Jerry Sadowitz cancelled

fretmeister

TeleMaster said:

fretmeister said:

TeleMaster said:

Ah well. We tried. Time to move on. 

Yeah.

Its not quite up to Sir Axeman standards of flat earth wrongness, but it’s the same sport.

Yea. It reminds me of a time when someone argued incessantly that the person who was employed as an epidemiologist wasn't actually an epidemiologist, even though they are literally an epidemiologist. Stop doubling down, it just makes it worse. 

One of my favourite examples was when Tom Harwood tried to argue about the constitution with a QC specialising in constitutional law!

Sporky

Chilli's going to a lot of effort to avoid answering a question about how he reconciles "free speech" with libel.

TeleMaster

Sporky said:

Chilli's going to a lot of effort to avoid answering a question about how he reconciles "free speech" with libel.

That might be libellous. But because you wrote it's not free speech but maybe it is, I don't know anymore, so crack on. 

fretmeister

Sporky said:

Chilli's going to a lot of effort to avoid answering a question about how he reconciles "free speech" with libel.

I’m a bit worried how he’ll cope when he discovers Freedom of Speech is a blanket term that includes other forms: Freedom of Expression and it includes song lyrics and even photographs or paintings etc where there’s no text or speech at all! 

https://www.aclu.org/other/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment

Sporky

TeleMaster said:

Sporky said:

Chilli's going to a lot of effort to avoid answering a question about how he reconciles "free speech" with libel.

That might be libellous. But because you wrote it's not free speech but maybe it is, I don't know anymore, so crack on. 

I don't think it is - my statement there is unlikely to affect his standing or reputation on the forum or elsewhere.

I am not a lawyer though.

Brio

And I thought I was being edgy for saying I didn’t like Mary Spender’s YouTube channel. 

Oh well, at least I wasn’t cancelled.

TeleMaster

Sporky said:

TeleMaster said:

Sporky said:

Chilli's going to a lot of effort to avoid answering a question about how he reconciles "free speech" with libel.

That might be libellous. But because you wrote it's not free speech but maybe it is, I don't know anymore, so crack on. 

I don't think it is - my statement there is unlikely to affect his standing or reputation on the forum or elsewhere.

I am not a lawyer though.

I am a lawyer and... No I'm not. Sorry. 

steven70

Stop ganging up on someone and being mean to them because of their beliefs...pots and kettles innit  

Sporky

Beliefs are fair game.

Involuntary characteristics aren't.

Stratavarious

euan said:

This is well timed, though obviously not well times enough to catch this latest storm in teacup 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/14/terry-gilliam-its-not-that-people-are-more-sensitive-some-things-just-not-funny-any-more

‘In progressive societies, ridiculing certain oppressed groups tends to become increasingly taboo as these groups acquire status, civil rights and respect. Racism, homophobia, sexism and ableism are all going out of fashion.’

yep.. simply this.  It’s just not funny to make fun of these people and these subjects anymore.

The ‘xxx group is funny’ is a sad phase that must be passed through between outright hate and oppression and a group’s full acceptance into society.  The Pythons are just completely out of step.  

But more concerning… all this is distraction from looking at the economy, effects of Brexit or the collapsing climate.. You gotta really wonder why ‘wokeism’ is the new Tory political narrative… in fact it does not take much thinking about at all.

steven70

Sporky said:

Beliefs are fair game.

Involuntary characteristics aren't.

OK, understood. Would you say it is possible for someone's identity to be determined by their belief system? 

I am coming round to the idea that this is a good rule of thumb.

'Love your neighbour as yourself.' Matthew 22:39

Sporky

I think it's possible, but I am not sure it's ever equivalent. I mean that literally, by the way - I'm not sure. I think seeing it as a rule of thumb is quite wise,  as is accepting that there are always edge cases. 

In general I try not to pick on people at all,  but I'm not a very good person. 

Brio

"Love your neighbour as yourself.' Matthew 22:39"


I do. Sadly I'm full of self loathing. Doesn't work out well for next door.

bertie

Brio said:

"Love your neighbour as yourself.' Matthew 22:39"


I do. Sadly I'm full of self loathing. Doesn't work out well for next door.

I live next door to a bike shop ? 

Brio

Win!
Oh, I forgot. Sorry.

fretmeister

Love they neighbour / treat others how you wish to be treated aka The Golden Rule is a lovely bit of morality that predates any of the now common religions.

But it is about people. Not ideas.

Ideas should be attacked and if they survive that attack then there’s a good chance they are good ideas, or at least not manifestly bad ones.

If a person perceives an attack on an idea as an attack on them personally then that’s really their problem, otherwise it would result in some ideas not being able to be challenged no matter how crazy. That would be proper Ministry of Truth stuff. That sort of thing holds back human advancement.

Brio

Edit

Kittyfrisk

Brio said:

"Love your neighbour as yourself.' Matthew 22:39"


I do. Sadly I'm full of self loathing. Doesn't work out well for next door.

I love myself a lot, my neighbour apparently feels the same about himself.

Turns out we are indeed a pair of wankers...
Genesis 38:8-10

Funkfingers

euan said:

This is well timed, though obviously not well times enough to catch this latest storm in teacup 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/14/terry-gilliam-its-not-that-people-are-more-sensitive-some-things-just-not-funny-any-more

I read that article through, from beginning to end, several times. I still cannot find any point at which Gilliam insults anyone for reasons of skin pigmentation levels or sexual orientation. One of Gilliam's remarks is rude towards himself. The article author did not seem to understand the difference.

Older forumites may recall Alan Coren's Bulletins O' Idi Amin column in Punch magazine. In this, Amin was mocked for his outrageous attitudes and deeds NOT for his ethnicity.

Fast forward forty five years and we have the same jokes about corrupt and/or inept government in post-colonial African states. The only substantive difference is that, this time, the writer/performer is Daliso Chaponda. Does that change anything?

Jerry Sadowitz has dual Jewish and Scottish heritage. Does that oblige him to steal Arnold Brown's material in order to be considered "authentic"? 

roberty

Just don't call people p^^is or n^^^ers. I don't see why this warrants five pages