zlacker

> The difference is that now "cancelled" means a few commentators call you out and your life and career are never affected in the slightest.

Weird to read this assertion in a thread about Scott Adams, who literally had his whole career ended. That's literally the opposite of what you said.

Also let's remember that he was cancelled for saying that if black people (poll respondents) say "it's not okay to be white" that's espousing hate and he wants nothing to do with them.

If white people said "it's not okay to be black," that's certainly white supremacy. But the rules are different.

>>xp84+(OP)
> Weird to read this assertion in a thread about Scott Adams, who literally had his whole career ended. That's literally the opposite of what you said.

Nah, he continued to grift off the right wing while saying more and more unhinged shit until he shuffled off this mortal coil.

> Also let's remember that he was cancelled for saying that if black people (poll respondents) say "it's not okay to be white" that's espousing hate and he wants nothing to do with them.

Could it perhaps have anything to do with the fact that that's a 4chan-originated dogwhistle that was hyper-viral at the time? Why do you think they were asking about it in the first place? It was in the context of the fact that the ADL had identified it as secret hate speech, in the same line of the 14 words.

> If white people said "it's not okay to be black," that's certainly white supremacy. But the rules are different.

The president of the most powerful country on earth and the richest man in the world say things like that all the time. Why the victim complex?

>>xp84+(OP)
It seems that you're not very familiar with what actually happened. The phrase "It's okay to be white" had become associated with white supremacists, And black people's responses to the pole had nothing to do with their opinions of white people as a whole. You, as well as Scott Adams, decided to misinterpret it. Scott Adams took things a step further and decided that he wanted nothing to do with black people on the simple basis of this poll, which is absolutely wild.

>>closet+Z3
I wonder who gets to decide when something is "associated" with something else in a way that makes any and all uses of that thing a cancelable offense.

This mechanism sounds more dangerous than useful.

>>xp84+(OP)
If that’s the ‘only’ thing he was canceled for, then how do you explain content of the comics he started making after he was called out, once the mask came off?

Do you think he was driven to that by cancel culture? Or do you think he just got tired of pretending to care, and started ‘telling it like it is?’

>>mock-p+qF
Being cancelled for saying "it's really scary that half of all black people don't agree it's ok to be white" would radicalize anyone. The fact itself radicalizes people, the hysterical reaction of the left radicalizes people even more.

>>qcnguy+MK
But where does this self-indulgent excuse ends? You can argue BLM itself got radicalized into extreme positions by the radicalized mistreatment of black people, and so on.

At some point, if Scott Adams behaved like a bigot, we should stop making excuses for him. Becoming "radicalized" through life's hardships is not an excuse, unless we also grant this excuse to BLM et al. Otherwise it's selective slack-cutting.

>>the_af+9I1
The BLM movement hasn't suffered any hardships. They were the opposite of cancelled: BLM were donated over $90M.

(they embezzled large parts of it. one of them just got charged with wire fraud and money laundering https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdok/pr/executive-director-blac...)

>>qcnguy+aP1
So BLM just sprouted out of thin air, without prior history of cop violence against black people?