GB News

You see how silly calling it wokism is.
But you are arguing against what the word has come to mean - from its laudable origin.

You might not agree with this usage, as I dislike words being used incorrectly, but once changed there is nothing we can do about it.
That is what it now means.
 
Sponsored Links
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.
Much like the way that demonstrations get banned in advance because the authorites want to unilaterally cancel or remove an object of their dislike.

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.
What a shame for you that your argument there disappears in a puff of smoke when exposed to the reality that people had been campaigning, making persuasive arguments, trying to persuade people that times have changed, etc, for decades, and got absoutely nowhere.

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.
By their friends ye shall know them.

Andrew Neil is vociferously "anti-woke". So are a number of people here. I suggest you look at the beliefs they put forward.
 
I watched about an hour and a half tonight, (I'm not a football fan) and I'm starting to enjoy it, I was about to turn off and watch a fillum but of course they flashed up that Andrew Neil would be addressing the advert boycott. He did it well and challenged advertisers to come on the programme and debate what they thought is 'right wing or hate content', he also went into quite a lot of detail about 'stop funding hate', interesting bunch.

Moneysupermarket have reinstated their ads, I'm sure others will follow, they'll start to look a bit silly if they don't given the programmes content.
 
Sponsored Links
GB news is bankrolled by:

John Malone - American billionaire that gave money to vote Leave.

Legatum - a free market pro Brexit think tank.

Sir Paul Marshall - Brexit hedge fund boss.

So I expect it will attract Brexit supporters looking to hear more Brexit lies.
 
GB news is bankrolled by:

John Malone - American billionaire that gave money to vote Leave.

Legatum - a free market pro Brexit think tank.

Sir Paul Marshall - Brexit hedge fund boss.

So I expect it will attract Brexit supporters looking to hear more Brexit lies.

Extraordinary, in the 3 or 4 hours I've seen so far I don't believe I've heard the word 'brexit' once.
 
What a shame for you that your argument there disappears in a puff of smoke when exposed to the reality that people had been campaigning, making persuasive arguments, trying to persuade people that times have changed, etc, for decades, and got absoutely nowhere.
Which kind of adds to my point nicely. There had been protests and campaigns, the had been progress, the public had been consulted, a plaque detailing Colston's involvement in slavery was due to be added, but there were disputes about the wording and the process was taking time.

The cancel mob decided they didn't care about anyone else's views or the legality of tearing down the statue. They just acted aggressively and unilaterally and tore the statue down.
 
The cancel mob decided they didn't care about anyone else's views or the legality of tearing down the statue. They just acted aggressively and unilaterally and tore the statue down.
They had been campaigning for ten years, with no progress.
Cancel culture is about denying a voice. The campaigners had been denied a voice for ten years.
Therefore wasn't the council equally practising cancel culture, by refusing to act on the campaigns?

Similarly, cancel culture can also be applied in other instances, Cecil Rhodes, Winston Churchill, etc.
The campaigners have been ignored for years, and all they want is equality in the true history being represented, not the white-washed version.
 
They had been campaigning for ten years, with no progress.
Cancel culture is about denying a voice. The campaigners had been denied a voice for ten years.
Therefore wasn't the council equally practising cancel culture, by refusing to act on the campaigns?

Similarly, cancel culture can also be applied in other instances, Cecil Rhodes, Winston Churchill, etc.
The campaigners have been ignored for years, and all they want is equality in the true history being represented, not the white-washed version.
The campaigners hadn't been denied a voice. There had been significant discussion and public consultation. A poll by the local newspaper had 55% of the local population wanting to retain the statue. It had been agreed that a plaque would be added to the statue and the plaque had even been cast, but the local mayor (who happens to be black and i believe wanted to retain the statue with added information) wasn't happy with the wording.

The campaigners voice was being heard, things were happening. But the mob decided their views were more important than anyone else's views or the law of the country and tore it down.
 
The campaigners hadn't been denied a voice. There had been significant discussion and public consultation. A poll by the local newspaper had 55% of the local population wanting to retain the statue. It had been agreed that a plaque would be added to the statue and the plaque had even been cast, but the local mayor (who happens to be black and i believe wanted to retain the statue with added information) wasn't happy with the wording.

The campaigners voice was being heard, things were happening. But the mob decided their views were more important than anyone else's views or the law of the country and tore it down.
For good reason. The wording had been sanitised by a small group of Tory councillors and their financial backers, without the approval of a larger group.
They had gone ahead and cast the plaque, hoping to make their decision permanent.
But Bristol Mayor Marvin Rees, and others, saw the wording and objected, and complained that key people in the debate in the city had not been kept up to date with the final proposed wording before the plaque was made.

Mr Rees said the Merchant Venturers were ‘extremely naive’ if they thought they would have the final say on the plaque, ‘without reference to the communities of descendants of those Africans who were enslaved and treated as commodities by merchants like Colston’.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/second-colston-statue-plaque-not-2682813
By 'The mob', you mean the Tory councillors and the Merchant Venturers?
Those behind the project accused Mr Greenacre and the Merchant Venturers of 'sanitising' Colston's involvement in the slave trade,
You do like to put your own spin on history. That's cancel culture in action.
 
The french attempted to deny green peace a voice

went to extreme lengths as well

they blew there ship up
 
The french attempted to deny green peace a voice

went to extreme lengths as well

they blew there ship up
Wrong again.
Greenpeace were not denied a voice, France prevented the ship, the Rainbow Warrior, from entering an exclusion zone (which would have been illegal) and placing civilians in harms way of a nuclear test.
For the 1985 tests, Greenpeace intended to monitor the impact of nuclear tests and place protesters on the island to monitor the blasts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
Greenpeace had previously relocated civilians from that island due to radiation left over from USA nuclear tests.
Previous incursions by civilian ships had been boarded and removed from the exclusion zone.
In addition France has paid millions to Greenpeace in reparations which has allowed Greenpeace to continue its campaigning.
 
Last edited:
The french attempted to deny green peace a voice

went to extreme lengths as well

they blew there ship up

Killing a crew member as well

They also boarded a green peace ship in international waters

duffed up the crew

held em at gun point and rumour had it pinched any thing of any value
 
For good reason. The wording had been sanitised by a small group of Tory councillors and their financial backers, without the approval of a larger group.
They had gone ahead and cast the plaque, hoping to make their decision permanent.
But Bristol Mayor Marvin Rees, and others, saw the wording and objected, and complained that key people in the debate in the city had not been kept up to date with the final proposed wording before the plaque was made.

Mr Rees said the Merchant Venturers were ‘extremely naive’ if they thought they would have the final say on the plaque, ‘without reference to the communities of descendants of those Africans who were enslaved and treated as commodities by merchants like Colston’.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/second-colston-statue-plaque-not-2682813
By 'The mob', you mean the Tory councillors and the Merchant Venturers?
Those behind the project accused Mr Greenacre and the Merchant Venturers of 'sanitising' Colston's involvement in the slave trade,
You do like to put your own spin on history. That's cancel culture in action.
By the mob, i mean the people that tore down the statue. Everyone else was acting lawfully. I wasn't aware who had cast the plaque, only that the elected mayor objected and prevented it being placed which is democracy, not cancel culture, in action.
 
Killing a crew member as well

They also boarded a green peace ship in international waters

duffed up the crew

held em at gun point and rumour had it pinched any thing of any value
Your recollection of events is obviously flawed. Probably because it's coloured by your bigotry.
Your bigotry does tend to permeate all your recollections and opinions.

They boarded ships that had entered the exclusion zone. They are entitled to do that. It wasn't international waters, it was a French exclusion zone, in French waters.

It was the Rainbow Warrior 11, the replacement vessel for the Rainbow Warrior, which France had financed as reparation for the sinking of the first Rainbow Warrior, that French commandos boarded, and arrested the crew for entering the exclusion zone with an obvious non-innocent intention.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top