Shane Gillis tapped to host SNL after being fired for “hurtful, unacceptable language”
Comedian Shane Gillis was fired from Saturday Night LIve in 2019 for using racist and homophobic language online; now he'll be hosting the show
Aux News Shane Gillis
In what we can only assume is some sort of ongoing campaign to get Bowen Yang to distance himself so far from the weekly goodnights that they turn into a Where’s Waldo? puzzle, Saturday Night Live has announced that it’s tapping comedian Shane Gillis to be its next guest host. Which is interesting, in so far as Gillis is most famous, to a lot of people, for being the record holder for what might be the single shortest cast member tenure in all of SNL history, after he was fired from the series in 2019, just four days after being brought on, after multiple instances of him using racist and homophobic language were resurfaced online.
Since then, Gillis has continued to work steadily as a comedian, including releasing a comedy special with Netflix in 2022. (He also appeared on a number of podcasts that prominently feature the word “cancelled” in their marketing, natch, as well as making several appearances on Joe Rogan’s show, also natch.) Hired alongside Yang and Chloe Fineman (both still with the show), Gillis joins the very small and select number of people who’ve been fired from Saturday Night Live, only to be invited to host several years later.
News of the decision to bring Gillis on comes in the immediate aftermath of another controversy, when SNL brought Dave Chappelle out for the goodnights on its January 27th installment, provoking visible unhappiness from both Yang and castmate Sarah Sherman. (Presumably thanks to Chappelle’s nigh-fanatical, increasingly career-eclipsing dedication to telling trans people he’s not a transphobe, no matter how many transphobic things he says.)
For his part, Gillis has said in interviews that the podcast segments featuring him using racist and homophobic slurs were taken out of context. (A representative for the series, meanwhile, described them as “offensive, hurtful, and unacceptable” when announcing his firing.) Gillis will host the show’s February 24th installment, with 21 Savage as the musical guest.
548 Comments
When was the last time SNL had a host less famous than him?
January 20, 2024: Jacob Elordi
I mean, at least Jacob Elordi is in a movie with award buzz, not to mention a pretty popular streaming show. I didn’t know about him before watching Saltburn, but I did still watch Saltburn. What should I have watched to know who this guy is?
his special on youtube with 20mil+ views…it’s fucking great
Kissing Booth was pretty good.
It was not. It was among the most “manipulation is sexy” romcoms I’ve ever seen, which is saying something. Because I’ve watched a lot of that genre. And a lot of that genre is guilty of thinking stalking and manipulation is ‘cute’.
All the time, at least for my age bracket.
Everybody has their own bubbles. I don’t know half of the random comedians the host SNL but Shane is one of the most successful comedians right now. He makes like a million dollars a month on Patreon
I admit I’d barely if at all heard of Nate Bargatze when he hosted.
Probably today
Call me old fashioned, but I remember when they used to hire famous and/or talented people to host SNL.
I almost always recognize the host of SNL when they are announced, but I have no idea who Shane Gillis is. A few YouTube clips later and still not getting why he would be invited to host the show.
One of the very best standups working today, number one on Patreon, Just got signed to Budweiser as their new spokesperson. Maybe stop only checking for whichever celebs/comedians are Twitter outrage machine approved.
Fuck off
Just as soon as I fill your sisters cunt with a massive wad of cum.
Boo hoo, poor you! Faggot.
Wonderful stuff, DatNi99aDave.
HOLY FUCK, THIS GUY JUST SIGNED AS A BUDWEISER SPOKESPERSON?!?!?I guess he joins all those other well-known and amazing comedians who likewise served as Budweiser spokespeople – who I somehow cannot name.
Elvira
There were those puppet frogs and the WASSAAWWPP!!! guys and that’s just off the top of my head.
I’m sure that has nothing to do with you being an out of touch loser.
The fact that he signed a Bud deal proves he’s somewhat famous, no? Which was the entire point, you fucking retard.
“Just got signed to Budweiser”
yeah/nah, I’m out.
No one asked or cares.
Point missed again, dunce.
Nah, I got it. asshole.
That’s funny because there are almost no good standups still working in the year 2024. Most of the best are dead or no longer working the stage. What’s left is the crybabies who get by on anti-woke clout farming and general grievance comedy.
“Hehe women, you know what I mean”
“Hehe fags, you know what I mean”
“Hehe dikes, you know what I mean”
“Hehe trannies, you know what I mean”
It’s 4th grade comedy for a society of people with an 8th grade reading level and the emotional depth of a kiddy pool. Maybe take your own fking advice and realize nobody cares about Twitter. Grow tf up. You idiots cry about echo chambers like your entire existence isnt just a box with 35 idiots just like you screaming the exact same ignorant shit as you.
You’re really original.
tell me your list of the best and we can discuss it.
1. George Carlin
2. Sam Kinison
3. Richard Pryor
4. Katt Williams
5. Bill Burr
Seeing the general….. nature…. of your responses I know for a fact that isn’t the type of list you would have expected. I’m pretty sure I also know exactly where you will find a place to complain but lets see if you can surprise me.
Yeah, I don’t Twitter or care about the outrage machine. I just said I didn’t know who he was and after checking some videos decided that he wasn’t for me. I’m not outraged by his comedy – it’s just kind of meh.
Then again, SNL at it’s best these days is just kind of meh… so maybe he’s the engine that will achieve total meh for an episode.
Offending people is a weird kink for Gillis and his fans.Any negative comment or critique is immediately turned into “why you offended?”, because it’s the only way they can get boners anymore.
Bullshit.
Very eloquently argued.
Is this is a bit? You should consider updating your material, the “Twitter outrage machine” is run by RWNJs now. They’d love a bigoted clown like this guy.
Aww poor you. Cry more, faggot.
Okay, enjoy your echo chamber.
“Just got signed to Budweiser as their new spokesperson”Oh…Budweiser is trying to get the right wingers back after that Bud Light “scandal”?
Let’s start a rumor that Gillis is trans.
That seems unfair to trans people.
No they just wanted regular dudes back.
So I should be interested in watching him host SNL because he was recently hired to shill beer? Yeah, that’s not gonna cut it.For all I know, he could be absolutely hilarious. Maybe he’s an up and coming comic genius, in which case it will be a smart move. But the point is that SNL usually picks hosts with a bit more fame and name recognition.
Nigga, are you retarded? Dude was saying he was a nobody. I was pointing out he was so successful now Budweiser signed him. Read between the lines, you illiterate cunt.
So next they’re going to get the dilly dilly guys to host? This guy is still nobody.
You surely have better things to do, Shane.
DERP!
watch his special on youtube…
I did.He’s … ok? He clearly is comfortable on stage, tells good stories about his family, has a good rhythm. I’d call him above average.That’s probably all SNL can get these days.
I watched about half an hour of his material. One chunk was about how Down’s Syndrome kids “love John Cena and tits” ending with “i never believed that being gay was a choice, but it’s true that people who can’t think love pussy.” But he prefaces the whole thing by talking about how a Down’s Syndrome family member is the only good person in your family. So he gets to be all “I’m not making fun of Down’s Syndrome kids” and then make hacky jokes about them “in a good way.”
I think it was Neal Brennan who told Chris Rock than male comedians over 35 should avoid saying “pussy” on stage because it’s juvenile and hacky. Over 40 it’s just creepy.Solid advice.
SO brave of you to watch a few minutes of something you’re determined to hate and then interpret it in the worst way possible.
Nothing is so brave as making the exact same comment every time, troll.Learn a new cliche, dork.
Nah I’m good. This one is working pretty good. It’s funny how angry you are that dumb fuck losers like you aren’t able to control the conversation anymore.
Yeah, you have so much power, king incel. Peak of your life.
Nah, you just have none. Lol
You follow me to say the exact same thing every time I post. Consider developing a personality, Recogincel.
Consider that advice from you means very little to anyone.
Or don’t. Continue this inconsequential existence.
Lol dismissing comments. You’re so pathetic.
I watched at least half an hour (which is more than a few minutes) and was not in any way determined to hate him. I had no idea who he was. Never heard of him before this story about him hosting SNL. Actually approached it as “maybe a new comedian to watch.” Ultimately, his comedy is hacky and he relies too much on the “I say I’m progressive so when I say things that are unacceptable to progressives, it’s ok because I already said I was progressive” — it’s lazy wanna-be-edgy comedy. And “Downs Syndrome kids like John Cena and boobs” doesn’t leave a lot of ground for interpretation. And yes, I know from seeing your name in comment sections at AVC that you’re a troll and one shouldn’t feed a troll, but whatever. You live your best life, Recoegnitions.
I mean, I know him only from YT clips and Instagram Reels, and he has some very funny material. But so do probably a hundred other semi-well-known comics who *don’t* have a tarnished employment record with NBC.To the original post’s point: what happened to Big Celebrity hosts?
Never heard of him. Maybe they’re trying to get people talking about the show by picking relative unknowns to host.
“Relative unknowns” lmao. Just say you’re old.
He’s the number one on Patreon, definitely not an unknown
the problem with this, is these hosts don’t really respect what they are on. So they make a mess, and then use that as another stepping stone for a special and a tour on how they are canceled. Just get Steve Martin and Martin Short to do the 5 times club skit from 35 years ago.
“I almost always recognize the host of SNL when they are announced”Same though lately I think I might be getting too old, because I didn’t know who Travis Kelce was when he hosted, and I didn’t know who that Australian fellow was from a couple of weeks ago (whose name I’ve now forgotten again, not as a knock on him but as a sign of my aforementioned oldness). Ayo Edebiri I had heard of but only from some meme accusing her of being Irish? When they said “Shane Gillis” I thought I was just old again but I guess maybe he’s also not that famous.
There is a real moment right now for comics who act like “edgy” teens from the late 90s/early 2000s.
This is your daily reminder that popularity is not the same thing as talent/craft.
That’s why the got Shane…he is one of the best in the game right now
The what?
I remember when you had to be a billionaire mogul or media star to have folks and bots itching to defend you online. Now any rando with a podcast gets, “so what if he’s racist! Check out his patreon!” It’s very weird.
The only thing that’s weird is how brave and important you are.
It’s an election year. American media loves to pander to the base.
With that said, some of the stand ups that I’ve never heard of contributed to really funny episodes, so there’s that.
Famous and talented seems to have been eclipsed by infamous and auto-tuned.
They still do; Shane Gillis is hosting.
Maybe you’re just old and out of touch? One of the hottest working comedians today. Yeah, he’s famous.
they had Steven Segal on, and that was considered the WORST host ever.
Yes, but you can’t argue that he wasn’t famous.Fun fact: As a teenager, I attended the full dress for Segal’s episode, my one and (so far) only visit to SNL.
Oh I don’t argue that, but from people who worked on that show, he was classified as “the worst.”…. fun Hans and Franz bit, at least you got to see them.
Oh, yeah, his appearance was infamous. What I remember about that evening, though, was the handful of bad sketches that didn’t make it to air (as dress is longer than even the 1:30 hour runtime of the actual show) only for them to show up on air months later.
yeah…. you got to see how the sausage was made and you got to see PEAK Dana Carvey. That’s amazing!
I remember being particularly impressed by Phil Hartman, how he totally committed to even the worst sketches of the night. Like playing the angry captain in a stupid cop sketch that was basically just a build-up to a dumb masturbation joke. But he was all in, even in crap like that.
That’s amazing, I always loved Phil Hartman, even if it’s one line… he believes it. Was rewatching So I Married an Axe Murder, it’s amazing how small his scene is and he steals it.
Based on interviews I’ve read, that was because he was completely full of himself and had no sense of humor, which made it kind of hard to work with him. They also said Trump was the same way.
and extremely stoned, don’t forget that. Nothing better than a visibly zonked Louise Lasser trying to understand why the Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman set looked so different all of a sudden.
I wasn’t familiar with Gillis either. But I saw a clip of his Trump impersonation and thought it was quite good. I’m sure it’ll get put to use on the show.
That would be interesting to see. I hope they put in more effort with his Trump impression than the current guy they have doing Trump on SNL. He’s so proud of how well he does the *voice*, that he puts in zero effort on any other part of it — the content of what he’s saying, his look, the jokes — nothing. He literally just says stuff Trump would basically say, and adds nothing to it at all — no “heightening”, one of the most basic principles of comedy.
Dave Chappelle. Have you heard of him?
I’m afraid we’ll never see hosts like Miskel Spillman again.
Or at least someone with a movie coming out
Are they really this desperate for hosts?I mean, who the fuck is Shane Gillis? (I know, I *could* look this up — my point is the fact that I have zero clue who he is means he isn’t drawing as many viewers as an actual celeb.)
I can appreciate how plenty of regular SNL viewers might not know who Nate Bargatze is, or maybe even John Mulaney. But at least those guys have clear and not insubstantial fanbases. Aside from the trolls in gray here, who could possibly have any idea who this dude is? They’d be better off bringing Aristotle Athari back. At least people might recognize him from actually appearing on the show.
shane is the man…you live in a bubble…he tours with dave chappelle,joe rogan,chris rock and bert kreischer + he has the n1 podcast on patreon…Ps: his special on youtube has more than 20mil views and is one of the best specials a comedian has put out in a long time
The only reason I know he exists is because of watching Podcast Cringe videos, which generally discuss “comedians” in Rogan’s circle like Bert Kreischer (who I was aware of independently of that), Andrew Schultz, and this guy. This is also the first I’m hearing a) that he was on SNL and b) was fired from it. That part’s not particularly surprising, I guess; I don’t watch SNL though my wife does.
I’ve been watching those videos too, and his general gist on that is that Shane Gillis is kind of separate from most of Rogan’s lineup of his bro comedy friends, in that he’s actually talented. From what I’ve seen, it’s pretty much just him and Tom Segura that are actually funny comedians, although Segura has become an insufferable dick lately.I’ve really only seen his Netflix special, which I remember as being mildly amusing, but I don’t remember any specific bits. I don’t remember him coming across as mean spirited or anything, but maybe I need to watch it again.
Psst – Segura was always an insufferable dick. He just did a better job of hiding it before he broke out.
I just went and looked at the thumbnails of that and I honestly can’t tell if they’re for or against all the shitty reprobates they focus on. Like they aren’t exactly using flattering screenshots of Bert Kreischer, but I don’t think those exist, that guy always looks like it’s his last day on Earth.
Netflix gave him a special and was putting him front and center every time I logged in, so I’d imagine plenty of people know who he is. And from the two minutes they put together for their little preview when you hover over it too long, I confess the guy seemed funny enough. Didn’t bother to keep going though, maybe he’s still a dirtbag, maybe he’s changed. Who can say? All I know is, my primary consumption of SNL is via Youtube nowadays and even then half the time just Update so the hosts hardly matter unless it’s somebody like Trump or Elon Musk that really just drags the whole thing down to hell.
You live in a bubble then…that show will be one of the biggest of the year
I think we found the answer to “Who is shane gillis” and it’s this guy.
Yes. The guy is like the Beatles. Mobbed by fans everywhere he goes. Those dumb snowflake libs
There’s a middleground between “the beatles” and “pretty famous”, tard. Just because some white hipster dork like you doesn’t know him (which let’s be honest, you actually do anyway, and are just pretending not to) doesn’t mean he’s not highly successful and well known amongst actually young people.
There’s a middleground between “the beatles” and “pretty famous”, tard. Just because some white hipster dork like you doesn’t know him (which let’s be honest, you actually do anyway, and are just pretending not to) doesn’t mean he’s not highly successful and well known amongst actually young people.
Just because you don’t know who he is, doesn’t mean he isn’t popular. You might just out of the loop.
FYI – he is a piece fairly piece of shit comedian, so you aren’t missing much.
I guess any publicity is good publicity. They keep bringing garbage person Dave Chappelle back, why not this guy too? If the controversy generates ratings, that’s all that matters to them. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the return of Louis CK one of these days, with musical guest Ted Nugent.
So someone isn’t famous unless YOU know who they are?
Indeed. The definition of all-important ‘celebrity’ status is whether YOU’VE heard of them. Tell me: Do you use social media for two or more hours a day?
Love child of Elon Musk and Corky from Life Goes On.
The media tries to make people as stupid as possible for cash. Shane Gillis is a funny comedian and even if he is racist no one should give a fuck because he is a comedian making jokes.If you need to see real racism that matters go look at Nancy Pelosi screaming “go back to China” at protesters or Genocide Joe and Trump supporting genocide in Israel.
even if he is racist no one should give a fuck because he is a comedian making jokes.Wat
Jesus Kristofferson, how did THIS get un-greyed??
This is an unhinged take.
The Shane Gillis fanbase shows up to remind us what the issue is.
lol If only I could be a good person like you and blindly support Genocide Joe and Obama as they help Israel slaughter Palestinians.
Back when he was being as racist as anything over on The Root under his older names, he was certainly making sure we knew what the issue was.
Pretending to care about Palestinians from the right of Biden is a fucking hilarious joke. This is not a position from the left of center.
Maybe Al Franken will cameo in the episode, to deal the finishing blow to the most insufferable people on the internet.
Gillis is (outside of Chappelle, Louie and perhaps, sometimes, still Burr) easily the funniest and best stand up working today. His Trump is also absolutely amazing and much funnier than anything SNL have ever done with him. The idea Bowen and Sarah will have to throw a shit-fit every time someone more successful than them who they don’t like might show up on SNL suggests they’re really not cut out for the business.
Tell us you’re an incel without telling us you’re an incel.
Tell us you’re a faggot without telling us you’re a faggot. easy isn’t it?
Dang, with retorts like that, you’re really selling me on Shane Gillis!
You’re going to have to do way better than a comment on the AV Club to get them to run a train on you.
LOL good one, faggot.
it’s always the funniest when people like a comedian for being ‘the best’ and not for being funny.
The hell does that even mean? “The best” comedian would be the funniest, and yes, Shane Gillis is very funny.
The best automatically implies the funniest, stupid. Who do you think is funny?
Very specific list. Seems like you choose comics based on one trait.I feel so owned by your edginess………Did you finish? I could pretend to be offended a little longer if it’ll get you off.
The fact you even bothered to reply proves you’re offended you absolutely cocksucker. Eat a bullet.
Not to jump to conclusions, but you appear to only find terrible people funny. I wonder what that says about you.
Who do you find funny then, stupid? Let’s hear your list?
Don’t engage with this trash man. Just open their post history, it’s clear they are lonely trolls looking for attention. Dismiss and move on
Good point. He’s really got a super convincing blackfish thing going on.
But did he fuck you? Did he fuck you yet?
So this guy has been trending hard on shorts. Enjoy his perspective but can’t enjoy his choice of words. I’m all for dropping MF and whatever really, using the language he does for no effect. A positive story about his down syndrome uncle also calls him retarded for example. Unfortunately for Shane he’s seeming to be cashing in on the new hot white nationalism movement.
I mentioned the Podcast Cringe videos in another comment and yours reminded me of why I had a generally positive impression of him from them. They were discussing how he defended people with Down Syndrome and was visibly upset and took Andrew Schultz to task on his show for demeaning them. The video, at least that I recall, conveniently left out him using slurs as part of his comedy.Those videos definitely portray him as a decent guy, and I guess maybe he is on the Rogan Bro scale.
Not hard to seem like a decent guy in that pack, I’m astonished that people like Andrew Schultz and Brendan Schaub have a comedy career outside of one of those Fox News shows where they have, say, some has been like Rob Schneider giving their “witty” takes on the politics of the day. Actually, those guys make Rob Schneider seem almost funny.
His brother has Down’s Syndrome, I belive. I’m not saying he’s a bad guy because of this. Being a good brother is good. Good work Shane!But… that’s something that impacts HIM personally. In general, the shorts I’ve been force fed don’t give the indication he often/always gives the same care to types of people he’s not related to.
lmao what in the fuck would saying the word retard even have to do with white nationalism? you morons can’t even keep your reason for getting a hate boner straight.
I don’t really care if someone said f*ggot on some rando podcast six years ago, unless they’re an openly hateful religious nut or whatever. (I’m gay don’t yell at me.) Sounds like his use of Chinese slurs was similar to the #CancelColbert brouhaha in that it sounds wayyy worse out of context than it actually was, though I haven’t listened to the clip. In any case, the dude’s a lib; he jokes about conservatives and Trump all the time.
Weird how liberals have no problem calling out intolerance from other liberals.Much like how it’s weird that you demand we assume this is better in context while also not being bothered to check the context yourself.
Well to be fair I doubt everybody else here personally listened to the clips before broadcasting their takes either. But yeah I could be wrong about the slurs, don’t quote me on that. It’s just the impression I got from reading summaries.To be clear I just mean I doubt Gillis is the racist asshole the quotes make him sound like—that doesn’t mean his jokes weren’t unacceptable.
I’ve seen his standup. It has funny bits but definitely targets grown up frat boys. He makes a ton of appearances on podcasts that barstool enthusiasts would like. Podcasts where a bunch of rich white guys whine about not being able to say what they want due to fear of getting cancelled to an audience of millions.
I don’t know, israel/gaza discourse kind of exposed “do as i say, not as i do” from plenty of far-left spheres. Example: you don’t get to decide what’s offensive to other people: “the term ‘thug’ has been used by bigots with racial connotation so any use of the word means you’re also a bigot”, “you need to ignore that that phrase’s origin concerns wiping a religion off the face of the earth and only look at how i’m currently using it and not be offended”
“I don’t know, israel/gaza discourse kind of exposed “do as i say, not as i do” from plenty of far-left spheres.”How so? How many “far-left” people are saying all Jews should be eradicated, the way Israeli’s are saying that about PAlestinians?
I assume they’re referring to the popular “from the river to the sea” slogan—most Westerners who say it have no idea what it means, of course (one survey showed that a large majority of pro-Palestine college students reverse their position on the slogan once they’re actually shown said river and sea on a map). But I think OP’s point is that we extend a lot more leeway to well-meaning but uninformed usage of that slogan than we do for terms with (alleged) right-wing etymologies/connotations.
“one survey showed that a large majority of pro-Palestine college
students reverse their position on the slogan once they’re actually
shown said river and sea on a map”This is… a lie.
I’d love to see that survey because the slogan is 100% accurate and exactly what should happen.
It’s from a Wall Street Journal story “From Which River to Which Sea?” (paywalled, but there are summaries). Most respondents didn’t realize the slogan wasn’t originally intended to refer to a two-state solution or a peaceful one-state solution, but to the destruction and replacement of Israel and its Jewish residents by Palestine. I think it’s pretty safe to assume that you and most other users of the slogan aren’t actually genocidal, which is why I think it’s dumb when Republicans make silly claims like “most college students are Nazis now”. But OP’s point (I think) is that even though e.g. the Anti-Defamation League has said the slogan is “antisemitic”, “hateful”, and makes Jews feel “unsafe and ostracized”, we on the left are (generally) much more permissive of it than we are with other stuff. Usually, when a minority activist group says a word/phrase makes their members feel unsafe, we listen to them, regardless of whether we agree with their reasoning.
I’ve seen more liberals go into denial/deflection mode than call out their own. Pulling trump-stuff like “that one person at the protest showing a swastika or saying blatant bigoted stuff was a plant by our enemies to make us look bad” instead of some sort of acknowledgement or introspection that an element of that exists in their fold.
But those people aren’t leftists lol they’re just anti-Jewish and doing “enemy of my enemy” type shit. The difference is leftists don’t see Jews as the enemy, just Zionists. Nazis just think all Jews ARE Zionists. You won’t find a single leftist who believes that lol
I mean, just because you’re a liberal, you joke about Trump and conservative doesn’t mean you’re not a d-bag who has a lot of not-okay language and worst of all, aren’t that funny. Liberals, shockingly, can be unfunny bros who love Joe Rogan and still be sexist/homophobic, etc….The guy still uses slurs, the guy still makes tons of lazy jokes. Just listen to five minutes of his Netflix stand-up.
Grow up, you fucking baby. Offensive language? He’s a comedian. What are you, five years old?
Oh yeah don’t get me wrong, it was offensive either way—don’t mean to imply he said nothing wrong.
I mean, Caitlyn Jenner is a trans woman that’s perfectly fine with lots of vile transphobia, so…Also, super cute that you’ve assessed the racist thing he said wasn’t THAT racist in context even though you’ve like never heard it
If you’re gay, aren’t you allowed to say it?
Ah yes, South Park rules.
“He jokes about conservatives and Trump all the time”This is how broken liberal ideology is. No values; only labels. Fuck off.
Uh, what universe do you live in? All those descriptors are a 100% accurate summary of modern Trump loving conservatives. Fuck off.
like his use of Chinese slurs was similar to the #CancelColbert brouhaha in that it sounds wayyy worse out of context than it actually wasThere’s a super-cut of Stephen Colbert pulling the sides of his eyelids doing a racist Asian accent over several years that begs to differ and got his show canceled.
But you live in your world, boo.
I know nothing on Shane Gillis, or whatever context there is or isn’t for whatever it is he said. But Colbert, I did see. It was the Colbert Report, where he played a satirical conservative talk show host. The entire point was that he was portraying an obnoxious, clueless, conservative arsehole/TV personality.I mean, there’s lots of room for discussion over whether portraying racism as a joke against racists is acceptable. Definitely seen some of this type of humour and thought to myself ‘yep, this is cover for you to get away with saying racist shit’. In Colbert’s case, I think it really was just part of skewering casual conservative racism and using it as a punchline to undercut the character. I do think they (the writers/Colbert) purposefully chose racism against Asian people because they considered that safer than other minorities (maybe believing racism against Asian people specifically was more uncommon/ridiculous than against others), but who knows.In hindsight, probably an ill advised bit, that missed as often as it hit. But not as bad as portrayed (imho).
It was bad, perhaps, but “got his show cancelled”? Nah, that’s giving that hashtag way too much credit. Colbert announced he’d got the Late Show gig maybe a couple of weeks or so after #CancelColbert blew up, and those negotiations were almost certainly happening for weeks if not months beforehand. The Colbert Report was almost certainly winding up with or without Suey Park.
Its the ongoing rend that ‘if you ARE one, you can use the SLUR’. I don’t particularly like that rhetoric but there we are. (fyi, this is not a direct criticism of ‘good cop’, just a generalization of what I see.) Basically a minority group gets to cancel things they don’t like, and perhaps there are folks that might enjoy some twisted humor in the privacy of their home. What’s wrong with that?
Shane Gillis certainly leans right, and comes from a Fox News/Trump-loving family. He basically makes fun of both sides and has fun with it. I think his standup is sort of an interesting sort of window into rightwing culture
“Since then, Gillis has continued to work steadily as a comedian”This is also known as ‘being canceled’.
So, the guy got fired from many young comedians’ dream job. This was in response to a public outcry arising from hist racist comments on a podcast, and a portion of the comedy audience effectively disavowed him and continues to do so as seen in the current blowback to his being offered a hosting gig.That loss of (some) opportunities and (some) audience members is obviously something, no? That’s being canceled. I hate this griping about the word — it is the laziest sort of arguing semantics while not risking any sort of actual discussion. Yes, “canceled” has entered the lexicon with this meaning, and no amount of “cAnCeL cUlTuRe Is A mYtH” or “iT’s CaLlEd CoNsEqUeNcE cUlTuRe” is going to suddenly morph into a point worth discussing about the practice’s merits or drawbacks.
For the record, at the time, I thought he should have been fired! I have no interest in watching his SNL and will probably skip. But let’s not please not pretend that just because he was able to maintain a career among a different audience that he didn’t face (justified) professional consequences, and let’s not pretend that “cancel” isn’t widely used to refer to that phenomenon.
That loss of (some) opportunities and (some) audience members is obviously something, no? That’s being canceled. I hate this griping about the word — it is the laziest sort of arguing semantics while not risking any sort of actual discussion. Yes, “canceled” has entered the lexicon with this meaning, and no amount of “cAnCeL cUlTuRe Is A mYtH” or “iT’s CaLlEd CoNsEqUeNcE cUlTuRe” is going to suddenly morph into a point worth discussing about the practice’s merits or drawbacks.Just because something has entered the cultural lexicon doesn’t automatically raise it above criticism for linguistic misuse.
Cancel culture isn’t a thing. Capitalism is a thing. What is “cancel culture” is merely the highest functioning of a capitalist society with free speech. Why do I say this? Because the people doing the hiring, the firing, the watching and not watching are voting with their time and their dollars, and utilizing all facets of free speech available to them without concern for government intrusion or diktat. NBC and SNL decided that Shane wasn’t a wise investment at the time, so they canned him. Some potential audiences members and fans/would-be fans decided they didn’t want to be consumers of his product, so they stopped supporting him. That is the very essence of capitalism.
If you want to go to a society where there is no cancel culture, go to one where you have an autocracy. In those societies, you have no voice, you can’t vote with your currency, and the whims of the autocrat are the end-all be-all. If he/she/they command you to partake in a specific activity, you have no choice but to obey. If he/she/they command you to spend your money on certain goods and services, you have no choice but to obey. There is no cancelling to be done because you have no say in the matter to begin with.
It’s not a semantic argument at all, because cancel has clear meanings, and more importantly, “culture” has clear meanings, specifically in the context of its use with cancel. To say that something is emblematic of cancel culture is to imply that the not only is it a relatively new phenomenon, but that the opposite existed some time prior. Why? Because why create a new term for an already-extant phenomenon that otherwise required no specific denoting? To people who use the term, the question posed to them should automatically be, “When, if ever, did the opposite of what you consider to be cancel culture exist?” specific to the country they’re in. Certainly can’t be the USA, when you consider that people such as Lenny Bruce and Jim Morrison were convicted of obscenity in the 60s, or the rise of Tipper Gore and the PRMC in the 1980s, or the Supreme Court trial of 2 Live Crew in the 1990s. Let’s not forget the complete exclusion of non-white performers from many, if not most, forms of common media for well over a century.
It’s no different than questioning people who wax rhapsodic about the “good’ol days” or “American values” of some period of time prior to say the 1970s/1980s. Yet when you question them, the common retort is, “You know what I mean”. No, I don’t, because those phrases are both nebulous enough to essentially mean nothing, or quite specific depending on the person uttering them, to contribute absolutely nothing of value to the conversation without further inquiry.
People refusing to push back and articulate why the phrase is nonsensical on almost every level is why we’ve gotten to the point where people use it so casually in discourse.
This should be the response to every comedian or comic fan that complains about ‘not being able to say anything now’. Like it’s an inalienable right to be a successful stand up or something. Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Yup. I think Seth Meyers said it best when he pointed out that you’re free to say whatever you want and do any kind of comedy you want. If you support that, why wouldn’t you want the audience to be able to react any way they want? If you’re trying to be “edgy” and get a reaction out of people, and you got one — then what are you complaining about?
Cancel culture certainly is a thing, in particular in academia, where they have actual response teams for bias. Tenured professors have been fired for having the wrong opinion. That’s not capitalism at work, that’s a direct assault on academic freedom.I’ll refer you to the book The Cancellation of the American Mind. It documents that staggering rise in academic deplatformings, firings, riots, censorship, and the massive growth of the DEI bureaucracy. It’s mind-boggling.
What you call “cancel culture” is in reality, people exercising their free speech. You know, the thing you claim to love while also yelling in all caps you want to take it from people? Or did you not grasp the point being made in the comment?
No. I’m talking about tenured professors being fired, students reporting “microaggressions” (debunked horseshit: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/202206/the-problem-research-microaggressions), deplatforming via the Heckler’s Veto, which is a violation of free speech: Professors and students reporting self-censorship, and massive bureaucracies dedicated to policing speech/enforcing speech codes.But we both know you are divorced from reality and won’t recognize this phenomenon. I’d recommend a book but you won’t read it/look into it.Oh, and you tried to pass off self-reporting bullshit opinion pieces as “studies”, so you’ve got three fingers pointed back at you.Get a life, fucking psycho stalker.
Being heckled is fucking free speech. No one owes you a platform. No one owes you much of anything if they do not like you or what you stand for. that is free speech.
But we’ve established you don’t actually like free speech.
“Oh, and you tried to pass off self-reporting bullshit opinion pieces as “studies””
They were actual scientific studies. Sorry you can’t deal with that fact. You are the one who passed an ARTICLE that was an actually opinion piece off as a study.
No, it’s fucking not, I just had the former head of the ACLU explain it to you like you’re 4. People speaking on public universities have freedom of speech, and you violate their rights when you shut them down. If a speaker is invited to a public university, their speech is protected. How can you not grasp that after watching the video? Oh, right, you didn’t watch it. You don’t need to.
LOL your video mentions SCOTUS saying the gov can’t do it! It’s perfectly legal to heckle someone otherwise. YOU DON’T UCKING UNDERSTAND THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND NEVER DID.
“ If a speaker is invited to a public university, their speech is protected.”
I grasp that it is protected. FROM THE GOVERNMENT, YOU IDIOT.
Yeah, I’ll stick with the former head of the ACLU straight up, plainly saying you cannot do that as it violates the speaker’s rights. I suppose it’s a matter of opinion, so I’ll stick with her, not you, you illiberal progressive fucking hack.
We can start with this and keep going if you want to get schooled in yet another subject. “When someone exercises their First Amendment right to free speech, the government is not allowed to shut down the speech just because other people don’t like the message that is being conveyed. This is known as the rule against a “heckler’s veto.” https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/hecklers-veto“A heckler’s veto occurs when the government accepts restrictions on speech because of the anticipated or actual reactions of opponents of the speechAlthough some scholars make reference to a string of heckler’s veto cases, the idea appears across a wide range of cases in First Amendment law as a label critical for any claim, made in defense of the government’s suppression, that speech inciting hostile reactions may be restrained.A heckler’s veto “doctrine” has sometimes been articulated as the principle that the Constitution requires the government to control the crowd in order to defend the communication of ideas, rather than to suppress the speech.”https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/hecklers-veto/The legal issues come when the government shuts down the speech because they are worried about people being upset. It’s not illegal for people to be upset and shout you down.
What fucking video did you watch? If anyone is invited to speak on a public campus, their speech is protected. You cannot shout down speakers and deplatform them. The head of the ACLU straight up says that students cannot do that. You think you can show up and violate someone’s first amendment rights? No. We live in a fucking society. The rest of you gibberish does not apply. Get a fucking life.
You say I don’t watch and read things to feel better about being a loser. Lying just makes you more of one though.
Yes, their speech is protected. FROM THE GOVERNMENT. You do not a first amendment right from other people there. The GOVERNMENT cannot shut them down because people are upset.
Like I said, I can provide you plenty more sources that detail how the Heckler’s Veto is when the government shuts things down. I will, you won’t read them because you are the one who doesn’t even read your own links. I’ve shown that multiple times.
From the Video:FORMER HEAD OF ACLUThere has been so much publicity lately about incidents on college campuses. where speakers are shouted down, shut down, violently disrupted. Do they have the right to be protected from these kinds of shout downs, which are called the heckler’s veto.My name is Nadine Stossen. I am a professor of constitutional law at New York Law School and the former head of the American Civil Liberties Union.Do you have the right to engage in a heckler’s veto and to stop somebody whose ideas you hate from expressing those ideas?The answer to that question is no. The heckler’s veto violates the speaker’s First Amendment free speech rights. The so-called “heckler’s veto” also violates the First Amendment rights of audience members who want to hear that unpopular message.EAT SHIT, FORWARD ANY MORE COMMENTS TO PROFESSOR STOSSEN.
I’m aware of what the video says. It’s still not illegal to heckle a speaker. It’s illegal for the government to shut down a speaker because of the crowd.
Let me know when you can cite ONE fucking case that shows it was illegal to heckle. You can’t because you are wrong.
“[2.] “Heckler’s veto” could also refer to a more direct form of suppression: Again to quote Black’s Law Dictionary, “An interruptive or disruptive act by a private person intending to prevent a speaker from being heard, such as shouting down the speaker, hurling personal insults, and carrying on loud side-conversations.” (See, e.g., Harcz v. Boucher (W.D. Mich. 2021).)Such a heckler’s veto doesn’t itself violate the First Amendment, because it involves solely nongovernmental action (e.g., shouting down a speaker).”https://reason.com/volokh/2022/03/25/hecklers-veto-two-related-meanings/
Here ya go! Get a fucking life!https://www.thefire.org/news/unc-rejects-hecklers-veto
And? What were their actions? Where is the case? What was the outcome?
Show me where a court case determined what you are saying. Showing me a news article that 6 people got arrested doesn’t show a CASE dummy.
Go fuck yourself! You said to show you they got arrested, I did, eat shit, get a fucking life. Use the article to find that shit if you want, I’m done, you lose, fuck you, get a life.
At no point did I say to show me someone was arrested, I said show me a CASE. Why do you fucking lie so much?
What their actions actually were and the outcomes of the cases, matter. Nor is disorderly conduct a first amendment violation. lol.
Run all you want. I’m not going anywhere. Hope you got that new account lined up!
It is a fucking case. It’s a literal case of being arrested for heckling. I don’t know the criminal code, but I’m sure “heckling” isn’t a separate crime. What’s wrong with being arrested for disorderly conduct for heckling a speaker? What would you have them charged with. You’re the one with excuses. I gave you exactly what you fucking wanted. I don’t have fucking time to track down the fucking case number for you, what, are your fucking fingers broken.You’re just embarrassed. You should be. You are wrong about the Heckler’s Veto being free speech per the ACLU, and I showed you a fucking case. Eat shit, get a fucking life already.
An arrest is not a court case, get a fucking dictionary.
“What’s wrong with being arrested for disorderly conduct for heckling a speaker?”
Is that what even happened? You can’t show that, that’s why you need a case. Again, what actions actually led to the arrest? Speaking out of turn? Or not leaving the venue when asked?
You did not give me what I asked for, you are making excuses to ignore what words mean AGAIN. This is what you do, twist what people say and what things mean. Because you are a dishonest piece of shit.
Your the one who gets embarrassed and runs off to another account, remember? So much projection from righties like you! LOL. We’ll see who’s the embarrassed quitter like we did last time.
Keep pretending I didn’t give you several sources explaining that it’s not illegal to heckle people while you cry into your pillow.
Fucking google it. I gave you a fucking case of heckler’s being arrested for disrupting free speech. Eat shit, google it, I’m busy, get a fucking life.
You still didn’t give me a case, you gave me an arrest. Stop making excuses like a little bitch and prove what you say. You fucking can’t and you know it.
I get it though, you confuse opinion pieces with scientific studies so the difference between a court case and an arrest is probably a lot for you. Maybe you should use that Google!
That was you, numbtits, trying to pass off self-reported opinion bullshit as Harvard studies. And what’s the fucking difference? Are you saying this didn’t happen? You want the case number? How the fuck would you suggest I find that? This. Is. A. Case. Of. Hecklers. Being. Arrested. This is just more of your autistic squirming bullshit. You know this happened. You know there was a case. Get fucked, get a life.
Anything I said was a study, was a study. I did also post an article from Harvard, that I didn’t claim was a study, that did discuss two studies.
WHY DO YOU FUCKIGN LIE SO MUCH?
How much clearer do I need to be retard? Why is English so hard for you? the details matter because how do we know the courts found the arrests legitimate? What actions did they take that led to the actual arrest? Was it speaking or was it refusing to leave the venue when asked?
A CASE is a COURT CASE. That is not an arrest. You refuse to even accept the basic meaning of words, you are so hell bent on lying about everything.
Me squirming? You are the one who squired away to a new account…..
Me squirming? You are the one who squired away to a new account…..
Did those things not exist before the creation of the term? I’m absolutely certain they did. Hence, the term has no value.
Further, what you’re describing is again a phenomenon that can purely be explained by capitalistic impulses mixed with clearly understood human psychology. Colleges and universities are, in this day and age, businesses. The people involved, regardless of their academic leanings and standings, and those outside of the purely academic side of things, are making their way in a capitalist society to the absolute best of their abilities given the structures at play. Those are structures that they themselves have built, supported, and voluntarily entered into.
It’s frankly naive to separate the academic system from the capitalist system, which is what you’ve appeared to do (or at least attempt to do). If a teacher is fired for having the wrong opinion, the questions that must be asked is why is there a structure (or structures) in place where the teacher getting fired is necessarily an impediment to the sharing of their opinion, why is that opinion seen as beyond the pale to the point of warranting a firing, and in a more historical sense, where is the conflict between the internal, intellectual sense of academic freedom (I can think for myself and pursue knowledge irrespective of those opposed to me) and the external, structural sense of academic freedom in regards to academia (I can think for myself, yet the best way to do so is within the confines of academia, with the advantages and disadvantages those confines bring).
Again, people hold up universities as these long-standing bastions of academic freedom and discourse, yet people are quick to reference periods of time where those very same universities often excluded significant portions of the population, often for factors completely unrelated to academics or the freedom of intellectual thought and discourse (namely, race/ethnicity, gender, religion, nationality, and financial capacity). It’s rather easy to maintain the free-flowing of ideas when the makeup of your academic establishment is homogenous by every demographic measure, and not only that, you can maintain that homogeneity in spite of the obvious selection biases it will lead to down the line.
Further, the idea that cancel culture, presuming it exists, is intrinsically stifling to free speech doesn’t seem to hold water. If you want free speech, must you not accept the good with the bad? The praise with the condemnation? The support with the opposition? If the issue is solely that the opposition is often louder, more discordant, not intellectually sound and reasoned, and usually from a minority of the given population group who actively cares about whatever is going on, then you’re merely criticizing opposition you don’t intellectually respect, not something that is either fundamental, innate, or a new development that poses a threat to intellectual freedom and discourse.
The reality is that human beings are natural risk-averse and more sensitive to perceived or real negative outcomes. Thus, we tend to recoil when we here about this professor being fired, or this comedian getting booted from a show, or this Youtuber losing a sponsorship. However, are we not holding those people in esteem for reasons completely outside of the what they do, or the actual value of what they provide relative to the existence of all other people in those respective areas. Is it completely outside the realm of possibility that those fired professors end up teaching at one of the many other institutions, or that the comedian books a different comedy club, or the Youtuber picks up another sponsor?
The big irony (if not hypocrisy) that I find in many of the claims is that while they bemoan the ubiquity of liberal-leaning and outright far-left ideals in the various vessels of academia, they don’t actually want the free speech they espouse. They instead want to supplant liberal academia with conservative academia. It again is naive to think that these people who bemoan DEI initiatives and personal statements and affirmative action wouldn’t, if given the chance, tilt the paradigm to initiatives that would increase the uptake of conservative-leaning, mostly middle and upper-middle class white males in those very same vessels of academia.
Reading from a few excerpts of the book you mentioned, I see constant mentions of nonconformity in reference to intellectual freedom. The issue is that pursuing absolutely nonconformity will inevitably lead to conformity, because at the end of the day, certain things will be socioculturally and intellectual filtered out regardless of the rhapsodic waxing about unabridged free speech. Would these same warriors for free speech be eager to have a Neo-Nazi club on campus? What about a professor who is avowedly racist in both their writings and teachings? What about a psychology professor who makes a psychological argument that ephebophilia is a completely natural phenomenon, and legal impositions against the sexual expression of such feelings are needlessly punitive and medically off-base? Of course they wouldn’t (and we’ve already seen how quickly they were to want to limit free speech in the after of Oct. 7th).
Their facade is made even more flimsy when they present their argument in the pure guise of politics. Why would it matter if you’re labeled as “right-wing”? Unless you yourself believe that being right-wing is inherently a bad thing, being labeled as one, even erroneously, shouldn’t matter. If you’re such a fighter for your own academic freedom and intellectual fortitude, why limit yourself to the constraints of an academia structure that you already believe is going to screw you over? In my opinion, it reads as sour grapes from people who want to be included in a club that they, in the same breath, claim to not respect if not outright despise. The thing about academic freedom (and any freedom, for that matter) is that you will inevitably run up against people and entities who are opposed to what you think, how you feel, the ideas you’re a proponent of, and even your very existence. It’s the nature of humanity at work merely focused in a rather narrow area that gets increasingly narrower the higher up the ladder you go. To attempt to guarantee pure academic freedom is akin to guaranteeing that no speech will result in the hurt feelings or true distress of another person: it simply won’t happen. So long as freedom of speech and expression can manifest into being put in uncomfortable situations, implied if not explicit litmus tests, upto and including deplatforming and firings, I feel you must accept the good with the bad. If you say they shouldn’t manifest themselves to those outcomes, you then have to state why you’d limit that speech and that expression if you also advocate for free speech and free expression when it doesn’t result in those people, entities, and ideas you’re in favor of getting the boot.
Did those things not exist before the creation of the term? I’m absolutely certain they did. Hence, the term has no value.
Further, what you’re describing is again a phenomenon that can purely be explained by capitalistic impulses mixed with clearly understood human psychology. Colleges and universities are, in this day and age, businesses. The people involved, regardless of their academic leanings and standings, and those outside of the purely academic side of things, are making their way in a capitalist society to the absolute best of their abilities given the structures at play. Those are structures that they themselves have built, supported, and voluntarily entered into.
It’s frankly naive to separate the academic system from the capitalist system, which is what you’ve appeared to do (or at least attempt to do). If a teacher is fired for having the wrong opinion, the questions that must be asked is why is there a structure (or structures) in place where the teacher getting fired is necessarily an impediment to the sharing of their opinion, why is that opinion seen as beyond the pale to the point of warranting a firing, and in a more historical sense, where is the conflict between the internal, intellectual sense of academic freedom (I can think for myself and pursue knowledge irrespective of those opposed to me) and the external, structural sense of academic freedom in regards to academia (I can think for myself, yet the best way to do so is within the confines of academia, with the advantages and disadvantages those confines bring).
Again, people hold up universities as these long-standing bastions of academic freedom and discourse, yet people are quick to reference periods of time where those very same universities often excluded significant portions of the population, often for factors completely unrelated to academics or the freedom of intellectual thought and discourse (namely, race/ethnicity, gender, religion, nationality, and financial capacity). It’s rather easy to maintain the free-flowing of ideas when the makeup of your academic establishment is homogenous by every demographic measure, and not only that, you can maintain that homogeneity in spite of the obvious selection biases it will lead to down the line.
Further, the idea that cancel culture, presuming it exists, is intrinsically stifling to free speech doesn’t seem to hold water. If you want free speech, must you not accept the good with the bad? The praise with the condemnation? The support with the opposition? If the issue is solely that the opposition is often louder, more discordant, not intellectually sound and reasoned, and usually from a minority of the given population group who actively cares about whatever is going on, then you’re merely criticizing opposition you don’t intellectually respect, not something that is either fundamental, innate, or a new development that poses a threat to intellectual freedom and discourse.
The reality is that human beings are natural risk-averse and more sensitive to perceived or real negative outcomes. Thus, we tend to recoil when we here about this professor being fired, or this comedian getting booted from a show, or this Youtuber losing a sponsorship. However, are we not holding those people in esteem for reasons completely outside of the what they do, or the actual value of what they provide relative to the existence of all other people in those respective areas. Is it completely outside the realm of possibility that those fired professors end up teaching at one of the many other institutions, or that the comedian books a different comedy club, or the Youtuber picks up another sponsor?
The big irony (if not hypocrisy) that I find in many of the claims is that while they bemoan the ubiquity of liberal-leaning and outright far-left ideals in the various vessels of academia, they don’t actually want the free speech they espouse. They instead want to supplant liberal academia with conservative academia. It again is naive to think that these people who bemoan DEI initiatives and personal statements and affirmative action wouldn’t, if given the chance, tilt the paradigm to initiatives that would increase the uptake of conservative-leaning, mostly middle and upper-middle class white males in those very same vessels of academia.
Reading from a few excerpts of the book you mentioned, I see constant mentions of nonconformity in reference to intellectual freedom. The issue is that pursuing absolutely nonconformity will inevitably lead to conformity, because at the end of the day, certain things will be socioculturally and intellectual filtered out regardless of the rhapsodic waxing about unabridged free speech. Would these same warriors for free speech be eager to have a Neo-Nazi club on campus? What about a professor who is avowedly racist in both their writings and teachings? What about a psychology professor who makes a psychological argument that ephebophilia is a completely natural phenomenon, and legal impositions against the sexual expression of such feelings are needlessly punitive and medically off-base? Of course they wouldn’t (and we’ve already seen how quickly they were to want to limit free speech in the after of Oct. 7th).
Their facade is made even more flimsy when they present their argument in the pure guise of politics. Why would it matter if you’re labeled as “right-wing”? Unless you yourself believe that being right-wing is inherently a bad thing, being labeled as one, even erroneously, shouldn’t matter. If you’re such a fighter for your own academic freedom and intellectual fortitude, why limit yourself to the constraints of an academia structure that you already believe is going to screw you over? In my opinion, it reads as sour grapes from people who want to be included in a club that they, in the same breath, claim to not respect if not outright despise. The thing about academic freedom (and any freedom, for that matter) is that you will inevitably run up against people and entities who are opposed to what you think, how you feel, the ideas you’re a proponent of, and even your very existence. It’s the nature of humanity at work merely focused in a rather narrow area that gets increasingly narrower the higher up the ladder you go. To attempt to guarantee pure academic freedom is akin to guaranteeing that no speech will result in the hurt feelings or true distress of another person: it simply won’t happen. So long as freedom of speech and expression can manifest into being put in uncomfortable situations, implied if not explicit litmus tests, upto and including deplatforming and firings, I feel you must accept the good with the bad. If you say they shouldn’t manifest themselves to those outcomes, you then have to state why you’d limit that speech and that expression if you also advocate for free speech and free expression when it doesn’t result in those people, entities, and ideas you’re in favor of getting the boot.
First of all, TLDR for the most part.And no, I do not want to supplant conservative speech for liberal speech. I want a return to liberal speech values on campus. Again, I recommend the book The Cancellation of the American Mind for its nightmarish documentation of the enormity of the problem on campus.Yes, schools are a business. Are we to allow every whim of the illiberal students because we view them as customers? No. They are there to learn how to think. These places aren’t Burger King; you can’t have it your way.At Yale, there was an utter meltdown over an email in which a professor said, you know what, let’s trust the young adults to chose their own Halloween costumes. The professor’s husband, a world-renowned educator was mobbed by students. The professor said that Yale was an intellectual space, not a home. A student shrieked, “No! It is not about creating an intellectual space! This is supposed to be our home here!”So A) complete anti-intellectualism on the students behalf and B) this is what we get when we treat students as customers. What possible use is Yale for such a student? Yale is not mom’s house.And no, the scale of the problem didn’t exist before the use of the term. Again, I refer to the book I mentioned.
“First of all, TLDR for the most part.”
If you refuse to look at evidence you already lost, remember?
“I want a return to liberal speech values on campus.”
Oh and when was that EXACTLY?
“Yes, schools are a business. Are we to allow every whim of the illiberal students because we view them as customers? No.”
I mean, you clearly don’t want to care for them like they are customers because they don’t share your values, that doesn’t make your position reasonable.
“What possible use is Yale for such a student?”
LOL That’s not for you to decide, asshole.
“ the scale of the problem didn’t exist before the use of the term.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Yeah, just ignore history. Idiot. You only think the issues YOU think are issues fucking matter. Your entire fucking life is wrapped up railing against these idea like they personally fucking hurt you. It’s pathetic.
I read the book. The numbers are clear. The problem fucking exploded since 2014. I suppose you’d have to read the book or at least look it up, but we both know you don’t do that.Yale students should be there to fucking learn. It’s not about making a “home.” It’s not a home. Mommy isn’t there to do the laundry. Have you seen video of this incident? Please explain what use this is to Yale students, cunt:Are these reasonable “customers”, you illiberal cunt?
Oh you read a fucking book, well that just proves everything you say! It’s not like anyone who ever wrote a book was biased or wrong!
What you want to call cancel culture is the free market of ideas and you are a crying baby when your ideas are not liked. No one has to like you or want you around.
Yale students are learning. You don’t like any of it but tough tities, no one cares if you like it. And if they live on campus that is their home dummy.
I’m not fucking Yale, so it’s not my place to say what use anything is to them, just like it’s not your fucking place either asshole.
The book documents 807 cases in 2015, which increased to 1,530 cases in 2020. Can you do math? Do you believe math? Do you believe in math?Get. A. Fucking. Life.
Oh wow a whole 5 year period! The point being made to you is that this isn’t a new thing and doesn’t need a new name. It’s the same marketplace of ideas.
The book looks back to 1984, you dumb cunt. And if a doubling of incidents in five years isn’t an increase and amplification of the phenomenon, what is it, you dumb cunt?You could, you know, GOOGLE THE FUCKING BOOK. But no, you refuse to look past your crusted navel.Get a fucking life!
At what point did I say there was zero impact dipshit? Again: The point being made to you is that this isn’t a new thing and doesn’t need a new name. It’s the same marketplace of ideas.
You do know it’s not a literal fucking marketplace right? What’s new is that it’s coming from the fucking left, at the same schools they used to defend free speech at. See UCLA in the 60s v. UCLA and Milo Yiowhateverhisname is. That tells the whole tale.Fuck you, get a life!
I’m sorry you have issues with the term marketplace of ideas. Being stupid as hell is rough for you.
If your idea can’t compete, get a better one. This isn’t new.
“I’m for the free exhcange of ideas, but I won’t even read your ideas”Dude, the only person you’re fooling is yourself.
It was too long to read at work.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well you are just chock full of excuses not to look at the evidence while you condemn others because you imagine they don’t look at the evidence. Epic hypocrisy on your part yet again. Going to go back to the guilt by association well again?
You are such a fucking loser.
Yes, I’m fooling myself that I’m defending free speech…as I defend free speech, but freely admit I can’t read that gish gallop at work, suck my ass, illiberal retard.
I think the real point is that you were fooling yourself if you think you are IN FAVOR OF THE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS, when you won’t even read what someone replies to you. Not to mention, again, the immense hypocrisy on your part.
Are you only on this site at work? Did you work all weekend? Are you working at all hours of the day and night? You have time and you probably even read it. Then made excuses when you couldn’t counter any of it. Pathetic.
You do not defend free speech, you all caps yell you want to take it from people. You are not a liberal.
I totally support that dude’s right to speak his ass off, but did you see that diatribe? I do not have time to read that shit right now. That isn’t hypocrisy, you idiot cunt. I support his rights, he’s just a blowhard. Eat shit, get a fucking life, stalker cunt.
You are a loser making excuses and being a hypocrite. It’s what you always do.
You have plenty of time to shit post and no one said you had to read it any any specific point. Yet here you are making excuses. Yes, it is hypocrisy for you to invent that other people don’t read your links and then make excuses not to read someone’s reply.
“he’s just a blowhard. ”
Your projection is stronger than most righties, congrats. He made thoughtful arguments appropriate to the discussion without being rude or insulting.
blow·harda person who blusters and boasts in an unpleasant way.
Sounds more like you and your immediate need to tell someone to suck ass.
You’re a delusional stalker cunt, who was wrong about the Heckler’s veto and about people being arrested for it, making autistic excuses. It takes me ten fucking seconds for me to respond, and I did so to his salient points. Eat shit, get a life, stalker cunt.
I’ve got plenty of sources saying otherwise while you have nothing but excuses and lies.
Stop being such a pathetic loser already.
I’ll stick with the ACLU, thank you. They’ve made plenty of enemies defending all kinds of speech, including current social justice retards who you fucking know are against free speech. I’ve already demonstrated that at fucking length, in their own words, you fucking loser stalker cunt with no fucking life. I’m busy, go fuck yourself.
The one that did say it’s illegal and never sued anyone over it and who also said you were wrong in the source I provided?
LOL you are clinging to your fantasies and conspiracies. I’m going to go with actually case law, since that’s what actually matters.
Keep being a loser playing pretend though! I never get tired of pointing out that you are one!
“ who you fucking know are against free speech. I’ve already demonstrated that at fucking length, in their own words”
No that was you screaming in all caps that you wanted to take people’s rights away. You are so fucking delusional.
You never seem too busy to shit post all you want!
What the fuck are you talking about? Whose fucking rights do I want to take away? I’ve made a principled stand with the ACLU against you, someone who thinks you should be able to shout down speakers on public campuses, taking away their rights and the rights of the audience. I’ve quoted fucking critical race theorists directly saying they don’t support free speech as it is a tool of white supremacy. Need I remind you?CRT scholars have critiqued many of the assumptions that they believe constitute the ideology of the First Amendment. For example, instead of helping to achieve healthy and robust debate, the First Amendment actually serves to preserve the inequities of the status quo; there can be no such thing as an objective or content neutral interpretation in law in general or of the First Amendment in particular; some speech should be viewed in terms of the harm it causes, rather than all speech being valued on the basis of it being speech; and there is no “equality” in “freedom” of speech.Hate speech is currently still protected by the First Amendment. CRT scholars have critiqued this protection and the ideology driving it. Early on, these scholars focused primarily on the question of hate speech codes on college campuses and later moved on to review laws and court opinions concerning the broader societal regulation of hate speech. In this photo, protestors shout down White Nationalist Richard Spencer during a speech Thursday, Oct. 19, 2017, at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Fla. (AP Photo/Chris O’Meara, used with permission from The Associated Press.)In terms of the First Amendment, the primary battlefield for CRT has been hate speech regulation. No one legal definition exists for hate speech, but it generally refers to abusive language specifically attacking a person or persons based on their race, color, religion, ethnic group, gender, or sexual orientation.Hate speech is currently still protected by the First Amendment. CRT scholars have critiqued this protection and the ideology driving it. Early on, these scholars focused primarily on the question of hate speech codes on college campuses and later moved on to review laws and court opinions concerning the broader societal regulation of hate speech.Scholars question First Amendment protection of speech that targets oppressed groupsIn general, these scholars argue that there is no societal value in protecting speech that targets already oppressed groups. They also question the logic of using the First Amendment to protect speech that not only has no social value, but also is socially and psychologically damaging to minority groups.Perhaps the most well known and certainly the most prolific CRT scholar on hate speech is Richard Delgado, a founding member of the CRT movement who began publishing on hate speech in the early 1980s. On CRT’s connection to the First Amendment, Delgado states, “Until now, the following argument has been determinative: the First Amendment condemns that; therefore it is wrong. We are raising the possibility that the correct argument may sometimes be: the First Amendment condemns that, therefore the First Amendment (or the way we understand it) is wrong” (Delgado 1994: 173). He questions the old axiom that the answer to hate speech is free speech, noting that power relationships might make it difficult or impossible for members of socially disempowered groups to respond to certain types of speech.CRT advocates have suggested laws that punish hate speechIn R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992), the Supreme Court struck down a city ordinance that made it a crime to place a burning cross or swastika anywhere “in an attempt to arouse anger or alarm on the basis of race, color, creed, or religion.” In this photo, white robed members of the Indiana Ku Klux Klan watch a Kerosene soaked wood cross being raised in place at a Klan rally in Mansfield, Indiana, Saturday, July 27, 1985. The cross was burned after speeches by several Klan officials from other states. (AP Photo/S. Rossman, used with permission from The Associated Press.)Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in R.A.V. v Paul (1992), which seemingly closed the door on hate speech regulation, Delgado continued to publish extensively on the legality and necessity of hate speech regulation. Relying heavily on social scientific data, Delgado outlined the harm caused by racist speech and developed a tort action for racial insults that he believes could pass First Amendment scrutiny.Mari Matsuda and Charles Lawrence are two more early CRT proponents of hate speech regulation. Matsuda suggested the creation of a legal doctrine to limit hate speech in cases where the message is one of racial inferiority, the message is directed against a historically oppressed group, and the message is persecutorial, hateful, and degrading.Lawrence contends that the way in which scholars and jurists enter the hate speech debate “makes heroes out of bigots and fans the flames of racial violence” (Lawrence 1990: 438). According to him, hate speech violates the Fourteenth Amendment. He has pushed for the establishment of hate speech regulations that will further enhance the role of the First Amendment in society, while still adhering to the principles of the Fourteenth Amendment.EAT FUCKING SHIT LOSE STALKER ASSHOLE CUNT
It’s tech oligarchs, TheAutomator. People shouting isn’t taking anyone’s rights away. You can quote a person saying anything, there still isn’t a mainstream movement to take any free speech rights away. Huge gish gallop diatribes aren’t going to change that. Isn’t that what you said about long posts? You know you would throw a shit fit if I said I didn’t have time to read it. KEP BEING A PATHETIC LOSER UNTIL YOU RUN IN SHAME.
You’re a delusion cunt stalker with no life. I’ll keep it simple: In general, these scholars argue that there is no societal value in protecting speech that targets already oppressed groups. They also question the logic of using the First Amendment to protect speech that not only has no social value, but also is socially and psychologically damaging to minority groups. These people OWN academia. You are a moron, eat shit, get a life, loser cunt stalker.https://www.thecollegefix.com/top-business-schools-push-crt-and-other-progressive-ideas-report-finds/https://progressive.org/public-schools-advocate/teaching-critical-race-theory-miller-211108/
None of that shows a mainstream movement to take your rights away, retard.
“These people OWN academia.”
LOL not nearly as you wish to portray for your victimhood whining.
They teach it in top business schools, as I’ve just proven. You have to write diversity statements to apply for medical school and law school. Law school guide from Georgetown on how to write MANDATORY diversity statements:chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Diversity-Statement-Guide_2019.pdfWHAT THE FUCK DOES DIVERSITY HAVE TO DO WITH LAW SCHOOL? THIS IS IDEOLOGICAL CAPTURE FROM THE TOP DOWN.For medical school:https://www.inspiraadvantage.com/blog/diversity-essay-medical-schoolhttps://hms.harvard.edu/about-hms/campus-culture/diversity-inclusion/harvard-medical-school-diversity-statementWHY IS THIS REQUIRED, ASSCUNT??Speech codes on campus, literally taking away free speech:https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/state-law-speech-codesDiversity statements for FUCKING STEM FACULTY:chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.med.unc.edu/facultyaffairs/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/2021/03/Sample-DEI-Statements.pdfWHY IS THIS A FUCKING REQUIREMENT?FUCK YOU STALKER LOSER CUNT EAT SHIT DIE
None of that shows a mainstream movement to take your rights away, retard. You still can’t grasp the meaning of the word mainstream, you are so fucking stupid.
You sure seem so busy at work!
Oh no diversity! It’s coming for you! LOL at your epic victimhood fantasy. Jesus you are pathetic.
It’s a purity and ideological test. This should be fucking illegal. You shouldn’t have to pledge yourself to an ideology to become a doctor/lawyer/scientist.I just showed you the extent of hate speech codes on campus. It’s not even a question. This is total ideological capture by a movement that, again, in its own words, hates liberalism, Enlightenment values, free speech, reason, merit, and “whiteness.” I’ve already documented that at length.I’ll quote form Delgado, AGAIN: “Critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.” “If you are a white male, you don’t deserve to live. You are a cancer, you’re a disease, white males have never contributed anything positive to the world!”
― Noel IgnatievEvery university promotes this. This is a racist, illiberal, anti-Western movement. You remain a fucking fool.
Wow, you really are not reading your own links again, are you? Nothing you posted shows any purity tests or any need to pledge yourself to an ideology. Two of them are about how to write an essay about how you yourself are a diverse candidate. YOU DON’T READ YOUR OWN LINKS.
the fact that some hate speech codes exist on some campuses still doesn’t show there is a mainstream movement to take your legal rights away. You can post the same quote a million times from 30 years ago, it won’t change the facts. You still can’t accept the definition of the word mainstream. Your QANON riddled brain won’t allow it.
You remain a lying piece of shit mired in victim mentality.
Again, you cannot see because of your own shit in your eyes:Controversy has mounted over to the extent to which these requirements, in the words of Princeton’s Keith Whittington, function as “political litmus tests, requiring that scholars pledge themselves to believe and advance a set of contested political values.” https://www.cato.org/blog/required-dei-diversity-equity-inclusion-statements-campus-analogyYou support political tests to get into med/law/STEM schools? WHY? What if fucking conservatives demanded letters of fealty to practice law? How can you not see the enormity and illiberalism of this problem?You just don’t care because you AGREE with them. Fuck you, racist fascist piece of shit. Fuck political litmus tests. Fuck tying one’s job/degree to an ideological endorsement of an illiberal, anti-Enlightenment ideology. Volokh offers the following ideology:
[Suppose] we get involved in another war. Much of the country, including [the university system], very much supports the war effort. So the University decides to offer faculty members and prospective faculty members an opportunity to mention their work related to the subject for purposes of evaluation, promotion, and hiring.If, for instance, some professors joined the National Guard, which takes extra time, that could be used in deciding whether they were being productive enough scholars (just as other faculty might get extra time for tenure evaluation if they took semesters off because of illness or for parental leave). If they put on programs that helped returning soldiers, that would be counted as a form of “service” (faculty generally being evaluated on scholarship, teaching, and service, roughly in that order), even if normally service would otherwise focus on other subjects (such as service on university committees, or writing op‐eds or blogs educating the public on the faculty’s areas of expertise). If the History department decided that military history hadn’t been taught enough, then indicating that one is teaching military history or is about to do so might count for extra teaching credit. I don’t think this would violate the First Amendment or academic freedom principles. A university is entitled to set and recalibrate its priorities in these ways.On the other hand, say the university said (following UC Davis) that “applicants seeking faculty positions … are required to submit a statement about their past, present, and future contributions to promoting [the war effort] in their professional careers,” and did the same for existing faculty as well. This doesn’t expressly forbid people from criticizing the war, or from just avoiding matters having to do with the war. Perhaps even behind closed doors the university might try to deal with this fairly, maybe even weighing scholarship or public commentary that comes to an anti‐war conclusion equally with scholarship or public commentary that comes to a pro‐war conclusion.But wouldn’t the message be quite clear—if you want a job here, or if you want to keep your job (especially if you’re untenured), or if you want a promotion, you’d be wisest to express pro‐war positions, or at least keep your anti‐war positions to yourselves? And is that consistent with the First Amendment and academic freedom principles?Fuck off, fascist.
The problem is you links don’t say what you claim. You like to lie and twist reality.
There are no political tests to get into university. If a private university did have one, I would support it because that is their right to free speech and free association. Why do you have the First Amendment?
I never said I agree with anything, but you sure love to lie! It’s all losers like you have.
I’m not going anywhere you lying, asshole tyrant. Hope you got that new account lined up!
These ARE political statements, statements supporting ideologies. What do the liberals, conservatives, fucking normal people have to do to get in? Fucking lie. Pledge allegiance to a progressive ideology. That is the fucking epitome of a political pledge. Fuck you fascist.
To get in you have to write an essay. There is no requirement to accept or hold any particular position. I know, you want to imagine a whole bunch of stuff you can’t prove and then declare I know it’s true when what I know is you are a liar and a retard.
You are the fascist who screamed he wanted to take people’s rights away. Name one fascist position I’ve actually taken and not one imagined by you. You can’t because you are a loser and a liar!
“Fuck tying one’s job/degree to an ideological endorsement of an illiberal, anti-Enlightenment ideology.”
Yeah, you keep fucking those imaginary situations, I’m sure there is no one/thing else who will do it.
One of these is literally about how to write a statement to keep your fucking job, you fucking illiberal hack.Work’s over dumbtits. You seem totally unemployable and unemployed.Tell me: Why should a moderate who doesn’t support progressive ideology have to write a diversity statement which, again, they don’t fucking believe in?Fuck you fascist cunt.
I looked at what you had posted, which one is that?
You really need to stop lying. Like about how busy you are at work. I’m pretty sure you don’t have a job at all at this point.
Fuck you fascist:chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://physicalsciences.ucsd.edu/_files/examples-submitted-diversity-statements.pdf
So busy! Still waiting for you to be able to prove anything you say, either about purity tests or me being a fascist.
Keep posting losing posts!
I’ve posted sample fucking statements that are explicitly aligned with progressivism and CRT. Answer the fucking questions.
“I’ve posted sample fucking statements that are explicitly aligned with progressivism and CRT.”
And? So? Jesus Christ you are stupid if you think that proves a purity test.
“You seem totally unemployable and unemployed.”
LOL SAYS THE GUY WHO CLAIMED HE COULDN’T GET WORK FOR TWO YEARS.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Why should a moderate have to pledge to an ideology they don’t believe in?Why should a conservative have to pledge to an ideology they don’t believe in?Answer the fucking questions.
The answer to your questions is 1) they don’t
and 2) if it’s a private school, that is their right to free speech and association. Which we know you hate.
Keep being a asshole tryant!
What do you mean they don’t, they are fucking required, I just sent you an Atlantic article about them.So the private school will have one ideological persuasion, but to you, that’s not a political litmus test?You’re a useless cunt and I’m done with your lying ass.
Writing an essay is required. Making a pledge to an ideology is not. Maybe stop being such a pathetic liar.
“So the private school will have one ideological persuasion, but to you, that’s not a political litmus test?”
That’s called “being factual” you should try it instead of your victim conspiracies.
So much projection from the biggest liar in any room! So busy at work!
“A judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed last spring against senior UC Santa Cruz officials by a former University of Toronto professor who claimed the school’s requirement that applicants submit a written diversity statement in order to be considered for a faculty position violated his free speech rights.”
https://lookout.co/court-dismisses-professors-free-speech-lawsuit-against-ucsc-over-dei-statement/#:~:text=A%20federal%20court%20judge%20dismissed,proved%20that%20he%20had%20standing.
Fucking so? It’s still the fucking definition of a political litmus test. So it’s legal. It’s immoral. It’s illiberal. You’re a fucking fascist. “In politics, a litmus test is a question asked of a potential candidate for high office, the answer to which would determine whether the nominating official would proceed with the appointment or nomination.”
HMMMMMMMMM…….SOUNDS FUCKING FAMILIAR. DUMBASS CUNT FASCIST, I’M FUCKING DONE WITH YOU.
So done! So busy at work! So many lies.
Writing an essay is not the definition of a political litmus test. Seriously why are you so stupid about words? Oh right, your victim conspiracy narrative.
I’m off work bitch.“In politics, a litmus test is a question asked of a potential candidate…’Direct quote from diversity statement requirement:“Explain why valuing diversity is important in the role or department at all stages of the process.”Fuck you illiterate, illiberal, scumsucking stalker psycho cunt.
LOL you post all day and night. You were never too busy to read that post, just a hypocritical asshole.
Your quotes are not showing what you want them to.
““Explain why valuing diversity is important in the role or department at all stages of the process.””
Still not meeting the definition. Get some English lessons, retard.
“Direct quote from diversity statement requirement:“Explain why valuing diversity is important in the role or department at all stages of the process.””
From where, exactly?
One of the many fucking forms I sent you. You want proof you won’t get the job?Did you read the Atlantic article ABOUT MANDATORY STATEMENTS:“To be considered, an applicant must submit a statement detailing their contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion.”YOU WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED UNLESS YOU PLEDGE TO THIS IDEOGLOGY. YOUR BRAIN IS DIRT. FUCK YOU FASCIST.
So you say, I looked and don’t see it there. Like I said, you obviously didn’t even read your own links since two of them were how to write an essay about being diverse yourself. Shouldn’t be too hard to show me, you JUST copied and pasted it, right?
It doesn’t matter because it still doesn’t show you have to take a particular position, but I like to look at context to better school you.
“To be considered, an applicant must submit a statement detailing their contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
How are you so stupid that you you think this proves if you don’t agree with them you won’t get the job or be admitted to the school?
Having to STATE A POSITION isn’t making you take a specific one. FFS grow a brain already.
YOU WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED UNLESS YOU PLEDGE TO THIS IDEOGLOG – IF ONLY YOU COULD SHOW THAT YOU HALF-WIT
I’m quoting directly from the Atlantic article, dumbass, and here is the hiring rubric they refer to in the article, you absolute imbecile puke. They literally have a point system to determine eligibility, fuckskull.:chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://apo.ucsc.edu/docs/ucsc-rubrics-c2deistatements.pdfEND YOURSELF
I saw that rubric and it doesn’t have the quote you provide, neither does the Atlantic article. So much lying!
There is a point system for scoring the essay, it does not determine eligibility. There are a variety of factors that go into making that determination, including test scores and other essays. You want to act like not saying the right thing on this one essay means you will not get the job or get admitted, but that is not a thing you can show because it only exists in your diseased skull.
You will also notice that nothing on that rubric requires you to pledge anything or take any position.
Keep being a stupid asshole tyrant! It never get’s old pointing that out!
You are so fucking full of shit. This is fucking mandatory, and if a candidate scores higher than others by providing the right politics, they will get the spot. You know this. Even you known this is a fucking political test. Get fucking real.Fucking die, you fucking puke.
Writing essays is mandatory. Nothing else is.
There are more factors that just the essay in play. the essay is not the sole determiner of anything. You know this.
You know this isn’t a political test, but you can’t stop lying to feed your bullshit victim mentality.
In what fucking way is it not a political test? It clearly is about progressive/CRT ideology.You’re a fucking disingenuous fucking liar. What happens when two candidates are in the running but one has a higher test score? What happens then, Dana? You fucking lying sack of shit.
In the way that it doesn’t meet the definition. It’s called reality you should try and live in it some time.
“What happens when two candidates are in the running but one has a higher test score?”
I don’t know because there are many other factors in play. I know you want to think this one essay is all that matters but that’s your diseased mind, not reality.
The lying sack of shit is always you, asshole tyrant.
I’ve shown you the definition. I will do so again: In politics, a litmus test is a question asked of a potential candidate for high office, the answer to which would determine whether the nominating official would proceed with the appointment or nomination. This is that exact situation. The person applying must swear fealty to a political ideology in order to proceed. It’s mandatory. It’s progressive ideology, and you still haven’t answered my questions:Why should a moderate have to prove support of progressive ideology? Why should conservatives?Oh, right, you don’t care as you are an illiberal progressive cunt. I’m already done with you today. Eat shit, get a life, fuck you stalker cunt.
That is not any situation you mentioned.
No no one has to swear fealty to anything – that is you just straight up lying like the piece of shit you are.
I did answer all your questions by pointing out they are all based on the same lie.
Keep being that retarded asshole tyrant though!
Of fucking course they are swearing fealty and endorsing an ideology. It’s progressive ideology and they, again, ARE FUCKING MANDATORY. A conservative will have to write a statement endorsing an ideology they don’t believe in.If conservatives ran academia, and forced applicants to write statements endorsing pro-life and pro-gun sentiments, and had a points system to determine their score, you would be screaming at the fucking heavens.Here’s the fucking link, cunt:https://hr.uw.edu/diversity/hiring/tools-for-evaluating-applicants/The purpose of the personal diversity statement and DEI-related interview questions is not to assess the applicant’s personal identity, but to assess the applicant’s skills and knowledge on the value and importance of DEI. The overall goal is to create an environment of inclusion and hire people who are aligned with the values of the University. Below is a list of principles to consider when including a personal diversity statement assessment in the application or diversity questions in your interview process:Explain why valuing diversity is important in the role or department at all stages of the processDoes the bolded part above not fit a political litmus test for qualifying for the university, numbtits?Eat shit. Get a life. Fuck you.
You need to imagine that is so, that’s not what the facts are. You cannot escape your victimhood mentality.
No one has to endorse anything, you cannot accept reality, and it’s pathetic.
Oh it was a link you had never posted before even though you said you had, of course, that checks out.
“Does the bolded part above not fit a political litmus test for qualifying for the university, numbtits?”
Still doesn’t retard!
Yes, they FUCKING DO HAVE TO ENDORSE THIS TO QUALIFY, IT IS FUCKING MANDATORY AND A MAJOR DETERMINING FACTOR. I SHOWED YOU THE SCORING SYSTEM.Look up what I said re: The Atlantic, delusional cunt. I said this: One of the many fucking forms I sent you. (Which I fucking did send you, you can’t keep your bullshit straight).I quoted the Atlantic re: what I posted about above, you autistic delusional cunt.Again, you avoid the question. What if conservatives owned academia and you had to write a statement endorsing pro-life, pro-gun ideology to even fucking apply? You are a fucking liar.It fucking says to HIRE PEOPLE WHO ALIGN WITH THE MISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY, NAMELY PROGRESSIVISM/ANTI-RACISM.Get dead.
They do not have to endorse anything to qualify. Nothing you have posted says that. Showing me the scoring system doesn’t show that you have to endorse anything to qualify.
You cannot grasp that these essays are not the sole determiner of who qualifies.
Look if you are too stupid to communicate properly, that’s on you. It wasn’t a link you had previously posted and you said you were quoting the Atlantic when I asked where it came from. I wasn’t asking where something else came from, so I don’t know why the fuck you would need to say that otherwise.
It’s sad you have to lie and say I avoided any previously asked question. I gave you a clear response.
You are a fucking liar twisting everything people say.
I’m staying right here! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOasshole tyrant
You are a disingenuous liar. Of course the candidate with the highest score will be chosen, you’ve seen the rubric and scoring system, why would they have it if they aren’t going to use it?I never said it came from the Atlantic, quote me doing so. I attributed some verbatim quotes from the Atlantic. Eat shit.Now, I’ve provided proof that people’s jobs depend on them, and they are clearly ideological purity tests. You can’t accept that, because you are a disingenuous troll stalker psycho illiberal fascist. Fuck yourself.
I’m being completely truthful. You are lying and projecting.
“Of course the candidate with the highest score will be chosen”
Why do you insist that the DEI essay is the sole determiner of who is hired?
“you’ve seen the rubric and scoring system, why would they have it if they aren’t going to use it?”
Yes, they are using the rubric. That they have and use a rubric doesn’t show anyone has to pledge anything to be qualified.
“I never said it came from the Atlantic, quote me doing so”
YOU: “I’m quoting directly from the Atlantic article” – in response to me asking where it came from.
“Now, I’ve provided proof that people’s jobs depend on them”
No, you didn’t, you continue to be delusional.
You said that quote was a “Direct quote from diversity statement requirement”. That is, unequvicically, a false statement on your part. The entire page you linked to at University of Washington is speaking to hiring managers. It’s purpose is to discuss the pros and cons of including a diversity statement and/or diversity questions in the interviews; provide a list of things to consider when making that decision; and provide some example questions with examples of quality answers, in order to help the hiring managers and their team formulate their own questions and what they consider quality answers to those questions to be. You are completely incapable of understanding anything you read. You continually misunderstood everything you quoted about LOC and engaged in fallacies. You lied and said an article was written by a rabbi when it didn’t even quote one. You called an opinion piece a scientific study and said it’s author had proved everything he claimed by writing said article. You posted an article where the author explicitly states their position is not mainstream, because you thought it proved the position was mainstream. You posted articles about the complexities of biology in nature, and claimed it proved there was a mainstream movement to say that transwomen were biologically female. You twist everything you see to fit your fucked victim conspiracy bullshit. YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CREDIBILITY.
I’ve provided unequivocable evidence and verbatim quotes from the NYTs statement they are required for applicants and advancement. That’s not good enough for you.I’ve provided a point system rubric that is used to grade diversity statements, and you insist the rubric is meaningless. That’s not good enough for you.I’ve provided you with the definition of political litmus test, and for some reason these *modern* political litmus tests don’t meet that standard, even as I have experts tell the times that they are in fact such tests. NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU.I’ve provided a hypothetical situation in which conservatives do the same, and you draw nothing from it and cannot see the parallels. NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU.Here it is again:[Suppose] we get involved in another war. Much of the country, including [the university system], very much supports the war effort. So the University decides to offer faculty members and prospective faculty members an opportunity to mention their work related to the subject for purposes of evaluation, promotion, and hiring.If, for instance, some professors joined the National Guard, which takes extra time, that could be used in deciding whether they were being productive enough scholars (just as other faculty might get extra time for tenure evaluation if they took semesters off because of illness or for parental leave). If they put on programs that helped returning soldiers, that would be counted as a form of “service” (faculty generally being evaluated on scholarship, teaching, and service, roughly in that order), even if normally service would otherwise focus on other subjects (such as service on university committees, or writing op‐eds or blogs educating the public on the faculty’s areas of expertise). If the History department decided that military history hadn’t been taught enough, then indicating that one is teaching military history or is about to do so might count for extra teaching credit. I don’t think this would violate the First Amendment or academic freedom principles. A university is entitled to set and recalibrate its priorities in these ways.UC DavisOn the other hand, say the university said (following ) that “applicants seeking faculty positions … are required to submit a statement about their past, present, and future contributions to promoting [the war effort] in their professional careers,” and did the same for existing faculty as well. This doesn’t expressly forbid people from criticizing the war, or from just avoiding matters having to do with the war. Perhaps even behind closed doors the university might try to deal with this fairly, maybe even weighing scholarship or public commentary that comes to an anti‐war conclusion equally with scholarship or public commentary that comes to a pro‐war conclusion.But wouldn’t the message be quite clear—if you want a job here, or if you want to keep your job (especially if you’re untenured), or if you want a promotion, you’d be wisest to express pro‐war positions, or at least keep your anti‐war positions to yourselves? And is that consistent with the First Amendment and academic freedom principles?YOU DRAW NO CONCLUSIONS FROM THIS. NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU.These statements are mandatory for law/med/STEM fields, are graded and compared, are clearly directed toward a particular ideology, and the parallels are clear as day with political litmus tests.NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU.EAT YOUR OWN VOMIT AND DIE. I’M FUCKING DONE.
No, you did not provide any of that. Nothing you have posted shows an particular viewpoint is required for anything. Showing that someone has to write an essay doesn’t show that. Showing the rubric doesn’t show that. Showing the definition only shows that what you are providing doesn’t meet that definition. You hypothetical situation shows you don’t understand anything you’ve read. It’s been conclusively demonstrated that you don’t understand anything you read and twist it into something else. YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CREDIBILITY.
You’re a blind fucking ideologue. If every university was run by conservatives who demanded you write pro-Western propaganda to qualify for jobs, had a point system to rate said propaganda, swore to teach said propaganda, you would immediately say it was all an ideological push in education with mandatory political litmus tests. No evidence is good enough for you because you’re a disingenuous, illiberal, progressive fucking hack who happens to support the ideological subversion of the present. You’re a fucking fraud and a lying cunt. I’ve provided mountains of evidence, all of which you reject, because nothing is good enough for a true believer. Kill yourself, eat shit, any order will do.
All the sources agreed with me. You are projecting again.
It’s been conclusively shown you don’t understand anything you read.
YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.
“No evidence is good enough for you”
I actually specifically stated what would be evidence but keep lying! It’s all a loser like you has.
You asked for proof it was required to get a job. I sent you that proof. You rejected it. Here it is some more: Institutions are interested in hiring faculty with lived experiences, competencies, or insights that can foster an inclusive environment. Your diversity statement is the first way a committee will assess your ability to navigate these topics.https://careerdevelopment.princeton.edu/guides/resume-cv-cover-letter-diversity-statement/diversity-statements#:~:text=Institutions%20are%20interested%20in%20hiring,ability%20to%20navigate%20these%20topics.https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/72/4/365/6498019 Hiring diverse candidates and creating an inclusive and equitable climate has emerged as a top priority for the scientific community. Diversity statements are a common but unexamined tool for recruiting a more diverse workforce. We surveyed more than 200 experts in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from US academic institutions to synthesize strengths and limitations of diversity statements and to develop guidelines for using such statements in faculty hiring. We found overwhelming agreement that diversity statements are a valuable tool for the advantages they offer the institution and applicant, but the experts indicated that diversity statements should be supported by other evidence. We further found that few institutions provide guidance on how to effectively use diversity statements in the hiring process. We address this need by providing an expert-derived evaluation framework for recognizing and rewarding DEI in the recruitment process that can be flexibly adapted to fit the unique requirements of diverse institutions and positions. EAT SHIT, DIE, GET A LIFE
LOL it was never in dispute the someone had to write an essay to get a job.
What you claimed was the people had to pledge to something or have a certain political belief to get a job and that is a lie. That’s what I asked for proof of, that’s what you can’t show because you are a lying retard who doesn’t understand anything he reads. You know this. I showed it conclusively.YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.
Again, it is pure progressive/crt ideology. You’ve seen the fucking rubric. How would you describe it’s politics? Moderate? Conservative? Libertarian? Bullshit. You know it is progressivism. You know they are literally fucking DEI statements, which place identity before merit, which, once again, they think is white supremacist culture.How would you describe the philosophy of the rubric? What political persuasion is it? Of what persuasion are the DEI statements?You are totally full of dogshit and will never answer these questions. I defy you. Are they liberal statements and criteria, the championing of identity/race over individualism, which, fucking again, they declare to be of white supremacist culture.Fuck you fraud and liar. I’ve sent you a fucking boatload of progressive horseshit they have to swear allegiance to. I know it, you know it, which is why you won’t answer the fucking questions. Again, is this a conservative ideology?“Hiring diverse candidates and creating an inclusive and equitable climate has emerged as a top priority for the scientific community. Diversity statements are a common but unexamined tool for recruiting a more diverse workforce. We surveyed more than 200 experts in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from US academic institutions to synthesize strengths and limitations of diversity statements and to develop guidelines for using such statements in faculty hiring.” This is straight up progressive DEI ideology, and they have to swear fealty to it. Do you imagine a principled conservative would get in with an honest statement?? Eat shit, liar, fraud, fucking fruitcake.
Whatever political label you want to put on it doesn’t matter. Nothing you posted shows that the people who write the essays must believe any particular thing. You have completely failed to show that someone will be disqualified if they don’t agree with something. You are a lying retard who doesn’t understand anything he reads. You know this. I showed it conclusively.YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.
I didn’t say they had to believe it; they have to cosign it, idiot. That’s the point of the statements. From the fucking rubric, who will be ranked higher, someone who values intellectual diversity, or someone who values racial diversity? Answer the fucking questions. These things are crammed full of progressive values, buzzwords, credos, nonsense about structural racism…these are progressive statements, and they must be completed for hiring, and they are graded on their progressiveness, which I have fucking demonstrated, you fucking fraud.YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY OR SOUL IF YOU DENY THIS. IT’S AS PLAIN AS FUCKING DAY. WHY ARE PEOPLE UPSET ABOUT IT, DUMBTITS? I HAVE PROFESSORS FLAT OUT SAYING THEY ARE IDEOLOGICAL MISSION STATEMENTS, REMEMBER???FUCK YOU FRAUD LYING CUNT STALKER BITCH. KILL YOURSELF.
You literally claimed they would have to pledge that they believe shit to qualify at all for a job. That is a fucking lie and nothing you’ve posted shows that.
The fact that someone won’t score as high on the rubric doesn’t mean they are automatically disqualified if they don’t pledge or believe in the right things.
You are a lying retard who doesn’t understand anything he reads. You know this. I showed it conclusively.YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.
I know conservatives who are not complete morons and understand that systematic inequalities are real. So maybe get your head out of your ass. I know it fits so well, but it’s not healthy.
You claimed it was a political litmus test, remember? And the definition of that was : a question asked of a potential for high office, the answer to which would determine whether the nominating official would proceed with the appointment or .
You are claiming that if they don’t answer the questions “correctly” they will not be considered for hiring. That isn’t something you can show, because that isn’t real.
I’ve already fucking showed it. Fucking again:https://archive.ph/Rsoqw “To be considered, an applicant must submit a statement detailing their contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion.”It is the same fucking thing as a political litmus test except for academia, you retarded fucking retard.Again:“A 2021 American Enterprise Institute survey of academic job postings found that 19% required DEI statements, and elite institutions were more likely to require them.”https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/fire-statement-use-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-criteria-faculty-hiring-and#:~:text=Of%20the%20institutions%20that%20do,more%20likely%20to%20require%20them.
So fucking again, people have to swear allegiance to these fucking political ideas.You have nothing. Go fuck yourself, kill yourself, eat shit, get a life.
No, that is not the same thing as a litmus test. Nothing you have shown is.
You can post the same things over and over, they are never going to say what you think they say.
You are claiming that if they don’t answer the questions “correctly” they will not be considered for hiring. That isn’t something you can show, because that isn’t real.You are a lying retard who doesn’t understand anything he reads. You know this. I showed it conclusively.YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.
You’re just full of shit. It’s explicitly progressive politics, and you know it. If you wrote a conservative statement, you wouldn’t get the job. And you know it.I’m satisfied, you’re full of dogshit, go kill yourself, if the positions were reversed and people had to write conservate statements to get into med/law/STEM fields, your ovaries would explode.Fucking have a shit day.
The problem is you can’t accept reality and the basic meanings of words.
“ If you wrote a conservative statement, you wouldn’t get the job. And you know it.”
I know you need to imagine this to feed your victim conspiracies.
You are a lying retard who doesn’t understand anything he reads. You know this. I showed it conclusively.YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.
You’ve showed your ass, conclusively. We both know it.You think diversity statements are apolitical, mean nothing, and have no impact.I’ve proven the depth of their political bias, shown that you NEED them to FUCKING APPLY for school/get a faculty job, and that they directly impact your chance of getting in.You’ve posted no sources, no rebuttals, just shat over all of the massive amount of evidence I’ve provided.You’re a dirty illiberal cunt. The end.
You like to pretend, but the facts show otherwise.
You are claiming that if they don’t answer the questions “correctly” they will not be considered for hiring. That isn’t something you can show, because that isn’t real.You are a lying retard who doesn’t understand anything he reads. You know this. I showed it conclusively.YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.
“You think diversity statements are apolitical, mean nothing, and have no impact.”
We both know you are the loser when you have to lie.
Motherfucker, I’ve shown their content, I’ve shown how they are scored, I’ve shown professors refer to them directly as political litmus tests, I’ve provided samples for law school, med school and STEM, I’ve linked to over a dozen sources showing their political bias, etc.You have your pussy in your hands. I DON’T CARE WHAT YOU THINK. I’m satisfied. Eat shit. Kill yourself. Get a life.
And none of that shows what you are claiming. You can’t fuciking logic that why you spent weeks mired in fallacy with you LOC bullshit that never said what you claimed either.
You are the one making claims, you are the one who has to prove them, you are the one who has failed to do so. Nothing you have posted proves a particular viewpoint is required for anything. Showing that someone has to write an essay is never going to prove that. Showing there is a rubric is never going to prove that. Saying it’s progressive is never going to prove that. It’s been conclusively demonstrated that you don’t understand anything you read and twist it into something else. YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CREDIBILITY.
https://archive.ph/XTrV6 And since you never read sources, I’ll just paste it below:THE REVIEW WE KNOW DIVERSITY STATEMENTS ARE POLITICAL LITMUS TESTSIt’s time to end this discriminatory practiceChronicle of Higher EducationBy Komi FreyJANUARY 4, 2024From 2016 to 2022, most University of California campuses participated in an experimental program, funded by the state Legislature, to use diversity, equity, and inclusion statements as the first cut in faculty-applicant pools. According to UC’s guidelines, the purpose of diversity statements is for applicants to explain what they have done and plan to do to serve underrepresented-minority people on campus — specifically, African Americans, American Indians, and Hispanics/Latinos.Such policies are informed by a series of politically charged assumptions. The first assumption is that such groups have been more oppressed than other racial or ethnic groups in California; the second is that oppression has caused the groups to be represented in numbers lower than their proportions of the California population; the third is that increasing their representation is central to UC’s mission; the fourth is that proactive, race-conscious policies are necessary to hire members of the groups. Each of these assumptions should be open to debate. Instead, the university has assumed that all have been proved and then jumped to a fifth and final assumption: that UC can and should refuse to hire otherwise-competitive applicants for insufficiently endorsing the preceding assumptions.By making political values the sole criterion at the initial hiring stage, UC-faculty searches strayed from the American Association of University Professors’ bedrock 1915 “Declaration of Principles,” which states that scholars have a duty to remain neutral and not act in the interests of any particular segment of the population. “If the universities are to render any … service toward the right solution of the social problems of the future,” the document reads, “it is the first essential that the scholars who carry on the work of universities shall not be in a position of dependence upon the favor of any social class or group, that the disinterestedness and impartiality of their inquiries and their conclusions shall be, so far as is humanly possible, beyond the reach of suspicion.” Rather than uphold the neutrality principle, the university explicitly demands that faculty not be disinterested when it comes to underrepresented minorities. Requiring candidates to serve all students equally, in compliance with federal antidiscrimination law, is entirely appropriate; requiring them to grant preferential treatment to specific groups whose underrepresentation is of political concern is not.In fact, rubrics used by some UC campuses (and adopted by universities nationwide) to evaluate diversity statements penalize applicants who promote neutral principles. For example, applicants at UC-Berkeley were assigned the lowest score of 1-2 (on a five-point scale) if they believe in treating all students equally rather than giving special consideration to underrepresented-minority people.In addition to the initial screening for conformity with left-wing political values, a series of DEI policies have reshaped, or at the very least reinforced, the faculty’s perception of what is appropriate to believe with regard to racial inequality. The DEI policies stipulate that diversity be considered an integral part of all faculty members’ research and teaching, the establishment and expansion of DEI offices, the use of mandatory diversity statements in faculty searches, the creation of opaque bias-reporting systems, the requirement that faculty participate in diversity-related trainings, and the introduction of equity advisers into academic departments. Cumulatively, these policies convey UC’s institutional stance on the causes of — and remedies for — racial disparities. And in case there was any confusion, the university’s partisan statements on the Black Lives Matter movement and on the Supreme Court’s affirmative-action decision make clear that UC attributes racial disparities to systemic/institutional racism, which administrators pledge to fight by granting special considerations to underrepresented minority people.One way university leaders are making good on their promise is by penalizing UC faculty for speech that was perceived as insensitive to members of underrepresented minority groups. Here are a few examples:
Gordon Klein, an accounting lecturer at UCLA, was placed on paid administrative leave for denying students’ demands for a “no-harm” final exam following the death of George Floyd.
William (Ajax) Peris, a political-science lecturer at UCLA, was subjected to a review by the university’s Discrimination Prevention Office for presenting Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail” and clips from a documentary on racism, both of which included a racial slur.
Yoel Inbar, a job candidate for a position at UCLA, was effectively vetoed by graduate students who took exception to misgivings he had expressed in a podcast more than four years earlier about the uses of diversity statements in hiring.
Ilya Shapiro, while under paid suspension as executive director and senior lecturer at the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, was shouted down by students at the University of California’s law school in San Francisco, because he criticized President Biden’s pledge to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court.
Edward Livingston, a clinical professor of surgery at UCLA Health, was condemned by the administration for questioning the discourse surrounding structural racism.
At UC-Davis, the chancellor and a vice chancellor issued a defense of mandatory DEI statements after Abigail Thompson, a professor of mathematics, wrote an opinion essay referring to the requirement as a political litmus test.
At UCLA, the anthropology professor P. Jeffrey Brantingham was ostracized and targeted for sanction by his colleagues over his research on urban crime and predictive-policing techniques.
Keith Fink, a lecturer at UCLA who taught “Sex, Politics, and Race: Free Speech on Campus” and criticized the administration’s handling of free-speech issues, was notified that, for unspecified reasons, his contract was not being renewed.
Val Rust, an emeritus professor of education at UCLA, had his course altered by the administration after graduate students complained about a “toxic” racial climate in which Rust’s grading methods were considered a form of microaggression.And these are just the incidents we know about. Most instances of silencing are probably not publicized. Because records are inaccessible or not kept, we will never know how often UC faculty have been penalized for intentionally or unintentionally undermining DEI, let alone how many have refrained from voicing their concerns for fear of penalties. Similarly, we will never know how many otherwise-qualified candidates for faculty positions were rejected for insufficiently embracing left-wing assumptions about DEI, or how many otherwise-qualified candidates did not apply because they anticipated being rejected for refusal to conform. An empirical investigation of this topic is sorely needed, though one suspects that the UC would do everything they could to block such an inquiry. After all, in recent months they have delayed or refused the release of crucial faculty-search details, even though disclosure is required by the Freedom of Information Act. Interviews with 100 UC faculty members suggest that dissenting views about the impact of DEI culture are not uncommon, but those who hold them are wary of how they will be received.How did UC become engrossed by DEI politicization? In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, which banned affirmative-action programs in public education and employment. Ever since, the university’s administration has committed itself to finding legal workarounds to increase the number of underrepresented minority students and employees at all levels. To circumvent Proposition 209 and achieve its political goals, UC has embraced DEI activism, which requires abandoning principles of neutrality if those principles are thought to perpetuate racial inequities.Yet despite these efforts, disparities persist. Rather than reassess left-wing assumptions about the causes of, and remedies to, inequality, the university’s administration doubled down, expanding its DEI policies. As a consequence, faculty members (the vast majority of whom already lean left) were increasingly incentivized to discuss contentious issues, particularly race, from a left-wing perspective. The policy of evaluating DEI statements to make the initial cut in faculty-hiring procedures was the worst affront to neutral principles and most likely functioned as an ideological filter, creating a cohort of UC faculty members who are even more ideologically homogeneous than their predecessors were in 2016. One suspects that today, current and prospective professors whose views may be perceived as undermining DEI are more socially stigmatized and professionally penalized than ever, whereas those whose views align with the university’s DEI commitment are praised, hired, and funded.How can UC resist political conformism? At a fundamental level, the administration ought not expect, let alone seek to manufacture, equal representation of groups on the basis of any demographic characteristic, including race. The causes of social inequality, the remedies to inequality, and the extent to which inequality is itself a problem are all matters of empirical and philosophical debate. Therefore, the university should not take a position. Instead, it ought to welcome faculty members who offer a diversity of perspectives on the nature and value of diversity.PER USUAL..EAT SHIT, DIE, GET A FUCKING LIFE
That’s called an opinion piece. Finding someone with the same opinion you have doesn’t prove your claim.
Nothing you have posted proves a particular viewpoint is required for anything. Showing that someone has to write an essay is never going to prove that. Showing there is a rubric is never going to prove that. Saying it’s progressive is never going to prove that.It’s been conclusively demonstrated that you don’t understand anything you read and twist it into something else.YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CREDIBILITY.
Which you didn’t read, as you replied in seconds, you fucking lying fraud cunt. It is absolutely packed with facts, devastating analysis, and examples. You have been utterly fucking buttfucked by reality.Eat shit. Die. Get a fucking life.
I absolutely read it and noticed how nothing there proves you have to espouse a particular view point to qualify for any position.
Nothing you have posted proves a particular viewpoint is required for anything. Showing that someone has to write an essay is never going to prove that. Showing there is a rubric is never going to prove that. Saying it’s progressive is never going to prove that.It’s been conclusively demonstrated that you don’t understand anything you read and twist it into something else.YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CREDIBILITY.
There is no possible way you read it before you responded. You responded in seconds. You calling their opinion bullshit isn’t exactly an argument. Make one. Argue. Make a coherent fucking argument addressing all the included evidence and tell me why these do not function as ideological purity/political litmus tests. What’s wrong with the analysis? What’s wrong with the facts? Make a fucking argument. Again: Calling something “bullshit” is not an argument. It is an admission of total mental defeat.Eat. Shit. Die. Kill. Yourself. Get. A. Fucking. Life.
Pointing out that it’s an opinion piece regurgitating the same unproven nonsense you are spouting and doesn’t prove your claim is an argument. You just don’t like being challenged and having to deal with truth.
I’ve been making arguments this whole time. You just say I’m a liar and I know something else. Find some actual evidence and learn how to logic.
“What’s wrong with the analysis?”
It makes the same incorrect assumption you do – that the wrong answer will disqualify you – without proving that.
Nothing you have posted proves a particular viewpoint is required for anything. Showing that someone has to write an essay is never going to prove that. Showing there is a rubric is never going to prove that. Saying it’s progressive is never going to prove that.It’s been conclusively demonstrated that you don’t understand anything you read and twist it into something else.YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CREDIBILITY.
Wrong. I’ve already proven, as does this article, that the wrong answer will disqualify you. To wit: Instead, the university has assumed that all have been proved and then jumped to a fifth and final assumption: that UC can and should refuse to hire otherwise-competitive applicants for insufficiently endorsing the preceding assumptions. Here’s some more, to wit:https://fee.org/articles/the-problem-with-universities-demanding-diversity-statements/#:~:text=Overall%2C%20only%20diversity%20statements%20that,and%20advance%20a%20candidate’s%20application.“Overall, only diversity statements that adhere to a uniform statement of allegiance to a uniform leftist/liberal/Marxist/progressive view of group identity, group victimization, and a claim for group-based entitlements in higher education will enhance and advance a candidate’s application. Failure to profess allegiance and conform to a uniform, orthodox diversity agenda, an agenda that ignores the most important diversity in higher education—intellectual and viewpoint diversity—will doom an applicant’s job prospects.”MORE, TO WIT:In the language of First Amendment jurisprudence, these diversity statements constitute “viewpoint discrimination.” Government cannot, excluding a few exceptions such as political appointments, base a hiring decision on the speaker’s political viewpoint. Wagner v. Jones (2011) offers a good illustration. Wagner, a conservative who opposes abortion, claimed she was passed over for a job teaching legal research and writing at the University of Iowa because of her political views. The trial court initially granted Iowa’s motion to dismiss, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit correctly reversed that decision. As the court put it, “The state can neither directly nor indirectly interfere with an employee’s or potential employee’s rights to association and belief.”But this is what Berkeley has done by conditioning employment on professing belief that racial and gender diversity are more important, for example, than diversity of intellectual methodology or political viewpoint; indeed, by conditioning employment, in effect, on believing that Bakke was correctly decided, and that diversity is the most important reason for affirmative action. I support affirmative action for remedial reasons, and so categorically reject Bakke. Others reject affirmative action altogether. The state should not be able to make agreement with any of these positions a condition of employment. If we discard that principle here, imagine what other “statements” faculty candidates may need to submit during a second term of a Trump presidency.https://archive.ph/e2oQ9#selection-1849.69-1869.296They are definitely used to disqualify people in the hiring process. You have still provided no argument. Go home, eat shit, kill yourself, get a life.
Opinion pieces do not prove anything. You do not understand evidence or logic.
Reposting the same opinions from a different site doesn’t prove what you are saying.
Nothing you have posted proves a particular viewpoint is required for anything. Showing that someone has to write an essay is never going to prove that. Showing there is a rubric is never going to prove that. Saying it’s progressive is never going to prove that.
“They are definitely used to disqualify people in the hiring process.”
You have utterly failed to show that is true.
“ You have still provided no argument.”
You are lying. Pathetic.It’s been conclusively demonstrated that you don’t understand anything you read and twist it into something else.YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CREDIBILITY.
These three articles, and many other sources I’ve shown you, prove they are used to disqualify ideologically “unqualified” candidates. They are used in hiring decisions. To deny that is pure dickery, You have nothing. Eat shit. Die. Get a fucking life.
None of the sources you have shown prove they are used to disqualify people based on their political views. You do not understand evidence or how to logic.It’s been conclusively demonstrated that you don’t understand anything you read and twist it into something else.YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CREDIBILITY.
“They are used in hiring decisions. To deny that is pure dickery”
At no point did I deny they are used in hiring decisions. This is yet another example of your need to lie because you do not have facts to support your positions.
What I deny is that they are the sole determiner of who is qualified or that not professing the correct political views means you will be disqualified. That;’s the important thing you have never shown and never will.
“Wagner v. Jones (2011) offers a good illustration. Wagner, a conservative who opposes abortion, claimed she was passed over for a job teaching legal research and writing at the University of Iowa because of her political views.”“After 3 days of deliberations in this trial, the jury initially deadlocked on both counts. It then rendered a verdict for the defendants on Count One (political discrimination) “https://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/wagner-v-jones-et-alA jury of 12 people understood the thing I’m trying to explain to you.
The fact that this court case was mentioned as being a good example while leaving out that she actually LOST the case 8 years prior shows how these opinion pieces are written by dishonest retards like you.
That was fucking 13 years ago, before the use of modern diversity statements. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this case has absolutely fucking nothing to do with diversity statements, just someone claiming viewpoint discrimination. Yes, I just looked; it has nothing to do with actual diversity statements, so I disagree with its inclusion.Good job, you almost made a salient fucking point. Get a life. Kill yourself. Eat Shit.
That makes it a worse example, not a better one dipshit.
The fact that this court case was mentioned as being a good example while leaving out that she actually LOST the case 8 years prior shows how these opinion pieces are written by dishonest retards like you. It’s been conclusively demonstrated that you don’t understand anything you read and twist it into something else.YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CREDIBILITY.
Can you fucking read? I said it shouldn’t have been included, dumbtits. You addressed one minor point. Congrats! That still does nothing to disprove the fact that these are of course litmus tests and are used in hiring process, from the boatload of evidence I provided. But nice try!!! That’s the spirit.Eat Shit. Kill Yourself. I’m going home.
Can you read? I said it demonstrated the quality of the arguments you’ve posted that you imagine prove your claim. You and the authors of these opinion pieces are fucking retarded.
You’ve done nothing to prove that ARE litmus tests. None of the “evidence” you provided does that. Of course your stupid ass doesn’t understand the basics of debate and who has the burden of proof. It’s fucking you, dipshit. It’s been conclusively demonstrated that you don’t understand anything you read and twist it into something else.YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CREDIBILITY.
You found one questionable example. Snoozeville. You haven’t addressed anything else or made an argument. I have BURIED you in evidence that this is a necessary, mandatory agreement with a particular ideology to gain access to education/employment.Again, I’m satisficed. You’ve got nothing.
I pointed out the issues with all your examples. Namely that none of them show that anyone has to pledge anything to be considered for employment.
You are delusional. None of your evidence supports your claim.
If satisfaction were possible for you, you wouldn’t need to keep repeating it them coming back. You know I’m right.
YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CREDIBILITY.
Christ, you have no life. You are always online, What the fuck do you do???They are mandatory aspects of the hiring process. They MUST be submitted for law/med/STEM fields. I’ve definitively proven that. We both know they are devotionals to progressive ideology. They are also increasingly becoming mandatory in the private sector employment.You have nothing. You are nothing.
You can say the essays are mandatory a million times. That fact is never going to show you have to say the right thing in the essay to be considered.
How the fuck are you so stupid that you cannot grasp that basic fact?
Your brain is too riddled with rat jizz and victimhood conspiracies to function. You’ve been wrong about everything, on all your accounts.
I have facts and truth. You have nothing and you know it.
They are used to narrow the candidate pool to those with the correct ideology.https://www.thecollegefix.com/diversity-statements-used-to-cull-applicant-pool-boost-minorities-report/ At Vanderbilt University in 2021, “the hiring committee reduced the initial applicant pool by around 85 percent, from 400 to around 60, on the basis of a blind diversity statement review,” according to the report. Eat. Shit.
“The largest reduction in the proportion of white candidates, and the largest increase in the proportion of Hispanic
candidates, happened after the first-round review of diversity statements. Given the opaque nature of the process, we
cannot prove that any particular cluster hiring initiative
involves illegal racial preferences,”
Read your own fucking links retard. The y admit they cannot know for sure why people were eliminated, only that people were eliminated after certain points.
You don’t understand anything you read. You are dumb as shit and mired in victimhood conspiracy.YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CREDIBILITY.
They can do as they wish, and again, disparity isn’t evidence of anything other than disparity, numbtits. Of course you cannot draw that conclusion, this wasn’t an experiment, correlation doesn’t equal causation, etc. They even admit the opaque nature of the process is why they cannot draw any conclusions, not that it isn’t a factor.¯\_(ツ)_/¯Nice work, lol.
Ok loser. LOL
Vanderbuilt is a private institution, BTW.
“devastating analysis”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Someone sharing your vullshit narrative in their opionioin piece isn’t “devastating analysis”, so are so fucking delusional.
You don’t understand evidence, you don’t know how to prove things, you don’t know how to logic, you don’t know what words mean.
“You’ve posted no sources, no rebuttals,” Sad that you have to lie, you know this isn’t true.
“YOU DRAW NO CONCLUSIONS FROM THIS.”
No, I draw DIFFERENT conclusions than you do, because I have basic reading comprehension skills when I read things.
But being honest in anyway is impossible for you. THAT’S WHY YOU ARE SO OUT OF GAS.
Still waiting for where that quote came from – since it wasn’t in the Atlantic article you fucking liar.
And I never fucking said it was from the Atlantic. I said this was, YOU FUCKING RETARD: To be considered, an applicant must submit a statement detailing their contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Yes, you did say i was from the Atlantic. I asked you where it came from and your reply was that you were quoting the Atlantic article. It’s Sowell all over again.
Let me know if you ever find an explicit statement that says “If you don’t pledge XYZ you cannot work here”, otherwise you are wasting your stupid time.
Here you go:“The University of California system made headlines in 2018 by requiring that applications for tenure-track positions and promotions include an “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion” statement; scores of other institutions have since followed suit. Chris M. Golde, a career coach for doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows at Stanford University who often works with job candidates on their statements, estimates that about half of colleges and universities now require them for faculty jobs.”https://archive.ph/W4Duk#selection-1935.0-1935.492
LOL see this is why I ask for links, this is why I read them, and this is why you are a fucking moron.
That quote that you think is so awesome, “Explain why valuing diversity is important in the role or department at all stages of the process”, isn’t a prompt for employment applicants to answer, dipshit. Let’s look at what comes right before that: “Below is a list of principles to consider when including a personal diversity statement assessment in the application or diversity questions in your interview process:”
It’s from a list of things for the person doing the hiring to consider when they decide WHETHER OR NOT to include a diversity statement in the application packet, and/or diversity questions when they interview people.
That’s why the page also says things like “You can request that applicants write a statement describing the value of DEI and how they have or would exhibit those values in the workplace.” “If you choose to require a personal diversity statement as a part of application materials or include DEI-focused questions in the interview process” Which also, BTW shows it’s a choice for who ever is doing the hiring to include those things or not.
Let’s look at the whole fucking list:
Explain why valuing diversity is important in the role or department at all stages of the process.When applicable, consider using scenario or technical questions vs broad open-ended questions.Make sure the question is relevant to the position and team culture.Assess for the candidate’s skills and knowledge of the value of DEI, not the candidate’s personal identity or proximity to diverse populations.Develop guidelines for a “quality answer” with hiring team prior to screening candidates.Look for actionable answers vs ideals and theoriesMake sure the question is appropriate for the level of position (entry level, student-facing, administrative, leadership, staff, etc.).
I can’t even sort out your stupid from your lies half the time.
Who cares.Hey, check this out, it’s the fucking NYT’s admitting they are required and they sure fucking sound like political litmus tests to me: Nearly half the large universities in America require that job applicants write such statements, part of the rapid growth in D.E.I. programs. Many University of California departments now require that faculty members seeking promotions and tenure also write such statements. https://archive.ph/RZ5SX#selection-521.133-521.407 “Professions of fealty to D.E.I. ideology are so ubiquitous as to be meaningless,” said Daniel Sargent, a professor of history and public policy at the University of California, Berkeley. “We are institutionalizing a performative dishonesty.” Candidates who made the first cut were repeatedly asked about diversity in later rounds. “At every stage,” the study noted, “candidates were evaluated on their commitments to D.E.I.” Eat shit, die, go fuck yourself, stalker cunt.
I care because truth matters. It clearly demonstrates you are a fucking retard who doesn’t understand a single thing he says.
YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.
Still wondering where that quote is from, since the Atlantic didn’t have it. So many lies!
“the answer to which would determine whether the nominating official would proceed with the appointment or nomination.”
That’s you deciding with no evidence that not agreeing with them politically means you don’t get admitted. Let me know when you can actually PROVE that. You can’t and you know it but will proceed with bullshit attempts that reinforce your stupidity anyways.
So much fun to burn you to the ground!
https://archive.ph/Rsoqw Fuck you, fascist.Answer the questions. Why should conservatives and moderates have to do this?
There is zero issues with having to write an essay about a topic. You are failing to show what you want to show at every step. just like every other bullshit position you’ve taken for the last 2 plus months.
Gee, you seem real busy at work!
And BTW private schools can have whatever admissions standards they want – that is their right to freedom of speech and association. But we’ve established you hate free speech when practiced by those you dislike. Like tech oligarchs or people who run private colleges and universities.
“with no life”
Says the guy posting at all hours. You really need to get some self-awareness.
A few short thoughts:- I completely agree that when a person or company loses business because of saying something thoughtless, this is just people deciding not to buy something from someone shitty. I don’t think this idea, by itself, is what people mean by “cancel culture.” I think that term is more specifically the idea of widespread and speedy condemnation for some alleged transgression within the public sphere (not by the government!) led by predominantly by group dynamics as opposed to rational assessment.- You bring up the idea that this is not new (I agree!) and that there is nothing novel here. But there is! I don’t know how old you are, but with the advent of social media these swings of public opinion happen orders of magnitude faster than they did twenty or even ten years ago.
– Lenny Bruce and 2 Live Crew are both good examples of government censorship, but not cancellation as it’s commonly used. A better historical analogue for “cancellation” (in the sense of a person being hounded by “ordinary people” as part of a public discussion or campaign about an alleged transgression) is maybe the Lindberghs’ maid who killed herself when the whole country thought she abducted their baby. Maybe a positive example of “cancellation” is Joe McCarthy, whose career was effectively ended after he was publicly shamed.
– “Just because something has entered the cultural lexicon doesn’t automatically raise it above criticism for linguistic misuse.” It sort of does, though. The US political definition of “liberal” is more or less the opposite of the way it was understood for hundreds of years, but we don’t start every political discussion by arguing for better terminology. At some point, the train’s left the station.
– “If you want to go to a society where there is no cancel culture, go to one where you have an autocracy.” This is an immediate sign, I think, that you haven’t actually absorbed anyone’s thoughts on “cancel culture” as they (not you!) define it.
– I’m going to steal a line from Cait Flanagan’s article in The Atlantic today: “What’s the best argument of the other side?” If you can’t understand the other side’s argument well enough to phrase it, you have no business arguing against it.
I think that term is more specifically the idea of widespread and speedy condemnation for some alleged transgression within the public sphere (not by the government!) led by predominantly by group dynamics as opposed to rational assessment.True, but this isn’t new. The only thing that has changed is technology, and more specifically, the ease in which information and opinions can be widely disseminated. The underlying tendency for groups of people to be easily swayed by emotions isn’t at all novel, so people pointing out some nebulous “cancel culture” per your definition doesn’t make it a new phenomenon. Things exist regardless of the awareness of their existence (or putting a new name on it).
Lenny Bruce and 2 Live Crew are both good examples of government censorship, but not cancellation as it’s commonly used. A better historical analogue for “cancellation” (in the sense of a person being hounded by “ordinary people” as part of a public discussion or campaign about an alleged transgression) is maybe the Lindberghs’ maid who killed herself when the whole country thought she abducted their baby. Maybe a positive example of “cancellation” is Joe McCarthy, whose career was effectively ended after he was publicly shamed.I brought them up to show that cancel culture, per all definitions, is merely a manifestation of capitalism (or capitalism itself). How? Because even through government intervention (both real and attempted) the careers of those targeted didn’t collapse because the capitalist market simply outweighed the strength of the government. The fact that Lenny Bruce and Jim Morrison died not too long after their struggles with government censorship notwithstanding, their careers were buoyed by the very same “cancel culture” (that is, a kneejerk emotional reaction and not a logical assessment, that is to say, people being emotional moved their artistic output and not necessarily a concerted effort to stand up for free speech) that you described earlier. In other words, if you posit that cancel culture does exist, doesn’t it necessitate the opposite exist, and if so, isn’t that opposite almost always the same fundamental manifestation merely towards the positive (as to render the idea of some unique “cancel culture” nonsensical)?
When it comes to McCarthy, while the public shaming played a part (and during a time when the transmission of such shame moved significantly slower and was only available to a smaller subset of the nation), his burning the candle at both ends and continued alienation of people more powerful than him, I’d posit, were far more damaging. You can’t reasonably expect to take on the US military establishment and come out unscathed.
– “Just because something has entered the cultural lexicon doesn’t automatically raise it above criticism for linguistic misuse.” It sort of does, though. The US political definition of “liberal” is more or less the opposite of the way it was understood for hundreds of years, but we don’t start every political discussion by arguing for better terminology. At some point, the train’s left the station.The term liberal is significantly different from the phrase cancel culture. First and foremost, what is liberal (in the strictly political, non-economic sense) is always going to be a relative measure and description against the traditional, long-held, and often ancient/ancestral mores of the nation/state/culture in which the term is used. It doesn’t particularly mean anything on its own, even if you take the older political usages of the term (which I’m more than familiar with, having gotten my degree in political science). Further, the use of liberal can be understood to mean different things depending on the context in which its used. Two economists speaking about neoliberal economics would clearly understand the distinction and wouldn’t conflate the use of liberal in that essence with the more generalized use of liberal when it comes to non-economic political thought (or other sociological thought).
Cancel culture, as a term, is used so broadly and generically, that to attempt to make any sort of distinction (as you did in your response) is perhaps giving far too much credit to the majority of people who use the term in a serious, non-ironic manner. When I said before that certain phrases are so nebulous as to make it difficult to know what a person conclusively means by it, I was clearly talking about examples where cancel culture is both very narrow in definition (such as yours), or a broader definition (such as a knee-jerk response to any criticism). The train has certainly left the station, but we tend to care about the destination more than we do the departure point, so I must continue to criticize the inexactitude of the term/phrase because it necessitates a follow-up when other verbiage would be more efficient and explanatory.
– “If you want to go to a society where there is no cancel culture, go to one where you have an autocracy.” This is an immediate sign, I think, that you haven’t actually absorbed anyone’s thoughts on “cancel culture” as they (not you!) define it.I’m not sure what this means, and my point about cancel culture (using a more definite meaning than what you stated, which consists of many extant things that have been previously defined and named in a variety of contexts) was clear. If these people have defined it, they’ve done a poor or nonsensical job. The reality is that most people haven’t defined it, which is why the usage is worthless when it’s coming from them. It’s noise, not communication.
– I’m going to steal a line from Cait Flanagan’s article in The Atlantic today: “What’s the best argument of the other side?” If you can’t understand the other side’s argument well enough to phrase it, you have no business arguing against it.If your point is that I haven’t phrased their argument, I disagree. Why? Because they have no argument. If the definition you feel is most common is the one you gave in your response, as I stated in a few of mine, you’re merely adding an additional name to a phenomenon that has existed in a myriad of forms, in nearly every society and culture, since the dawn of history. A new name, particularly one as linguistically vague as cancel culture, doesn’t create nor denote anything novel. I’ll use a comparison.
“Police brutality” is not a new phenomenon, but in terms of the cultural zeitgeist, it really came into existence in the early 90s, particularly surrounding the Rodney King beating. It was cemented by the fact we had videographic evidence (as stated above, it’s technology, not a fundamental shift in culture, that brings forth new terms and new meanings, even if their usage is inexact if not outright incorrect). However, unlike cancel culture, the fundamental understanding of what someone means when they use the term is always there. The misapplication of the term in situations where no brutality occurred (and its never applied when the police aren’t involved, so we can ignore that possibility) doesn’t in any way lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of the term. Not so with cancel culture.
You say it’s merely a manifestation of the emotional swings of part of the public consciousness, specifically towards the negative. If that’s the case, how does the term comport with situations where there’s speedy, emotional, and often irrational condemnation coming from the various interested parties on an issue that isn’t black-or-white? What about various sports and entertainment fandoms who engage in the back and forth, often towards people and entities who, at best, they have a merely parasocial relationship with? Are the Dallas Cowboy victims of cancel culture when the opposing team derides their quality of play, or says that Dak Prescott sucks and Mike McCarthy is a shitty coach? Per your definition, if it’s merely speedy condemnation spurred along by emotion and not rationality involving group dynamics, then almost anything involving any reasonably public entity (regardless of that entity rises to the legal definition of a public figure) also rises to the point of cancel culture, because no public figure is above speedy condemnation via the emotional vacillations of opposing groups (and almost all of them, through various forms of communication, receive it).
Again, to that last point, none of this is new. None of this has heretofore gone undefined or unnamed. All you’ve done is spread thin the definition of the term as to have it mean damn near anything. If it’s so ingrained in the human psyche (because, as stated, it’s nothing groundbreaking to acknowledge that the emotions of a group, particularly to the negative, can and often do foment and maintain themselves without outside assistance), then it’s not even unique as a cultural touchpoint (in terms of necessitating as its own, independent feature), but is instead something innate in humanity itself.
If the other side has a best argument, it’s still a poor one relative to what I’ve laid out. At best, if you’re going to attach a new name to an already-extant phenomenon, then the new name should be more explanatory and more exact to previous names. If you, or anyone else, can show me how “cancel culture” is clearer, more explanatory, and more exact when referring to any phenomenon its usage is commonly referring to, I’ll take the argument seriously. Until then, I stand by what I’ve repeatedly said: it’s an empty, explanatorily worthless term that is most commonly used by people who seem to think that we, at some recent point in the past, engaged in purely logical behavior when it came to engaging with entities and ideas in the public sphere, and that logical behavior continued even when the amount of people engaging with said entities and ideas increased from the individual to the group. At best, these people have short, very bad memories and talk themselves out of the conversation as soon as they use the term. At worst, these people are being purposefully inexact because they know the term is pithy and alliterative enough to pull at the emotional heartstrings of the very people who complain about utilizing those very same emotional appeals.
I appreciate the thought and care you’ve put into your response. I’ll give it a careful read at some point, although to be frank, I don’t have the time to write the long response it deserves.Again, just a few short ideas, to keep things readable:- Of course none of this is new and technology has sped the process up. That’s what I wrote to you lol. Just because some aspect of public behavior isn’t new doesn’t mean it can’t be concerning, and this is especially true if public behaviors that were relatively benign in the past are rendered more dangerous given technological changes.
– “… most people haven’t defined it, which is why the usage is worthless when it’s coming from them. It’s noise, not communication.” This is how language develops. If you truly aren’t getting any meaning from what they’re saying because you’re so focused with inconsistencies between uses or more precise definitions of “cancel” and “culture,” I don’t think that’s on them.
– “Are the Dallas Cowboy victims of cancel culture when the opposing team derides their quality of play?”I think this is a pretty facile comparison since “cancelling,” as it’s used, seems to be for moral transgressions, but if someone was fired specifically as a reaction to a fast-acting public campaign (arguably this is what happened to Brandon Bostick after the 2014 Wild Card) than it would certainly be an example of scapegoating in the Girardian sense and possibly “cancel culture” too.
– “At worst, these people are being purposefully inexact because they know the term is pithy and alliterative enough to pull at the emotional heartstrings of the very people who complain about utilizing those very same emotional appeals.”Agreed!
– “At best, these people have short, very bad memories and talk themselves out of the conversation as soon as they use the term.”Disagreed! This is not the most charitable interpretation of critics’ position. I do not agree at all that their “inexact language” is so difficult to understand that it’s impossible to parse out an argument. Consider [1] as an example of one-among-very-many pieces that discuss these ideas and treat both sides of a debate as having a particular (if not always well communicated, especially in 140-character bites) point.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/cancel-culture-debate-needs-greater-specificity/629654/
Thank you for the kind and well-reasoned responses thus far, and I’ll do my best to hit the points you made and hopefully provide some clarification if I’ve been unclear.
– Of course none of this is new and technology has sped the process up. That’s what I wrote to you lol. Just because some aspect of public behavior isn’t new doesn’t mean it can’t be concerning, and this is especially true if public behaviors that were relatively benign in the past are rendered more dangerous given technological changes.You’re absolutely right about this, which is why I mentioned police brutality. It was certainly a thing well before notable examples such as Rodney King, but one of the salient points is that just because something is more noticeable due to technological advancement doesn’t mean that the underlying issue (if it’s an issue at all) is objectively worse. I don’t believe that the public behaviors were relatively benign in the past. In fact, they were undoubtedly worse because the behaviors were both obscured by the lack of technology, and often magnified because the fear of reprisal by people who disagreed with the shaming (and all of its outcomes) was mitigated by locality or other forces at play.
Arguably, the best examples of “cancel culture” per your definition were the egregious examples of outright racism against black people post-Civil War, exemplified by occurences such as Rosewood, Tulsa, the murder of Emmett Till, and the lynching of Jesse Washington. While many of these were ostensibly supported by the government apparatus, it would be incorrect (if not dangerous) to ignore the reality that these were mob-rule groundswells steeped on emotion, not logical reasoning, and predicated on at-best incomplete information and at-worst outright lies. Yet these examples are often ignored because they don’t fit the modern narrative and conception of something that has existed in various forms since humans became sedentary (and further, because the modern conception is almost always related to capitalist impulses and responses, which I touch on further down).
This is how language develops. If you truly aren’t getting any meaning from what they’re saying because you’re so focused with inconsistencies between uses or more precise definitions of “cancel” and “culture,” I don’t think that’s on them.It’s not about not getting a meaning, but rather a disagreement on the meaning given relative to the perceived need for a new term for it. In other words, if their own definitions for the term are inexact, why is it now my responsibility to be intellectually respectful towards a term and the definition of the term that are both inexact? If they can’t convey the meaning clearly, and they’re the ones choosing to be inexact, then it comes across as them not having thought out their position, not me refusing to understand or being deliberately obtuse or needlessly semantic. I’m all for slang and colloquialisms that get to the salient point, but cancel culture often times doesn’t because the person using it hasn’t thought about the meaning themselves. If multiple follow-up questions are needed to discern the exact point you’re making, and those follow-up questions are elicited from a two-word term, you question the term and the context it’s being used, not the person (or persons) asking the follow-up questions.
For example, if I were to tell you, “I took my vehicle to work,” you might assume I’m talking about a car. That’s a reasonable assumption, but what if I’m in the Navy and I’m talking about an aircraft carrier or a submarine? Why if I’m a pilot in the Air Force or for Delta Airlines? What if I live in a small town and bike to work? Or New York City and take the subway? Without either follow-up questions or specific context, I’ve stated something that is substantively correct but terminologically inexact (ala Winston Churchill) which ends up needlessly complicating the communication at hand. That is what they’re doing. In other words, if you simply believe that person A shouldn’t lose their job because of action B, just say that. Calling it “cancel culture” levies a whole host of unnecessary implications and suppositions that, in most cases, don’t belong. I think this is a pretty facile comparison since “cancelling,” as it’s used, seems to be for moral transgressions, but if someone was fired specifically as a reaction to a fast-acting public campaign (arguably this is what happened to Brandon Bostick after the 2014 Wild Card) than it would certainly be an example of scapegoating in the Girardian sense and possibly “cancel culture” too.The issue is that what’s considered to be a moral transgression is going to vary based upon the individual or the group, and you can’t deny that fandoms often treat the words and deeds of a public entity that are part and parcel to their chosen careers as transgressions of a moral type. If coerced or outright forced deplatforming via shame is an example, if you see celebrities and athletes who delete their Twitter accounts and Instagram accounts as the result of abuse from the fandom for perceived transgressions related to their occupational activity (such as Tyler Bass after he missed the FG, or Erin Moriarty being excoriated by Megyn Kelly for real or perceived plastic surgery), does that not rise to the stand that you set out? And if it does, why does something that has been a part of the media culture since time immemorial require a new name that’s rather inexact and implies both a new and worse phenomenon?
Disagreed! This is not the most charitable interpretation of critics’ position. I do not agree at all that their “inexact language” is so difficult to understand that it’s impossible to parse out an argument. Consider [1] as an example of one-among-very-many pieces that discuss these ideas and treat both sides of a debate as having a particular (if not always well communicated, especially in 140-character bites) point.Unfortunately I don’t have a subscription to the Atlantic, so I can’t directly reference the article, but I’ll try to provide some clarification for this.
The reason why I referred to (and personally define) cancel culture as capitalism made manifest is that when looking at the time period in which the term has existed (circa 2015) almost every instance of when the term has been applied can be substantively reduced to the application of capitalist ideals supplemented by the existence of the 1st Amendment. Even if you look at examples where government intervention occurred (such as with Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, or R. Kelly), the initial responses were capitalist, which often long preceeded any legal/governmental responses. Weinstein was deposed from his company, Bill Cosby lost bookings and a tour, R. Kelly had his songs pulled from streaming services. All of these are capitalist responses (and there are many, many more).
Further, when you look at other applications of the term, the people using it are specifically talking about capitalist responses. The notion that “platforms” are the public square isn’t borne out by either the law, logic, or capitalism. A platform is akin to a individual’s house. They can invite anyone over, and they can allow that person to stay as long as they want. However, they can also apply various conditions to that person staying. If those conditions aren’t met, the owner of the house can have the person removed (with certain caveats). In short, having had an invite in the past doesn’t guarantee unlimited access in perpetuity, either from an online platform like Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter, or an individual’s private abode. Thus, if you act a fool on those online platforms, you get kicked off, just as if you come to my house and start destroying my shit or calling me out my name, you get kicked out. Those are capitalist responses (the concept of private ownership of property) often supported on a legal basis.
So, my point is that if those complaining that cancel culture is not only a thing, but is objectively bad, then their complaints should be levied at capitalism, if not the brand of capitalism that we’ve created in countries where freedom of speech (to various degrees) is also codified and protected. Why do I say this? Because it’s obvious that, for many (if not most) if these people, the response they’d advocate is to limit the speech and expression of the entities they oppose, and not only that, mandate that people must remain in certain positions regardless of their words or deeds (or, to be charitable, make the process of getting rid of a person so money and time-consuming as to make it a net loss).
Time and time again, you see the absolutists of free speech and free expression show their true colors when their own sacred cows are touched upon. That’s utter hypocrisy, and I’m dismissive towards the notion that people who present a completely hypocritical idea on its face are intellectually deserving of more than a spare thought, and the fact that these hypocrites and their misbegotten ideas are given so much credence is rather disquieting.
The undoubtedly strongest arguments come from those in and on the periphery of academia (which is not at all surprising considering that they’re often the most learned users of the term). However, that’s a much more nuanced area where, while I still think the term is bad (in the sense that there are other terms which are more exact), I certainly understand the worry. However, outside of the structures of academia, I stand on the belief that the term is bad, that most of the people using the term shouldn’t, and that many of that population are, to varying degrees, rather contemtible hypocrites.
I think people sense that the idea of cancel culture has been weaponized in our ongoing culture war. It’s always existed. What else but cancel culture killed Alan Turing and broke Oscar Wilde, blighting the lives of gay people, even upper class European ones, for centuries? But with the advent of social media people get to see how the sausage is made in real time. What once was decided in smoke filled rooms is sent into the common feed to be ratioed to oblivion or carried to the moon on a viral wave. Grassroots or AstroTurf, it’s difficult to tell if an outcry is real. I’m sure we can all think of occasions where the various ideological factions have formed circular firing squads or broken out the torches and pitchforks due to ignorance and assumptions. And people expect that, it’s natural. But they resent when they think they’re being manipulated. Not that they weren’t in the past. But now they can see it. Whichever side you’re on it’s all an attempt to sway opinion by fair means or foul. It’s all propaganda.
Shane Gillis and Alan Turing don’t even belong in the same wing of library when it comes to documenting cancellation.Just stop.
That’s one of my main points.
People are acting as though this is a new phenomenon necessitating a new, pithy name. Neither one of those things are true, and just because technology has made it easier to disseminate perceived examples doesn’t mean it’s objectively worse. In fact, I’d argue it was worse in the past because you often didn’t have the ability for the opposition to respond in-kind.
The outrage, to me (as a student of history) comes across as selective because not only are so many people outright ignoring the history, but they’re patting themselves on the back as though they’ve discovered something new and are making some firm stand when the stakes, in this day and age, are actually so much lower in a variety of aspects.
“Cancel culture isn’t a thing. Capitalism is a thing.”“If you want to go to a society where there is no cancel culture, go to one where you have an autocracy.”Which of these two contradictory statements is true?
“That loss of (some) opportunities and (some) audience members is obviously something, no?”It’s something, alright. What it certainly isn’t is being effectively unemployable and penniless, the definition critics of ‘cancellation’ use, hence why I deployed it ironically.
What “canceled” person has been rendered unemployable and penniless? That might be the definition you’ve assigned it, but it’s not how it’s used, and I’m not sure its critics define it that way. The people referred to as “canceled” overwhelmingly get fired from their main job and move on to some other job.
“What “canceled” person has been rendered unemployable and penniless?”
None. That’s the joke.“That might be the definition you’ve assigned it”It is not. That is the definition assigned mostly by the conservative/incel crowd. I can’t take any credit.
Just for the sake of conversation… if, say, a million people use the phrase to refer to situation A, then they’re not using it mean situation B.I guess this is all besides the point. I just don’t think it does any good to say “cancel culture is a boogeyman and doesn’t even make sense” rather than having constructive conversations about a practice we can all see, regardless of whatever name for it has burbled out up of the last decade’s discussion.Anyway, have a good week there, Captain.
The point is… people like you made up this defintion within the last 20-30 years.It’s only a term because you made it.You’ve done to the word ‘cancel’ what gen Z did to ‘literally’… misused it so much the dictionaries had to respond.The ONLY sense that people like Gillis have been “cancelled” is in the new sense that the political right made up, which has nothing to do with how that word was used for 100s of years.
Yes, like “cisgender”, “bromance”, “sexting”, “photobomb”, and countless others, it came into usage in the last two decades to describe an existing phenomenon.What’s your point? Every word and phrase is made up.
Pro wrestling has a few examples of this. Look up Jimmy Havoc. Is he working? Yep. He has a job as a package courier for a UK version of UPS. Is he working in a wrestling ring? Fuck no, because his behavior made him unemployable in that space.I’d call that being canceled. Dude was canceled from entertainment into manual labor.
Except capitalists don’t believe you have a “right” to any job, and then they’re inevitably the ones screeching about “cancel culture.” Cancel culture is capitalism in action, being deplatformed is capitalism functioning as intended. You can’t cry about how evil socialism is and say capitalism is the only freedom and then complain when it works and you just don’t like it.
Cancel culture is capitalism in action, being deplatformed is capitalism functioning as intended. We’re entirely in agreement. You can’t cry about how evil socialism is and say capitalism is the only freedom and then complain when it works and you just don’t like it. We’re entirely in agreement.To be completely clear here, the post you responded to is not a “see, SEE! IT TOTALLY EXISTS and is an affront to FREE SPEACH” thing. I was responding to someone who was asking if it was even possible to be “canceled,” and Jimmy Havoc’s career came to mind. That struck me as a case where you had a guy who made a career for himself, fucked it up, and is now radioactive in that field.And fuck Jimmy Havoc, btw. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Dude made his bed, now he’s laying in it.
Oh I was just agreeing with you and hoping the chuds read it and understand it (not that they’ve proven particularly capable of either but we can hope!)
Appreciated. I think this one just went all “he’s saying cancel culture is real! GET ‘IM!” Which is kind of hilarious, given the conversation was about the complexities of it.
You and the “cancel culture is real” club are the ones that required all dictionaries to update the meaning of the word ‘cancel’.Your meaning of the word is the newest entry for ‘cancel’ in the OED. It was literally added very recetnly because your lot MADE IT UP.The people who say people like Chappelle and Gillis didn’t get canceled, are using the most popular defintion of the word (which has existed since the 1400s).
Eh, two things can be true:1. If someone can still have a career in the field they were ostensibly “thrown out of,” they were not canceled.2. Someone’s behavior can limit their future opportunities, depending on what they’ve done, where they did it, and to whom.People saying “cancel culture doesn’t exist” are just playing semantics, seeing as social mores (and enforcement thereof) have been a thing since LONG before we had names for them, and social dynamics have been imposed/enforced since we were shit-chucking early hominids sitting around guttering fires. That has legitimately always been a thing, and will always be a thing, regardless of whether people want to quibble over the nomenclature to score rhetorical points.But regarding lost opportunities? Eh, very little sympathy when it comes to entertainment. Any field in which someone needs an agent, and/or publicist, and/or social media team? Yeah man, more eyeballs will be on that person than would be on you or me. That person’s public persona matters. That person’s public *perception* matters. That person’s livelihood hinges on plying their craft to the largest possible audience, with the hopes of becoming their own, self-directed cottage industry.Like…a longtime axiom of the entertainment industry (especially out in LA and such) is to be as outwardly pleasant as possible, as you never know who you’re going to meet, or who might be in a position to give you a job down the line. PR is a major part of the job, so someone who *knows* that, and decides that it shouldn’t apply to them? I mean, okay, good luck and all that.
I agree with everything you wrote except for (1) but I think this is just another semantic difference. Michelle Wolf had a bit in her most recent special where she goes on about how “#MeToo should have had levels,” and I think this is what a lot of this comes down to.“Cancel” is held by some people to refer only to the most complete set of professional consequences (e.g. your example of Jimmy Havoc below, or Captain Splendid’s “unemployable and penniless”) and by other people to represent a whole spectrum of behavior capturing the same “public shaming -> some level of professional consequences.”So you have people writing reams about whether “cancel culture” are the right two words to refer to a pattern of behavior both sides acknowledge exist, and that conversation happens instead of anything substantive about the process itself. This seems to me like a dumb situation. It’s a pet peeve, and that’s the only point I was trying to make.
Michelle Wolf had a bit in her most recent special where she goes on about how “#MeToo should have had levels,” and I think this is what a lot of this comes down to. There’s a reason for that, IMO.I think that reasonable people can make a distinction between, say, Aziz Ansari’s thing and Harvey Weinstein’s numerous scandals. I say that because FFS there’s a difference. Legally, contextually, name it.When you’re talking about the wider Internet, you can toss “reasonable people” right out the fucking window. Any part of the Internet with a comment section doesn’t just *devolve* into a bunch of validation-obsessed, caterwauling idiots screaming their ids into the sky – it fucking STARTS there. It’s windmilling punches for the sake of it. It’s a mosh pit that people toss themselves into either “just cuz” or just to feel SOMETHING aside from ennui.To the extent that the nuanced conversations happen *at all*, you’re not going to find them here, or in pretty much any comment section without guard rails.That kind of circles back to the whole “entertainers are public figures” thing I was talking about. If 100 voices are yelling out about a performer, and threatening a boycott or whatever, probably a good 50% of them have not watched the show they’re complaining about and never had any intentions to do so. 10% might be trolls. Another 20% are the people who argue online as a hobby, and that particular performer might be good enough for an online scrum that day. But the execs at the top just see 100 yelling faces, say “oh shit OH SHITOHSHIT!,” and make the decision that they think will best align with “line must go UP!”Hell, if you were to get the most ardent online punch-windmillers into a room, in person, and ask them point blank whether there’s a difference between trying to coerce someone into sex and a decades-long siege of sexual assault, I’d say the vast majority would recognize that there *is* a difference. Mainly because, in person, taking the contrarian view there would crystallize that the contrarian is a gasping fucking moron with no concept of scale. Online, though? The fighting *is* the point. It’s the *main* point.
There’s a recent free post on Nate Silver’s Substack classifying the five types of people who argue on the internet that you might get a kick out of.And yeah, agreed. The phenomenon has always been there, and societies have always scapegoated public figures in response to real or imagined transgressions, but it can happen faster and at a larger scale now than ever before, and its increasing visibility and frequency have led to people talking about it more. “Cancel culture” is a catcher term than “Girardian scapegoating.”Alright, I’ve probably exceeded my commenting time budget for the week. Have a good one!
As if to prove my point about punch-windmilling, id-first fuckos, one waded in as I was typing my last reply to you, to point a finger at “people like you (me)” for deliberately distorting the meaning of “cancel culture” for a culture war reason.Yep. There ya have it. I’m here pulling a psy op on a bunch of terminally online crust chuds because I’m clearly angling for a pro-cis male culture war. The dipshit fuckin’ cracked it. 😀 Bunch of fucking toddlers, man.
‘Cancel’ in the way you’re defending has existed for less than 30 years. It’s a made up phrase.
When you make up a phrase by deliberately and intentionally misusing a word… you don’t get whine when people point out that you made up a phrase.Don’t agree with me… I challenge you to look at an dictionary that provides etymology and check out when your version of the word ‘cancel’ came into existence.And I’m not saying language doesn’t change of shouldn’t change. I’m pointing out that people like you deliberately changed it for a specific culture war reason.
And I’m not saying language doesn’t change of shouldn’t change. I’m pointing out that people like you deliberately changed it for a specific culture war reason. Missing the point? Check.Using a stupid-as-fuck phrase like “people like you?” Double check.Congratulations. You are the exact sort of indiscriminate online punch-windmiller that I’ve described, to the extent that you cannot see that we’re more in agreement than in disagreement.TL;DR version: yes, dipshit, “cancel culture” is a made up term (appropriated from black culture, to be clear) that is the latest stand in for the concept of “defining and enforcing social mores,” which is a messy process by design.Now fuck off and go read a book.
By “continued to work steadily as a comedian” you mean he “tends bar or drives an Uber while he phones his avails to Mitzy at Giggles?”
I came for the av bubble meltdown and man, you all never disappoint
They are mad at Gillis for jokes while they write a loving puff piece about pedophile racist Jerry Seinfeld.
Nah, piss off, I think they both suck.
That puff piece made no mention of Seinfeld’s long history of racism. Nor did it mention him dating a child when he was in his 30s. Media outlets like the AV Club love calling out racism as long as it isn’t the racism of zionists against Palestinians. What do you think is worse Gillis’s jokes or Seinfeld going to Israel to roleplay killing Palestinians? Pretty easy call in my opinion. Gillis doesn’t advocate for genocide.
Like I said. I think they both suck.
Ok stupid.
Even though I like the show Seinfeld, I think Jerry Seinfeld in real life is a huge asshole, and I agree that dating a girl that much younger than him is weird and creepy, but she was 18, so an adult. As much of a shitbag as I think he is, for a variety of things, he’s not a pedophile (I assume you’re talking about Shoshanna Lonstein, if there is an actual child he was involved with, I haven’t heard about it).
He dated her before she was 18. He should be shunned from society. He should be in jail because he is a predator. He is a racist who whines about cancel culture while advocating for the genocide of Palestinians. Seinfeld travelled to Israel and roleplayed at killing Palestinians. He is a bigger scumbag than Shane Gillis yet they write a puff piece about him.
I just looked it up instead of just going off my memory, and what I found said they met at a park when she was 17, but didn’t start dating until she was 18. But even if she had been 17, that would have still been legal, even though I think it’s weird, it wouldn’t have made him a pedophile.I’m really not trying to defend Jerry Seinfeld, I think he’s a jerk, but he can be a weird creepy asshole without being a pedophile. But, I don’t think I’m going to change your mind, and he’s generally a pretty shitty person, so whatever.
There’s no point talking to this poster. They’re a troll who has to continually change their name every month or so in order to get people to engage with them. They are not arguing in good faith, and are only ever straining for gotchas and whataboutisms when not actively promoting some form of bigotry or another.
at least we’re consistent, huh?
I don’t see anyone melting down, just a bunch of “who?”
People who like Gillis and the other naughty little boy style comedians think offending people is a badge of honor.Thus, they interpret every comment that isn’t gushing praise as motivated by being offended.I’m not typically one to kink shame, but this particular one is weird as hell.
yeah stay mad, AV Club.
What a weird fetish. Which of the ten or so “wait, who is this guy?” comments did you find most sexually gratifying?
Damn that’s pathetic. No wonder you think Gills is funny.
With musical guest Morgan Wallen?
Look, if you hear him in context he’s not really that racist.
featuring Ice Cube (who gets a pass for…reasons?)
His standup is hilarious and very well crafted. 2019 was really the high point for “cancellations” and it’s nice to see that many people who said cancelling someone had no real effect proved correct.
“ it’s nice to see that many people who said cancelling someone had no real effect proved correct.”And yet… 90% of this comment section is people insisting it’s rampant and devastating to TONS of people.
He’s on point with his stand up and funny. Context is key.
What is this “con – tekst” you speak of?
Context is more than the inform you want to include.The dude has a history of being “edgy” like am immature teen just for the sake of it.That’s ‘context’ too. Not just the specific words you want people to pay attention to, so that he’s off the hook.
Is Lorne Michael going scorched earth?
I mean they already had Trump himself host. This seems like absolutely nothing compared to that.
I’m surprised and heartened by people not knowing who this guy is. He’s a big fav for the young, 20-something white male who definitely will be like “I’m an ally, honest” but then say, “But like, why so many female superhero movies?” and “I’m all for people of color getting roles, but like, you’re really just changing the core of who Deadshot is by making him a black man!” And, “Not everything HAS to be gay. I’m all for equal marriage but why does every show need a gay?”They all definitely watch Joe Rogan, and at least have discussed the possibility that COVID might’ve been fake but that it’s definitely not harmful to them, so whatever, right?That’s this guy’s fan base. You’ll find them all over reddit and twitter, and in the guy in your office who’ll argue to you about everything pop culture, despite being wrong. Given what we saw of Bowen last week after Chapelle’s surprise appearance, I’m sure Bowen is thrilled….
I don’t know who Shane Gillis is but you just described my brother-in-law to a “T”. Voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 “because Bernie wasn’t allowed to run for president.” My view of the guy has never recovered.
Your brother in law sounds like such an asshole for not voting for the Democrats. What kind of monster would not support a political party who is helping Israel commit genocide? I bet your brother in law has no idea how important it is we help Genocide Joe murder Palestinian babies. Can you imagine how much worse the genocide would be under Trump? Thank God we have the nice genociders in office. Honestly they should arrest your brother in law.
Uh, I’m pretty sure left to his own devices Trump would nuke Gaza like it was a hurricane.
So he would continue the policies of the Biden Administration in a cost efficient manner?
You know Shane gillis has a very funny joke about how Trump tried to nuke a hurricane one time
I did not! I’d never heard of him before today. That’s cool though, it was pretty damn funny.
So what you’re saying is Gillis is a funny as random internet comments?Ringing endorsement!
Hello, I’m Super Smart Lefty. I’m so super smart I still can’t see the difference between the parties even though women have lost abortion rights because Trump was elected over Hillary.
Democrats care so little about abortion they put senile Diane Feinstein in charge of protecting it. Obama gave Republicans a Supreme Court seat you fucking idiot.
Obama didn’t give it to them, Republican Senators stole it by refusing to do their job.
Obama gave it to them. Now he does nothing to restore abortion rights while living in a mansion in an all white community. He laughs at stupid assholes like you. Find one other time in the history of the USA where a political party stole a Supreme Court seat from the other party. It has never happened before because all the other Presidents weren’t corrupt scum like Obama. The only other explanation is Obama is the stupidest President ever. You can pick what you think it is. Stupid or corrupt. Either way Obama is the reason abortion is wrong.
Can you tell us what Obama should have done regarding the supreme court seat then? Give us the play by play Obama was too stupid/corrupt to see.
lol You are such a pathetic loser to make excuses for highly corrupt politicians who fuck up. So your theory is Obama isn’t corrupt? He’s just the dumbest politician ever? You fucking bootlicking loser.
Oky doke. No idea then, I take it?
lol That’s how you justify Obama’s stupidity and/or corruption? lol You really are a born bootlicker, huh? You are stupid. Obama should have used drones on every single Republican in the country. He should have hit them at weddings and double tapped the ambulances who came to help like he did to people in the Middle East. He had no problem killing American children with drones yet he wouldn’t use a drone on his best friend Mitch McConnell because Obama is corrupt. Drone striking an American is perfectly 100% legal and Mitch deserved it way more than that American child Obama killed. I solved it. Dumbass. Easy.
Had Mitch McConnell killed. Just like Joe should have Trump’s SCOTUS appointees whacked. If more politicians were willing to resort to violence and assassination we’d get a lot more done in this country.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Ha. Yeah, I’m the idiot when you think Obama gave them a spot when he appointed someone and the senate failed to do their job, which was, gasp, run by Republicans. You even think somehow there’s one person in charge of protecting abortion rights. You’re so far up your own ass you have no idea what’s going on.
Never happened before. Never will happen again. Obama let it happen because he is corrupt or stupid. No other answer. You are a fucking loser who makes excuses for an obviously corrupt or incompetent politician because you don’t want to think like an adult. I’m sure its just a coincidence that Obama put up zero fight when Republicans put a corrupt scumbag on the Supreme Court who perfectly aligned with what Obama’s biggest donors want in a Supreme Court justice. You idiot.
I just need to know what pathology it is that causes so many spaces after periods in your posts. You’ve clearly got, like, a brain fungus or something. That must be what’s doing it.
“I’m sure its just a coincidence that Obama put up zero fight when Republicans put a corrupt scumbag on the Supreme Court who perfectly aligned with what Obama’s biggest donors want in a Supreme Court justice. You idiot.”
Obviously you’re very dumb, but I’m genuinely curious what you think you’re talking about here.
Ah I see he’s from the Bill Burr school of “I’m going to claim I’m a liberal but also say conservative bullshit all the fucking time.”
a lot of us tend to be moderates
yeah a lot of us tend to be moderate after the dust settles.
Except more conservative than Burr both in frequency and content of his material.
Bill Burr hates white women. How does that make him a conservative?
You’re so smart.
Shows you’ve never been too one of his shows or watched one of his specials his fan base is mixed dummy
Ooo, it’s like I summoned a shining example! Don’t you love when a point is proven for you?
Ooo don’t you just love when you have a super conveninent way to dismiss everyone who disagrees with you!
BTW don’t let the commenters here hearten you too much. It’s a bubble. Shane Gillis’ shows sell out in a matter of minutes. One of the biggest comedians working and only ascending.
You described it perfectly. Maybe its a sign I’m getting old now, but I’ve seen this guy’s stand up and every time I’m like “This guy is flat out not funny”. It’s very much 15 year old male lunchroom “humor”. It’s not even jokes so much of the attitude of “I’ve got this all figured out and I’m edgy” but there’s barely even a grasp of the basic understanding of the concepts being talked about. And like you described, there’s a lot “I’m not against *insert thing*”, then proceeds to make *insert thing* the entire basis of the joke.
Yeah, you’re getting old now.
Still waiting for the reason he was tapped to host. It’s usually tied to something concrete and happening in the near future, not “hey, he’s been doing the comedian thing for like years now and it’s just his time”. Or maybe someone cancelled?
Are fans of Joe Rogan adjacent comedians really also complaining about Deadshot casting online lol
Nah, this person is just retarded.
What a brave and important analysis.
Nailed it. I had a boss like that. I just knew one day he’d do it… and then he did the old “I get the BLM movement, but slavery’s been over for 150 years.”.
Nailed it. Those dudes are pretty transparent, thankfully.
Bowen should grow up and do his job. Shane is funny.
Yeah, his fan base sucks. A lot of them do. Guaranteed yours would too if you had one. He shoulda told SNL to go fuck themselves.
Shane Gillis has cited numerous times he should have been cancelled. So this is cloddish reporting on your part… which is unsurprising when agenda over facts is typical here. He also cited that the Asian comments were taken out of context when the entire podcast was raw comedy thrown in all directions insulting just about everyone.
Maybe if Bowen Yang has some microagression related issue with every host or guest to appear on the show … it’s at least possible to consider that the issue is him.
This seems like a weird thing to say. Hasn’t he reacted that way just once?
I was responding to another post who suggested there had been multiple.
Well, you failed and replied to the article. Also I don’t see any other posts suggesting that Yang has reacted negatively to other people’s presence on SNL more than once. Though Kinja is weird and terrible, so I’m not quite prepared to call you full of shit.
Yeah but this is a fake outrage. Bowen has never bad mouthed Gillis, he even follows him on Twitter. Both Gillis fanatics and the Twitter wokes want to pretend they are enemies when there is no evidence of this
Microaggressions are debunked horseshit. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/202206/the-problem-research-microaggressions
Oh look, you have an opinion piece. Sorry you have such a hard time with the fact that our society isn’t perfect.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691619827499https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/2021-sept-microaggressions.htmlhttps://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-020-00472-8https://hbr.org/2022/05/research-the-real-time-impact-of-microaggressionshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8436293/
What other hosts/guests has he had issues with?Maybe if someone does something once, and you act like it happens all the time… it’s at least possible to consider that the issue is you and/or your difficulty differentiating between reality and your feelings?
Cool imagination you have there.
Can they get Charles Rocket to host? He only said fuck.
“I keep telling you, Charles Rocket is 56 and he’s dead.”
He apparently tries to call himself “risky” by packaging the entire spectrum of homophobia, racism and sexism into his “comedy”. It looks like he’s just trying to make being a homophobic, racist, misogynistic jerk into a cool thing?
Great, more edgelord nonsense from SNL. Maybe Musk and Chappelle will make an appearance. Barf.
The best thing about these “edgy” comics now… is they’re on the edge of “PC” in 1998. So brave and challenging!
Man the “cancel” era is really and truly over (such that is ever really existed anyway). Absolute vibe shift. A whole lot of petty authoritarians are gonna be big mad.
They’ll keep lying about it. Don’t worry.
You can see here that they already are. They don’t understand why everyone isn’t bowing to them anymore.
Your commitment to being the dumbest bitch here is truly astounding
When exactly was this “cancel” era? When this dude couldn’t get any work except solo Netflix specials?
The one I put in quotes and then added such that it ever existed implying it’s not particularly convincing as a consequential phenomenon? That one? Lasted around 8 or so years.
Then who are the “petty authoritarians” in your take?
People who wanted it to have more of an impact and people who demanded those people be silenced. Petty authoritarians are a very popular category.
So, members of marginalized groups who finally accrued more buying power than bigots? Or capitalists who made decisions based on the invisible hand of the market?These are the authoritarians you are referring to?
Plenty of non marginalized bigoted people are also included in both the groups I talked about.Nothing invisible about campaigns to influence what corporations do though of course. It can be a very effective tactic.
So, either you buy the product regardless or you are an authoritarian? Interesting and sincere take.
You have inferred that accidentally.
That’s true. But it’s still your take.When your group controls the buying power, everything is good. Anyone else —> authoritarianism.Not a new one.
Yes see this is you inferring things that aren’t there, I’m assuming you are doing this accidentally of course. “Buying power” isn’t very influential when “canceled” people get Netflix specials.
What am I getting wrong? Every program, product, and piece of content ever has been subject to the tastes and sensitivities of its audience. A different group gets involved, and it’s a bad thing.Misinterpretation and pointing out the inanity of a reactionary cliche are two different things.
“A different group gets involved, and it’s a bad thing.”Yes see this is you inferring things that aren’t there.
Explain to me who the authoritarians are who only entered the discussion 8 years ago.
Well those ones will be the ones who saw an increase in influence to sway corporate decision making. But there’s many petty authoritarians who also already have that power who will be big mad that their favourite cry of “cancel culture” no longer has any meaning therefore completely collapsing any claims that they’re in the losing side of a culture war. You could have just asked this question at first to save yourself the incorrect assumptions.
Well, that was top notch backtracking. However, even so, you are differentiating the newly empowered from the traditional wielders of power, on that classic “equality is oppression” vibe.
There was no backtracking you just assumed too much.There was never any real power in the new guys hence why Gillis is now hosting SNL. This was something the new guys made clear when they correct claimed cancel culture wasn’t a thing.
Okay, fella. Real cogent argument you got there. You’re still singling out one group trying to influence things as bad, but not the larger groups who have always done so.No matter how much you try to aw-shucks it, this had nothing to do with anything but you being threatened by people who aren’t like you having (nearly) as much power as those who are.
No I always talked about both groups you just assumed I wasn’t and read every post with that lens. You can’t articulate what my argument is (only your inference of it)let alone whether it is cogent or not.You then go on to assume more and more with your “people who aren’t like you” comment which is lazy and dated just less so than more traditionally reactionary ones.
Your petty authoritarians are the ones mad that the racist jokes guy was on the show and not the ones mad that he wasn’t, dude.Consider your works more closely next time if you don’t want to show your ass.
I have no petty authoritarians, you have literally made up a guy to argue with.Ask for clarification when you don’t understand a comment before jumping to conclusions.
“A whole lot of petty authoritarians are gonna be big mad.”Make your cryptoracism more cryptic next time.
You’ll note I literally say it’s nice that people explaining that cancel culture wasn’t a big deal have been proved correct in another comment on here before any of this. You have assumed too much.
No sure why you think suggesting that it turns out that those terrible minorities can’t actually influence programming as much s the dominant majority has any bearing on you judging the former as authoritarian and the latter as the correct and natural course of things.
You’re arguing with a person you’ve made up to get mad at. Not with anything I’ve said or implied. Does this often work?
Whoever told you that this is a charming rhetorical technique lied.If you aren’t going to stand behind the dumb shit you say, don’t say it.
I stand by what I said but obviously not your made up version of what you think I said. Talk about solipsism.
Got it. You stand behind having said what you said but deny that any of the words mean what they mean.
You’ve made many incorrect assumptions and not tried to correct any of them. You’re incapable of arguing with another person only imaginary versions that satisfy your own needs.
My dude, you regurgitated a tired right wing cliche, then realized it wasn’t defensible, and tried to pretend you didn’t say anything. Your current position is that you said this aggressively dumb thing but weren’t actually saying anything at all. Super.I don’t know what subreddit told you that this was effective rhetoric, but they lied.
You’re incorrect in your first sentence and every subsequent one. Nothing will change unless you swallow your assumptions and maybe a little bit of pride.
What demarcated the cancel era? What is the vibe shift? Is that positive or negative? Who are the petty authoritarians and why are they mad now? Why is one group’s influence on the market worse than another’s? Why are you othering some people and making others the norm? Why are you claiming to “stand behind” a post but not standing behind a single word in it?What was the point of your agressive but apparently now content-less post?
“Why is one group’s influence on the market worse than another’s? Why are you othering some people and making others the norm?”Yep you’re still making up a guy to get mad at. It’s why there was no point further explaining my point to you because you are fundamentally asking and framing things in bad faith while being convinced you know what I mean despite being wrong in every post you’ve made.
Further explaining? Give me a fucking break.But you’re right, there is no point in continuing with the same stupid fucking deflections, since it is clear that you are never going to engage.Better luck next time with your making your deniable racist takes actually deniable, kiddo.
Yet more incorrect assumptions and silly aspersions. Your first reply to me contained a daft assumption and you double, triple and quadrupled etc down. Classic move when reading something you don’t like but can’t figure out why.
Damn that was a lot of time you spent rewording the same deflection rather than explaining your stupid fucking take.
I’m sorry you find typing a few words such a big task.
Shockingly, asking for clarification also doesn’t lead you to do dick but deflect, over and fucking over again.
Every post makes you look more full of shit, son.
Not when you do it with a bunch of ridiculous assumptions in your framing. You don’t seem actually able to just ask without throwing in a bunch of opinion and comments that are just wrong.Not to mention the “son” and “kiddo” bits make you look insanely angry online.
Wow, you are one impressive fucking communicator. Why try to be understood when you can spend an entire day whining about being misunderstood?And the guy who hates assumptions really needs to learn the difference between angry and dismissive signifiers.
Oh I have no doubt you want it to appear dismissive but it doesn’t.
Maybe you’re just as bad at reading as you are at writing?
Perhaps you two can talk it over yourselves?
QED
Yes. Mine.
Man, you tried really really hard to get him to sink to your level and just start throwing out ad hominems, but you got absolutely steamrolled in this exchange. Get destroyed. Lmao.
Okay, that’s totally what just happened! Dude threw out a stupid reactionary cliche that he realized he couldn’t defend so he pretended he didn’t say the thing he said. Like 80 times.
If you weren’t full of shit, you would have explained your take already rather than making 20 posts about how I misinterpreted it.
No it didn’t
It never existed except in your feeble little mind
YouTube has been feeding his shorts to me, and the material I’ve seen has an edgy wind-up, and finish with a “were you laughing because you’re agreeing with the racism? You’re kinda dumb.” He’s playing the line well, I see why they might pick him. YMMV, milder but targeting a different crowd than Bill Burr’s turns, and certainly not as boring at the Sebastian Maniscalco material I’ve seen. Mind you, I haven’t seen a lot because he goes lispy and feminine saying Hamilton, and his windup includes “I don’t know where I’ll sit”—my man, theater has assigned seating. That’s some lazy material.
I’ve been getting his shorts on YT as well, and I kind of agree. He gives off a redneck vibe but then his world view seems subtly liberal. I think I do need to see a bit more of his stuff.
His Alabama football solving racism bit is really good.
“not as boring at the Sebastian Maniscalco material”talk about damning with faint praise
I only know what the algorithms show me!
I looked it up and he’s 36. His humor seems geared towards aging frat bro/party boys really into the Barstool universe. Like dudes who say they are “social liberal/fiscal conservatives” but hold pretty much conservative viewpoints.
Ayo Edebiri and now Gillis, SNL will have 2 good shows this year, at least! His Trump is the best impression so it’d be great if they let him get the cold open over JAJ
Ever see a Joan Rivers concert? Hundreds of gay men in the audience, many in the front rows hoping and praying that Joan would skewer the shit out of them and insult them in the most vicious ways. Dying laughing, having a great time, able to take a joke, secure and confident in themselves, understanding that we’re all there to have fun. And, hey, the other night, while having tremendously long and exciting gay sex with my buddy, during which we always laugh and smile and joke around ourselves, I called him a “little fa**ot” (he’s big, though) and he laughed and kissed the shit out of me. I also tell him many sweet and wonderful things. But we’re both secure with who we are. As are most gays. It’s just the tender snowflakes out there who deeply need to be offended in order to feel good about themselves who squeal about a gay joke or “slur”. I’m fine with straight people making gay jokes – go ahead, I’ll probably laugh. It’s sad that there’s a contingent out there intent on silencing everyone for everything. It’s gone too far. It really has. Five years from now, this sort of thing will be fading away, as it should. You’ll see. Lighten the fuck up.
If you watch Shane’s Netflix special (which came out in 2023, not 2022 by the way) he doesn’t dip into ‘cancel culture’ at all. Certainly not the way many comedians with a similar fan base do. Hell, Chris Rock – who has never been cancelled in any way, shape or form – opened his latest special with a parade of the most tired, 2018-ass cancel culture jokes you can imagine. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for Shane to go full alt-right, ‘triggered’ comedian, and he didn’t. He endured one of the lowest points a professional entertainer could possibly experience, rolled up his sleeves, and started working his way back.
I vaguely remembered who this person was, and I was interested in learning more about them since they will be hosting SNL next. I made it through about 5 pictures of his Instagram before deciding that I will be skipping his episode of SNL.
As an Asian American, I thought Gillis was justifiably fired from the show. I also thought his follow-up Instagram post was ridiculous and arrogant. I wrote him off as an edge-lord asshole and chose to celebrate that Bowen Yang was cast.But then I heard Gillis’ stand-up a few years later and couldn’t help but think, “There’s a lot more going on here than I probably assumed because he’s genuinely writing excellent jokes.” (His Fox News dad bit is really, really strong and original.) I’ve listened to a few interviews with Gillis where he talks in-depth about his “cancellation.” He admits that he “deserved” it and understands the backlash, refuses to say he was “cancelled” even when hack comedians goad him into doing so, and is largely just a big oaf who seems to like to have a good time and talk shit. While he’s transgressive with language, I never find it mean or malicious – mostly self-parodical and tongue in cheek. (Of course, your mileage may vary on that and that’s fine.)
His comedy is some of the best out there right now, although he is an odd choice to host SNL. That said, he’s said that he’s still in touch with Lorne, friends with Michael Che, Sam Jay, Chris Rock, etc., and his sketch comedy is genuinely hilarious (see the ISIS Toyota sketch). His Netflix special is also a hit. So not too surprising that he’s hosting considering they also had Bargatze host not long ago. (Also Gillis does a really good Trump, so will be fun to see what they choose to do with him and JAJ who has a very different take.) His political leanings aren’t clear although he explicitly states he’s not a Republican – he’s friends with the socialist Cumtown guys and the libertarian Rogan crew – and I prefer my comedy that way anyway. I think there’s a lot of unfair criticism of the guy. He got a public flogging for talking too much shit and I think it’s okay to give the guy a second chance. If he turns out to truly be an asshole, then fuck him. But as of right now, he’s really funny and seems like an okay guy.Worth noting that Bowen Yang also follows the guy on Instagram still, so probably not as offended as you all might assume.
Well, this is definitely a step up from claiming to have an Asian friend, but it is still utter bullshit.
I saw Shane at The Stand in NYC do a set just a few months after all of this went down. Maybe February of 2024. He killed so hard in the room that night that I overheard a young 20 something in the room change her entire view on him right on the spot.
*Shane Gillis’s publicist has entered the chat.
This little “poster” got himself ungreyed in this thread, to his joy. Let me pull up his other hits, just so we know what we’re really dealing with.This is what happens when he thinks he has latitude. All the time. He’ll probably change his account name again in the future, but he’s got his brand of toxic on tap, so it isn’t hard to see when he pops up again. I don’t know if he has an alt that posts excrement porn in large batches, so I wouldn’t worry about that too much.
Do you somehow know it’s the same guy? It seems optimistic to assume there’s only one racist troll on Kinja.
This particular account is a simple renaming of the “charliemeadows69420″ account. One or two of the trolls have occasional breakdowns and post the same gif over and over again until they get an IP ban, and then they restart with a new IP or account later, and both Obombya and Charlie posted the same gif of a monkey peeing in several long sprees over the past few years. Apparently there was also some more graphic stuff on Jezebel during it’s sale, but I never saw it. I think this is actually our most prolific troll here. There are a few other ones, but I know this one has had over a dozen accounts, and they all post the same racist bullshit while also trying to bait people with semi-reasonable discussions in order to get out the greys.
Thanks! This is mildly fascinating to me.
He was angrily blaming my calling him out over on The Root, for them closing their comments section, but then later decided that he should claim it as his own victory, that HE made them do it. I suppose that means I’ve been falsely accused by him, in his eyes? 🤣
I know it’s rather meta to be going on about Kinja trolls, but there’s a post here from Obama-Charlie-whatever that shows why I’ve thought that he might be a Kremlin troll.Now, this is meant to be a troll, and probably supposed to be an emotion-raising, argument provoking troll post. It follows the somewhat “rules” that other Kremlin bots would follow on Disqus. Play both sides, get emotions heated, and get the Moscow angle in there.
For me, I think this because the post itself seems so forced. It’s like someone watched Kremlin propaganda from Russia’s Channel One and decided that this was actually what Americans talk about and how they argue about it. So it looks as though he’s trying to press emotional buttons based on it.And for Russians that follow Kremlin propaganda, Obama isn’t “yesterday’s news”, he’s still somehow current. So it would follow to try to provoke an argument using pointed statements involving him. But the poster seems lost on the point that Obama is very much yesterday’s news for the West and non-extreme-right Americans. It’s not quite like trying to make Jimmy Carter into current hot political news, but it’s getting there.He also tries to awkwardly play both sides of the spectrum, in the same way a 2015-6 bot might have tried in political news comments. It’s an argumentative, but from someone that isn’t immersed in the real environment that the arguments would be based from. So it comes up as weirdly based, as far as conversation goes.
But other times, the person typing these posts just plays the generally rude troll, trying to be remembered for random insults.
This is an interesting look inside the brain of a mentally ill person (you).
Always relevant:
So they blamed Obama because Mitch McConnell blocked any action to put forth a candidate? Trolls are so confusing.
As Jimmy McGill said, the world is a rich tapestry!
And of course, they’re just cunning enough to have learned how to dismiss comments after only a few years of trying their best, so now they dismiss any reply they can that mentions all the alt-accounts and name changes. So brave!
You’re literally an insane person. Why would you let the fact that one person is saying things you don’t like send you off the deep end like this?
Lmao I love all the old white hipsters trying the “who?” nonsense and pretending they don’t know who one of the biggest touring comedians is. Yeah, he’s famous. Probably will be one of the higher rated episodes of the season. But stay big mad about it.
So what’s lil Sethy Simons up to these days? I’m sure he’ll get his big break soon.
He’ll get out of his mom’s basement any day now. It’s odd that everyone that was pro Shane getting kicked off of SNL have no idea that guy that forefront of it has some, arguably worse, allegations of his own.
Doing bird poetry on the mean streets of Philly and eating his own shit.
He’s your dad?
As a comedian, he’s at the level of a “morning zoo” sidekick. Lorne Michaels is hedging his bets in case the country falls to Fascism.
Well first off, ya fell right into their trap by writing this article. SNL is pretty desperate for relevance, so since none of their skits can get a “can you believe this did this last week” article, they got you to write a “can you believe they are doing this” about who they are going to have host.I won’t pretend to not know who the guy is, because if you spend any time on youtube their shorts algorithm will feed him to you at some point no matter what the other things you click say about your politics.Anyone claiming he shouldn’t host because he’s unknown, they already crossed that rubicon with Nate Bargatze. Clearly they are having a real problem getting actual famous people to host, probably because the risk to reward ratio is not what is once was.As for dudes “comedy”, he’s wasn’t very funny, and then when SNL unhired him, he leaned into the “unwoke” schtick in a way that was even less so. He’s basically the outcome of that kid who says gross stuff to get a laugh and then tries to back it out by saying “I was JUST joking” when it doesn’t get a laugh, never gets challenged by anyone early on.
What’s going on here? Does Tucker Carlson have some blackmail dirt on Lorne Michaels?
People like you aren’t allowed to control the conversation anymore. Go away and – preferably – die.
Gotta love people in the comments being all “Well, I’VE never heard of him” as if that means he’s not one of the most popular stand-up comedians working today. Love him or hate him, that episode’s gonna get numbers.
Gotta love people in the comments expecting everyone else to know a niche comic.
Huh. K.On the one hand, why?
OTOH, can’t be much worse than some of the last few hosts.
I understand bringing on Nate Bargatze but surprised to see them bring this guy onI watched his Netflix special and he was amusing and did a decent job of treading the line with some of the less PC humor. Solid.It’ll be interesting to see how the other cast members react or interact with him.
It’s hilarious how millenials grew up to be Pinch-Mouthed Angry Southern Church Ladies but for Racism. In the 80s and early 90s you could find these people, mostly women, policing PTA meetings over some trivial bullshit, usually an objectionable passage from a book they hadn’t read, failed to understand, or had deliberately taken out of context to flex their cultural muscle on some poor underpaid English teacher. Congratulations, you’re the spiritual successors to artless scolds, stage-managed by sociopaths on the Internet.
Oh no people are against racism?!?!?!?!?!?! What will hack comics do now?!?!?!?!?!?!
Bowen Yang is a talentless hack diversity hire. Fineman does good impressions, from the little of her that i’ve seen. No idea who this guy is. Why is it a problem for some people when Dave Chappelle makes fun of transvestites and crossdressers? And not a problem when he makes fun of white women?
You should chew on some glass. It’ll be hilarious.
Maye Bowen Yang can pull a Nora Dunn and quit right before the episode airs, hopefully in time to announce he’s got a pilot, comedy special, or movie deal.
We’re going to see how much clout Bowen has. Kate MacKinnon could have threatened to quit and Lorne might have backed down. I’m not sure Bowen can.
Has Bowen even said anything or are you being a fucking moron and taking the word of the AVC as gospel?
Bowen Yang follows Shane Gillis on Instagram. They are on good terms as they have both discussed publicly in separate interviews.
This will be an absolute shitshow. His monologue will be all about how he got fired and it will be extremely uncomfortable to sit through. I predict the audience will give a lot of hesitant or nervous laughter and crickets otherwise. I expect some cast members to quietly sit this one out, like Yang, Sherman or Finemann. Just absolutely gross by Lorne, but not necessarily surprising.
Pube beard.
Pass.
This site is a gold mine. What a bunch of gigantic pussies. I don’t even know how most of you people get out of your door without crumbling into a pile of offended virtue signaling goop. Holy hell. Also, props to Shane Gillis but I would have never set foot back on the set of this washed up, unfunny, irrelevant show ever again after what they did to him. It did end up being the best thing that could have ever happened to him though so I guess he owes them an appearance for saving him from becoming another nobody SNL cast member. They must really be desperate for some actual comedy.
Are you done pissing yourself?