Interesting claim. I remember freedom fries and cancelling Dixie chicks as the first salvoes in that tit for tat. Or John Lennon and sinead O’Connor before that or Mohammed Ali…
A Deeply Fractured US
- Thread starter BeyondTheNow
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 5,719
- Points
- 1,260
I didn’t find him funny or entertaining, but it’s obscene that the FCC is threatening media companies over anodyne statements by unfunny comedians.
I remember late night TV saying worse things about Reagan, Bush and Clinton. They probably laughed at it.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,250
- Points
- 1,040
Sure, there was an ocean of late-night hosts calling for consequences against incendiary comments by prominent left-leaning people for the past couple of decades.
Regardless what one believes about the balance or imbalance of where consequences for expression of belief have been landing, it is a fact that people against these consequences have been complaining without effect for years. Over time, some give up and move to the old standby: tit-for-tat. And then people call for something less than tit-for-tat to be tried again. If it didn't work before, why would it work now?
Regardless what one believes about the balance or imbalance of where consequences for expression of belief have been landing, it is a fact that people against these consequences have been complaining without effect for years. Over time, some give up and move to the old standby: tit-for-tat. And then people call for something less than tit-for-tat to be tried again. If it didn't work before, why would it work now?
- Reaction score
- 5,379
- Points
- 1,160
Are you trying to claim that a gaggle of late night talk show hosts, on competing networks, and possibly other media personalities, are some form of fifth column?
Subversion: a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within.
(Merriam Webster)
- Reaction score
- 8,476
- Points
- 1,160
While we're discussing fairness, let's not forget all those people that lost work, income and were ostracised and cancelled by the left. In no small part by late night commentators.
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Points
- 1,090
Names?
- Reaction score
- 8,476
- Points
- 1,160
Liberals conveniently forget how many people they've canceled in the last decade | Blaze Media
Liberals have celebrated the firing of conservatives from Roseanne Barr to Tucker Carlson over their speech.
www.theblaze.com
12 People Canceled by the Left After Expressing Conservative Views
Cancel culture runs rampant in today’s America. A 10-year-old tweet that mysteriously “resurfaces,” a past campaign donation, or even the slightest critique of any of the left’s sacred tenets seems to be enough to draw the attention of an angry mob—or even get someone fired. With more and more...
www.heritage.org
There's lots more if you want to do your own research.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 5,719
- Points
- 1,260
The woke cancel culture perpetuated by the left was bad enough. But this is now being perpetuated by the government and the FCC in particular. There used to be a time when conservatives prided themselves as being free speech absolutists.
- Reaction score
- 8,476
- Points
- 1,160
Previous governments to this one share that. Democrat governments are not immune to deserved critique. Using lawfare (FBI, DOJ, CIA) to cancel conservatives is part of their fare.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,250
- Points
- 1,040
Maybe this has escaped the notice of many here, but there isn't one kind of conservative in the US. A few offhand: paleo-cons, neo-cons, trad-cons (traditional), so-cons (social), libertarians, classical liberals. The ascendant faction getting up everyone's noses right now is nat-con (national). Of course there are overlaps in the sets of what they believe and seek to conserve, but I suspect the set of what all share in common is small.
What sets the nat-cons apart from pretty much all the others is that they are a mirror image of the left when it comes to principles - they set them aside whenever it serves; ends justify means. These are the conservatives who decided to fight the left - they do think of it as a fight, if their rhetoric is a guide to their thoughts - using essentially the same tactics, and this is one characteristic they have almost to themselves.
Slandering all conservatives with the doctrines of the nat-cons is vacuous; appealing to the nat-cons to adopt the principles of the other factions is pointless by definition. To emphasize: if anyone wondered what a right-wing version of the left-wingers that have been doing their thing for the past couple of decades would look like, nat-cons are it.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,250
- Points
- 1,040
Most of the hysteria is that Kimmel said "we hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." That's difficult to interpret as anything but a suggestion that Kirk was "one of them", however left-handed Kimmel tried to make it. It wasn't true; it was known when Kimmel said it that it wasn't true; and Kimmel reasonably knew it. One of the tangential stories to emerge is that Kimmel supporters are pissed that ABC didn't edit out an obviously irresponsible and incorrect commentary. (To be clear, that's non-MAGA people angry at their own for not policing themselves.)
People are angry about the suggestion; they'd be angry to higher degrees if the statement had been more direct.
Similar threads
