ArGarBarGar
What do we want!? Unfair!
- Sep 8, 2008
- 44,026
- 11,718
TV: SNL: Season 45 Murphy to Host: Shane Gilis hired/fired
- Thread starter Jumptheshark
- Start date
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,821
- 14,748
How would I know? I know it's a forced apology because they obviously didn't mean it.
I’m trying to watch the clips posted in this thread and they’re all region locked. And there is nothing on YouTube but the controversy stuff.
I want to know if this guy is actually funny because the controversial bit definitely wasn’t, but then it was barely even a joke. It was just him talking shit.
This shit is gaslighting. Just like earlier in the thread whoever was asking “who has been cancelled?” In a thread about a guy getting fired because of Twitter.
ArGarBarGar
What do we want!? Unfair!
- Sep 8, 2008
- 44,026
- 11,718
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,821
- 14,748
ArGarBarGar
What do we want!? Unfair!
- Sep 8, 2008
- 44,026
- 11,718
You stated they were forced/coerced/made to apologize, and that they clearly didn't mean what they said in their respective apologies. How are you to know they were forced, and by what means can you determine any of that?
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,821
- 14,748
Because I'm not gullible that they had a significant ideology change just because people became outraged by it. Pratt for one has been public enough to show he's still the same guy.
If you don't want to discuss in good faith, then fine, I'll move on and let you knit pick my word choice. I'm not going to argue semantics.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,821
- 14,748
Gillis' interaction with Andrew Yang is exactly what the people bashing him would want. That doesn't get mentioned though.
He appears to be engaging with him and doing it behind the scenes, which to me makes it seem more genuine.
He appears to be engaging with him and doing it behind the scenes, which to me makes it seem more genuine.
ArGarBarGar
What do we want!? Unfair!
- Sep 8, 2008
- 44,026
- 11,718
I'm sorry that I was looking for some specificity when you have been giving me vague concepts and citing examples of people doing something as "them being forced to by some invisible being."
An event leading to an action does not necessitate the action was forced by the event. That is why I am trying to get at what exactly "forced" them to issue an apology. And yes, words matter.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,821
- 14,748
They wouldn't have apologized so quickly if it wasn't coerced. They are just trying to not hurt their career, they aren't going to change their views on the topic people got outraged at. That's the whole point.
Instead of arguing the substance, you played semantics. Not a big deal, wasn't expecting a productive discussion on it anyway.
discostu
Registered User
Being criticized does not equal coercion.
If anyone is telling them to do it, it's likely its their agent or publicist, who they pay to give them business advice on what will make them more popular.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,821
- 14,748
ArGarBarGar
What do we want!? Unfair!
- Sep 8, 2008
- 44,026
- 11,718
What you say and what the words you say mean are important when discussing the substance of a statement. Me asking you to specify what you mean about things you say isn't semantics, it is me trying to get a proper understanding of your point and respond without there being miscommunication.
BonMorrison
Registered User
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,821
- 14,748
That had nothing to do with the substance. The substance was that outrage culture/cancel culture affects more than just racist comments like you keep saying.
Saying a 3 year old doesn't know enough to choose their gender should not be controversial.
Saying blue-collar America is not represented in Hollywood is not controversial.
Wearing a Don't Tread on Me shirt is not controversial.
There are plenty of people that get kicked off of twitter or youtube for things that they should not be kicked off for.
Those incidents shows where outrage/cancel culture goes too far. It goes after more than stuff that should be controversial. It's easy to see why people would be upset about Gillis.
Saying a 3 year old doesn't know enough to choose their gender should not be controversial.
Saying blue-collar America is not represented in Hollywood is not controversial.
Wearing a Don't Tread on Me shirt is not controversial.
There are plenty of people that get kicked off of twitter or youtube for things that they should not be kicked off for.
Those incidents shows where outrage/cancel culture goes too far. It goes after more than stuff that should be controversial. It's easy to see why people would be upset about Gillis.
Bocephus86
Registered User
Has Colin Kaepernick been a victim of cancel culture too? Or does that only go one way.
discostu
Registered User
What's your point? You're dodging this question about who's doing the coercion. I just outlined my position on it.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,821
- 14,748
Absolutely, I was going to mention him too. The only reason he wouldn't would be if he was demanding a much higher salary than he deserves, which he did in the beginning.
Kap, Al Franken, Kathy Griffin, etc. are all on the left and suffered from this culture. I mentioned the others earlier. Kap is probably at a point of no return, his distraction is bigger than the benefit he'd bring to a football team, and that's because of silly outrage. Crazy that people are more outraged by him than other NFL players that have committed actual, horrible crimes.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,821
- 14,748
The coercion of the apology doesn't matter, if that's what you think matters, you are missing the point.
discostu
Registered User
I clearly am, as you're the one that has argued they were coerced and it appeared to be fairly central to your argument.
I am very confused about your position. I feel like I'm not the only one.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,821
- 14,748
The central point is outrage/cancel culture going to far. Those were examples of it going to far.
Nobody is missing the point. They're ignoring it because it isn't what they want to hear.
ArGarBarGar
What do we want!? Unfair!
- Sep 8, 2008
- 44,026
- 11,718
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,821
- 14,748
That is definitely an opinion, especially on the 1st one. On the 2nd, even if you argue they are, usually it's not done well.
discostu
Registered User
I think we're going in circles, but I'll try and move on.
Looking further up on your list of statements on what shouldn't be controversial, how do you decide what is or isn't a controversial statement?
If someone broadcasts an opinion that has people are divided on and passionate about, it risks being controversial. If you're a celebrity, you generally leverage your popularity to make money on the entertainment industry. It's only reasonable that an unpopular opinion might negatively affect you.
