GB News

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

If there is something we need more of - its more investigative jouralism to inform us not to fill us with more opinions.

Certainly investigative journalism is worth its prominence, but sometimes it can be more about what is not reported, as much as it is about what is reported.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

No, i'm not suggesting that people have to stop criticising or ridiculing GB news. If they don't like it, that's fine by me. What i object to is the concerted effort to prevent GB news from broadcasting and airing their views, particularly before it's even started broadcasting.

However, i expect that you'll accuse me of wanting to cancel cancel culture next.

You're welcome to your opinion, but so are they.
And your opinion is that they should not be allowed to express their opinion.

 

[Lower]

You're welcome to your opinion, but so are they.
And your opinion is that they should not be allowed to express their opinion.

I have no idea why you keep repeating the mantra that my opinion is that they shouldn't be able to express their opinion because its not true.

As i have stated a number if times, they are entitled to their opinion and free to express it. It is the fact that they are attempting to block other people's opinions and views being aired that represents the 'cancel culture' that i dislike.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I have no idea why you keep repeating the mantra that my opinion is that they shouldn't be able to express their opinion because its not true.

As i have stated a number if times, they are entitled to their opinion and free to express it. It is the fact that they are attempting to block other people's opinions and views being aired that represents the 'cancel culture' that i dislike.

So you want to block their opinion.
Isn't that what you call cancel culture?

Or are you content to post an opinion, that you don't like cancel culture, and leave it at that, without going on about people shouldn't be campaigning against a news channel?

 

[Lower]

So you want to block their opinion.
Isn't that what you call cancel culture?

FFS.

I don't want to block their opinion. I don't like their actions in trying to block other people's opinions.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

FFS.

I don't want to block their opinion. I don't like their actions in trying to block other people's opinions.

OK, you don't like their opinions, and you're quite content for them to air their opinions?
And because they seek to air their opinions, with a persuasive argument, in order to persuade others to their cause, you think they shouldn't be allowed to.
So, in your opinion, how does your action of persistent arguing, differ from cancel culture?
I'm really struggling to differentiate your stance from what you consider to be cancel culture.

Do you think that political campaigning shouldn't be allowed?

 

[ellal]

Fighting fire with fire.

But two wrongs don't make a right.

How does a far right media outlet wing attacking private enterprises for choosing not to advertise with another biased media outlet represent 'Fighting fire with fire' ?

But then I guess some people don't quite understand the concept of 'two wrongs don't make a right'

 

[Lower]

OK, you don't like their opinions, and you're quite content for them to air their opinions?
And because they seek to air their opinions, with a persuasive argument, in order to persuade others to their cause, you think they shouldn't be allowed to.
So, in your opinion, how does your action of persistent arguing, differ from cancel culture?
I'm really struggling to differentiate your stance from what you consider to be cancel culture.

Do you think that political campaigning shouldn't be allowed?

My point is that cancel culture isn't about persuading people that they should change their opinion, its about unilaterally 'cancelling' or removing the object of their dislike from discussion altogether.

Two obvious examples. The Bristol statue mob didn't campaign to have the statue of Colston removed. They didn't make a persuasive argument that the statue should be removed, they didn't seek to persuade people that times have changed and that Colston represented a something that they now find repugnant, they didn't seek to educate people about the history of Colstan and how things have changed for the better and need to continue to change. They just tore down the statue and threw it in a river. They tried to unilaterally 'cancel' Colston's legacy in Bristol.

The 'Stop Funding Hate' campaign are the same. They could have identified some programmes on GB news that were promoting hate and campaigned to show the world why the channel was hateful (and i've not seen any evidence that it is). They didn't. They tried to get companies to remove their advertising before the channel had aired a single programme. They ultimately have tried to stop the channel from airing before they even knew what views the channel was going to air.

As i said before, i continue to debate with you because part of me hopes (unlikely, i know) that i'll persuade you to a different point of view. I do not campaign to have you 'cancelled' and removed from this site.

 

[EFLImpudence]

So if Cancel Culture is trying to stifle debate then those booing the England Team taking the Knee are doing exactly that. So all those who supported the fans booing are in fact partaking in this cancel culture.

Not really. It generally only works one way round.

If the football authority or the football club banned the booers from the ground they would then be what is now termed 'cancelled'.
The booers can do nothing to prevent the practice or ban - 'cancel' - the players who kneel; nor would they want to; they are merely voicing their opinion that they do not think the kneeling is appropriate in a football game.

Plus, what would happen to a single player if he refused to participate in the kneeling? It is even possible he might be sacked - 'cancelled'.

You see how its a weaponised term. No good will come from this fabricated culture war - it keeps people distracted from the real issues.

Exactly. Do you think that is the real purpose - divide and conquer?

Boris called our Health Secretary Hopeless and scarpers when meetings get tough, yet some portrait of the queen is some student union gets more eyeballs.

Exactly - but is that not the fault and purpose of the person who removed the portrait?

It is all a power-grab by the new left - which is vehemently represented on this forum.

 

[Mottie]

Do they have the 'news' on at a specified time like a normal news channel? All I’ve seen so far is presenters giving their take on events. More like a chat show.

 

[SirGalahad]

Not really. It generally only works one way round.

If the football authority or the football club banned the booers from the ground they would then be what is now termed 'cancelled'.
The booers can do nothing to prevent the practice or ban - 'cancel' - the players who kneel; nor would they want to; they are merely voicing their opinion that they do not think the kneeling is appropriate in a football game.

Plus, what would happen to a single player if he refused to participate in the kneeling? It is even possible he might be sacked - 'cancelled'.


Exactly. Do you think that is the real purpose - divide and conquer?


Exactly - but is that not the fault and purpose of the person who removed the portrait?

It is all a power-grab by the new left.

Another conceit it's a power grab - I don't see the left in power - it's simply the right weaponising terms to keep their supporters off the real issues.

The portrait of the queen was purchased and put up in 2013 in the Graduate Students Union and then after a vote it was taken down. How is that cancel culture.

So I don't pay for a ticket or don't wear a mask and I am removed - does that mean I am cancelled?

Stretching the term cancelled to mean sacked - is pushing the bondaries yet you get upset when people use words incorrectly.

Trying to put meaning to a weaponised term just shows the hypocrisy of it all.

If they are voicing their opinion - then whats so different that someone voices their opinion on a company whose practices you don't agree with? Which proves the whole term as being nothing more than a dog whistle - it doesn't further the debate.


The term cancel culture is like Brexit - it means what you want it to mean.

 

[SirGalahad]

As i said before, i continue to debate with you because part of me hopes (unlikely, i know) that i'll persuade you to a different point of view. I do not campaign to have you 'cancelled' and removed from this site.

Ignore button should be banned.

 

[Mottie]

Ignore button should be banned.

Best thing ever. Such fun!

 

[SirGalahad]

Best thing ever. Such fun!

Cancel Culture!!!!

 

[Mottie]

Cancel Culture!!!!

If that’s what it means, I’m all for it.