests that)
Parler styles itself as an extreme "pro-free speech" site, which means it's far right

Then you get Trump supporters like Lin Wood calling for firing squads against Mike Pence

This is what unfettered free speech means


Angelo

Quote from: sid waddell on January 12, 2021, 11:34:06 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 12, 2021, 11:29:27 AM
Very brave of Twitter, Facebook etc to ban him once his presidential term is coming to an end.

If they felt that way why didn't they do it midway through his term?

All for optics.
Of course it's all for optics, it isn't brave at all, like, duh

They've only acted now when they think they have more to lose by leaving him there, plus they fear regulation by the incoming administration

They should have banned him years ago - he has always been a clear and present threat, well before he was president, and so have his supporters

Social media companies have profited massively from far right hate speech

Agreed, I just have a problem with them now acting as if they are somehow heroic because they are kicking Trump when he's on the ground but wouldn't do anything when he had power.
GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL