Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

“Cancel Culture” and “Woke”


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

What about the Chick-Fil-A one?

It was successful. It worked. Chick-Fil-A quit donating money to the organizations that the LGBT+ community objected to and boycott ended. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That was way too long a post.  Gordon Gekko is looking at that and wondering why I couldn't tighten it up a little.

Right-wingers do something dumb: "Look at those right-wingers.  What a bunch of dummies." Progressives do something dumb: "Look at those right-wingers complaining about that thing we did.  What a

I make sure to tell Tim that he's wrong about something at least weekly.  It's my good deed of the day.

So a question.  Blade Runner says 99% of the media is controlled by the left.  But Fox News is the #1 rated news channel in the world.  And Fox News is NOT controlled by the left.  So, how does he derive at that 99% figure. Is this new math? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

So a question.  Blade Runner says 99% of the media is controlled by the left.  But Fox News is the #1 rated news channel in the world.  And Fox News is NOT controlled by the left.  So, how does he derive at that 99% figure. Is this new math? 

No evidently it's just his usual post of blaming everything on lefties.   Have 0 clue why people still bother... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

So a question.  Blade Runner says 99% of the media is controlled by the left.  But Fox News is the #1 rated news channel in the world.  And Fox News is NOT controlled by the left.  So, how does he derive at that 99% figure. Is this new math? 

Probably more understanding of words.  Fox is what 20 something billion?  Google alone is 1.4 trillion. All of Hollywood?  It's not very difficult to make the math work.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

So a question.  Blade Runner says 99% of the media is controlled by the left.  But Fox News is the #1 rated news channel in the world.  And Fox News is NOT controlled by the left.  So, how does he derive at that 99% figure. Is this new math? 

I would assume Fox is #1 because it's one of very few news outlets that don't lean left so you get a concentrated amount of people viewing.  The point still remains. By and large, media outlets are left leaning, along with big tech.  So essentially the control of information is largely held by the leftists.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Probably more understanding of words.  Fox is what 20 something billion?  Google alone is 1.4 trillion. All of Hollywood?  It's not very difficult to make the math work.  

That's the market caps.  That doesn't prove that 99% of the media is controlled by the left.  Aging demographics aren't using Google for their news; they are locked in on Fox.

99% seems like a silly number you toss around but can't prove.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, talk radio is dominated by the right.  I'd say 90+% of pro sports owners are conservative (part of that entertainment figure). The wealth in this country is largely controlled by the right.  But 99% of the media and entertainment is controlled by the left?  Something don't add up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

That's the market caps.  That doesn't prove that 99% of the media is controlled by the left.  Aging demographics aren't using Google for their news; they are locked in on Fox.

99% seems like a silly number you toss around but can't prove.  

Media >>>>> news.   :lmao:

Not sure why you even brought up news. We were taking about the Mandolorian.  By any measure the "media" is largely controlled by lefty companies.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

I mean, talk radio is dominated by the right.  I'd say 90+% of pro sports owners are conservative (part of that entertainment figure). The wealth in this country is largely controlled by the right.  But 99% of the media and entertainment is controlled by the left?  Something don't add up. 

I thought the left had all the educated dudes and the right was full of uneducated backwoods folks?  Something don't add up if the right controls the wealth.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, General Malaise said:

So a question.  Blade Runner says 99% of the media is controlled by the left.  But Fox News is the #1 rated news channel in the world.  And Fox News is NOT controlled by the left.  So, how does he derive at that 99% figure. Is this new math? 

Qommon Qore Math.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

I thought the left had all the educated dudes and the right was full of uneducated backwoods folks?  Something don't add up if the right controls the wealth.

The left controls big tech, for the most part.  The wealth in big tech has become tremendous....add that to essentially controlling, and manipulating what information people are fed.....it's powerful....and the sheeple eat it up.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The other problem with cancel culture is that once they get a victory, they feel justified in their crusade to go further. These same weirdos on Twitter that cancelled Gina have been trying to get Rosario Dawson cancelled for even longer. Now they have refocused all their efforts on her because she has a new show coming up. The funny thing is Dawson is the complete opposite politically from Carano. However she was falsely accused by a trans man of abuse by her family. The charges have been dropped but that doesn't matter. Once the accusation was made, that's all they needed to hear.

Fire Rosario Dawson has trended on twitter many times just like Fire Gina Carano. They target her account for hate. Any promotional media that comes out for Star Wars or Ashoka is bombarded with people calling her transphobe. If the mob gets loud enough, Disney will probably drop her as well. Shes shielded a bit because she leans that way politically but they only need to keep shouting the lie enough times to make it true. 

_____________________________________________

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.inverse.com/entertainment/gina-carano-fired-twitter-hashtag-ahsoka/amp

"Though not currently a part of the Mandalorian recurring cast, Rosario Dawson is poised to star in her own Mandalorian spinoff series simply entitled Ahsoka. However, Dawson and her family were recently sued by a trans man who claimed they purposefully misgendered him and even assaulted him. Though all charges against Dawson herself were later dropped, the fandom is wary another Carano-like situation is lurking.

“It bugs me and several other people and I think that it would be good if they at least recast the actress because she already makes so many people uncomfortable."

“I think that the majority of stan Twitter, myself included, are skeptical of her because we don’t know if the charges on her are true or not.”

"Ahsoka Tano doesn't deserve to be played by a transphobic, she deserves better. Fire Rosario Dawson like you did Gina Carano."

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, General Malaise said:

So a question.  Blade Runner says 99% of the media is controlled by the left.  But Fox News is the #1 rated news channel in the world.  And Fox News is NOT controlled by the left.  So, how does he derive at that 99% figure. Is this new math? 

Focusing on getting the right answer is just feeding into white supremacy culture GM. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, General Malaise said:

@tonydead your buddy here mentioned news. Hth.  

:lmao:. Or you could just be a man and admit you put your foot in your mouth, as usual, when you thought he meant news when you heard media. 

13 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

The "rigged game" is the news, entertainment and media and the companies that make it up.  It's 99% driven by liberal agendas.

 

Edited by tonydead
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

It's disingenuous because you're ignoring the fact that the left holds 99% of the power in entertainment, news and media.  It's not even debatable.

What you're saying is akin to blaming the girls in a track race where the winner is a transsexuals' biological boy, telling them that "he's just more succesfull".  When the entire game is rigged against you, that's not being "more successful".  That's winning because you control everything.  Unless you count "successful" as rigging the playing field in your favor.

:goodposting:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only right wing social media outlet just got squeezed by the big 3, is grasping for air and somebody wants to get hung up on exact percentages.  :lol:. You cant make this stuff up, people are looney tunes. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, squistion said:

It was successful. It worked. Chick-Fil-A quit donating money to the organizations that the LGBT+ community objected to and boycott ended. 

The boycott never impacted sales though. They will not rule out donatons to any group as well. 

Chick-fil-A never explicitly said it would permanently stop donating to anti-gay groups or organizations that discriminate against LGBTQ people — it just said it was changing its philanthropic giving model. Chick-fil-A didn’t respond to The Goods’ request for comment, but a company spokesperson did tell VICE that it wouldn’t rule out giving to religious groups in the future.

“No organization will be excluded from future consideration–faith-based or non-faith-based,” Chick-fil-A President and COO Tim Tassopoulos said in a statement to VICE.

Edited by Summer Wheat
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

When people talk about "cancel culture," what they're generally not referring to are government actions that directly implicate the first amendment.  We already have a good vocabulary for thinking and talking about those sorts of issues.

"Cancel culture" generally involves actions taken by private individuals -- usually collectively but not always -- that run afoul of free speech but don't necessarily have anything to do with the first amendment.  The issues involved tend to be pretty different than first amendment cases and are more like debates about how to set norms and less like debates over established case law.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

This seems like more of a straightforward first amendment violation than anything else.  

I would agree. I feel like people use the term cancel culture pretty loosely though and many might consider this to be an example of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

https://twitter.com/sergiomarbel/status/1364291894822461442?s=21

Would you consider this cancel culture?

This is just government overstepping it's bounds. Any time an elected official calls on a business or entity that is not affiliated with government (even though universities do receive public money) to punish individuals for legally expressing their opinion is a gross misuse of power. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, General Malaise said:

So a question.  Blade Runner says 99% of the media is controlled by the left.  But Fox News is the #1 rated news channel in the world.  And Fox News is NOT controlled by the left.  So, how does he derive at that 99% figure. Is this new math? 

Idk about overall, but they are the top rated from the right because there are fewer choices.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, General Malaise said:

So a question.  Blade Runner says 99% of the media is controlled by the left.  But Fox News is the #1 rated news channel in the world.  And Fox News is NOT controlled by the left.  So, how does he derive at that 99% figure. Is this new math? 

And Sinclair owns like 2nd highest number of the TV stations out there.

Edited by sho nuff
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

And Sinclair owns like 2nd highest number of the TV stations out there.

They own one of the locals here - wsbt 22 south bend.  Their news coverage is really no different than the others in the same market. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Summer Wheat said:

The boycott never impacted sales though. They will not rule out donatons to any group as well. 

Chick-fil-A never explicitly said it would permanently stop donating to anti-gay groups or organizations that discriminate against LGBTQ people — it just said it was changing its philanthropic giving model. Chick-fil-A didn’t respond to The Goods’ request for comment, but a company spokesperson did tell VICE that it wouldn’t rule out giving to religious groups in the future.

“No organization will be excluded from future consideration–faith-based or non-faith-based,” Chick-fil-A President and COO Tim Tassopoulos said in a statement to VICE.

Yeah the "boycott" was what in 2017 and they were the third biggest chain in 2018.... And it wasnt until 2020 things changed.

I dont "count that one" - cause other than "public pr" the numbers didnt show a "boycott"

 

I dont give a #### about some owners beliefs or views ( accept maybe the my pillow guy :P )  - i have never not shopped at insert store for insert issue..

Target bathrooms

Home depot had something

Walmart something

Chick Fila and on and on and on

Edited by belljr
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, belljr said:

Yeah the "boycott" was what in 2017 and they were the third biggest chain in 2018.... And it wasnt until 2020 things changed.

I dont "count that one" - cause other than "public pr" the numbers didnt show a "boycott"

 

I dont give a #### about some owners beliefs or views ( accept maybe the my pillow guy :P )  - i have never not shopped at insert store for insert issue..

Target bathrooms

Home depot had something

Walmart something

Chick Fila and on and on and on

The boycott was basically just an announcement.   I doubt that your sexual preference will keep you from eating at Chick Fil-A if that is what you enjoy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2021 at 9:59 PM, General Malaise said:

I mean, talk radio is dominated by the right.  I'd say 90+% of pro sports owners are conservative (part of that entertainment figure). The wealth in this country is largely controlled by the right.  But 99% of the media and entertainment is controlled by the left?  Something don't add up. 

Do you have a link for that?  Microaoft, Google, Twitter, and Amazon all seem liberally owned and controlled.  That is a ton of wealth right there.  The NFL has gone completely woke, with only a few Jerry Jones types out there.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

Do you have a link for that?  Microaoft, Google, Twitter, and Amazon all seem liberally owned and controlled.  That is a ton of wealth right there.  The NFL has gone completely woke, with only a few Jerry Jones types out there.  

If they so woke, why hasn't Kaep been signed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, General Malaise said:

If they so woke, why hasn't Kaep been signed?

Because he kind of sucked, created a crappy atmosphere, and really stopped caring about football.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Because he kind of sucked, created a crappy atmosphere, and really stopped caring about football.  

I don't agree with you on his level of play and his career numbers back me up on this.  538 article is dated, but this line stands out:

Quote

 

Kaepernick’s ability to play the position no longer seems to be in doubt. Players have spoken in support of Kaepernick, and most serious analysis reliant on game study arrives at the conclusion that Kaepernick is not just a competent quarterback, but is also better than he was when he led the 49ers to the Super Bowl in 2013. Cian Fahey, who catalogues quarterback performance at Pre-Snap Reads, found Kaepernick to have outplayed Ravens starter Joe Flacco.

And yet Kaepernick doesn’t have a team. It’s obvious Kaepernick is being frozen out for his political opinions, but it’s less apparent how extraordinary it is that a player like him can’t find a team. Back in March, Neil Paine and I wrote about Kaepernick’s situation and noted that it was strange for even a halfway decent quarterback to remain unsigned so deep into free agency. Four months later, it’s no longer merely unusual — it’s practically unheard of.

 

:coffee:

 

And....

NFL owners give nearly 9-1 to Republicans, including Trump

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

I don't agree with you on his level of play and his career numbers back me up on this.  538 article is dated, but this line stands out:

:coffee:

 

And....

NFL owners give nearly 9-1 to Republicans, including Trump

i'm not saying JimTom or Chipper helped Kaep much. nor would i suggest that Boldin, Torrey Smith, Jeremy Kerley, or Quinton Patten were world-beaters. but i watched Kaep throw plenty of 48-foot fastballs to wide open WRs. he just wasn't as effective as a QB once D-coordinators figured him out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Quint said:

i'm not saying JimTom or Chipper helped Kaep much. nor would i suggest that Boldin, Torrey Smith, Jeremy Kerley, or Quinton Patten were world-beaters. but i watched Kaep throw plenty of 48-foot fastballs to wide open WRs. he just wasn't as effective as a QB once D-coordinators figured him out. 

His accuracy wasn't great, but his last year as a starter, his QB Rating was better than:
Philip Rivers, Carson Palmer, Jameis Winston, Eli Manning, Joe Flacco, Carson Wentz, Cam Newton, just to name a few.  The fact that he couldn't get another job - even as a backup - has more to do with the owners wanting no part of him than he did his level of play.  And man, could he run.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, General Malaise said:

His accuracy wasn't great, but his last year as a starter, his QB Rating was better than:
Philip Rivers, Carson Palmer, Jameis Winston, Eli Manning, Joe Flacco, Carson Wentz, Cam Newton, just to name a few.  The fact that he couldn't get another job - even as a backup - has more to do with the owners wanting no part of him than he did his level of play.  And man, could he run.....

I don't think anybody disputes this.  Superstar players can be media distractions and teams will put up with it if they feel that they have to.  Backups who turn into distractions get cut.  This is why Tyreek Hill has a super bowl ring while Mr. Random Fifth-Rounder who roughs up his girlfriend probably ends up working at a car dealership someplace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I don't think anybody disputes this.  Superstar players can be media distractions and teams will put up with it if they feel that they have to.  Backups who turn into distractions get cut.  This is why Tyreek Hill has a super bowl ring while Mr. Random Fifth-Rounder who roughs up his girlfriend probably ends up working at a car dealership someplace.

You're probably right.  Just means more Nate Peterson snaps for our enjoyment. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...