Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

salmocab

eagle eye wrote: »

You aren't really explaining that right.
You are entitled to your opinion but any person listening is entitled to give their opinion on what you say. That's free speech.

No he was explaining it correctly.

Nobody anywhere is entitled to say anything without repercussions.

salmocab

EddieN75 wrote: »

Trump was banned from all social media. The president of the United States of America. A slap in the mouth example of cancel culture .

So he should be above the rules? Rules he agreed to? He was given far more leeway on Twitter than most would have been. He wasn’t cancelled he was banned. Using cancel culture as a phrase is just a tactic of people that want to play victim.

The Raging Bile Duct

EddieN75 wrote: »

Trump was banned from all social media. The president of the United States of America. A slap in the mouth example of cancel culture .

Do you not remember the absolute lies he was coming out with before he was banned from these platforms? Most tried to engage with other methods to allow him to continue posting (flagging posts that were untrue, etc.) but it became untenable, especially after the Capitol Hill riot.

The fool got way more leeway to spout complete falsehoods on those platforms than the average joe was ever going to get.

Quin_Dub

salmocab wrote: »

No he was explaining it correctly.

Nobody anywhere is entitled to say anything without repercussions.

Exactly - Freedom of Speech (however you choose to define it) does not mean "Freedom from consequences"

Within reason - Anyone can say anything they like , however equally people are free to react to that how they like.

• Speak out against it
• Refuse to do business with that group or person
• Refuse to do business with people who support that person/group
• Etc.

People have always done the above , however just as it has with a lot of things Social Media has vastly accelerated and expanded the reach and visibility of those actions and behaviours.

"Cancel Culture" such as it is has always been there and I don't believe that it actually exists , it's just simple cause and effect as it has always been , people have always "voted with their feet" as the saying goes but now with Social Media we all get to see that behaviour more easily.

everlast75

EddieN75 wrote: »

Trump was banned from all social media. The president of the United States of America. A slap in the mouth example of cancel culture .

If that's your best example, you best take a seat, because you're spouting utter nonsense.*



*awaits accusation of being part of cancel culture*

Tony EH

EddieN75 wrote: »

Trump was banned from all social media. The president of the United States of America. A slap in the mouth example of cancel culture .

You've just shown here that you have zero understanding of what you are trying to talk about.

duploelabs

Tony EH wrote: »

You've just shown here that you have zero understanding of what you are trying to talk about.

Sure that poster couldn't even define what Cancel Culture was to them after being asked three times

duploelabs

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Exactly - Freedom of Speech (however you choose to define it) does not mean "Freedom from consequences"

Within reason - Anyone can say anything they like , however equally people are free to react to that how they like.

• Speak out against it
• Refuse to do business with that group or person
• Refuse to do business with people who support that person/group
• Etc.

People have always done the above , however just as it has with a lot of things Social Media has vastly accelerated and expanded the reach and visibility of those actions and behaviours.

"Cancel Culture" such as it is has always been there and I don't believe that it actually exists , it's just simple cause and effect as it has always been , people have always "voted with their feet" as the saying goes but now with Social Media we all get to see that behaviour more easily.

Being in the food game there's a saying 'all mushrooms are edible, but some only once', sure you have freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences. Many forget the latter

Quin_Dub

As I was writing my earlier post I was actively thinking about how "cancel culture" worked back in the day .

The older posters here might remember the Dunnes Stores Anti-Apartheid Protests from the 1980's in Dublin.

Back then ,in protest at Dunnes selling South African Fruit and thereby supporting the Apartheid regime there, a number of shop staff in a single Dunnes shop in Dublin refused to handle the produce and were fired as a result.

They stood on a picket outside that store for 3 years telling their story getting a bit of media coverage here and there and eventually SA produce was banned in Ireland.

Were they "Cancelling" Dunnes Stores when they did that?

If the same scenario occurred today - It would be live Tweeted, Facebook streamed and TikTok'd endlessly.

More people would have heard , more stores would have been boycotted by more people faster and the change wouldn't take 3 years to happen.

But the acceleration and visibility provided by Social Media doesn't make staging a boycott new , it just makes it easier and faster to get a response on.

nolivesmatter

duploelabs wrote: »

For the third time, what is cancel culture? You've dodged the question twice already so I am really starting to believe you haven't a clue yourself

I know you were asking that specific poster but I wouldn't mind taking a stab at it.

When I see a lot of people calling on a company to fire someone I would typically think of that as 'cancel culture'. It's not always the case. But for example that situation with the guy who hosted The Bachelor in the US where thousands of people online were calling for him to be fired and a petition was setup to encourage the network to do it. I don't consider the company firing him to be 'cancel culture' necessary, but I think the mentality of so many people to call on someone else to use their power to fire him in that situation would be 'cancel culture'-ish.

Quin_Dub

nolivesmatter wrote: »

I know you were asking that specific poster but I wouldn't mind taking a stab at it.

When I see a lot of people calling on a company to fire someone I would typically think of that as 'cancel culture'. It's not always the case. But for example that situation with the guy who hosted The Bachelor in the US where thousands of people online were calling for him to be fired and a petition was setup to encourage the network to do it. I don't consider the company firing him to be 'cancel culture' necessary, but I think the mentality of so many people to call on someone else to use their power to fire him in that situation would be 'cancel culture'-ish.

I get what you are saying , but how it that different (other than scale and reach) to the person on the street chasing signatures for some petition or other?

People have always tried to drive change , all that's happened recently is that the delivery mechanism is more visible and gets faster results.

Todays retweets and likes are yesterdays signatures scrawled on a clipboard.

Years ago, a TV show or presenter got "cancelled" by lots of people writing letters to the Newspapers or getting letters read out on Mailbag or Points of view.

Today, the exact same thing is achieved by Tweeting.

salmocab

nolivesmatter wrote: »

I know you were asking that specific poster but I wouldn't mind taking a stab at it.

When I see a lot of people calling on a company to fire someone I would typically think of that as 'cancel culture'. It's not always the case. But for example that situation with the guy who hosted The Bachelor in the US where thousands of people online were calling for him to be fired and a petition was setup to encourage the network to do it. I don't consider the company firing him to be 'cancel culture' necessary, but I think the mentality of so many people to call on someone else to use their power to fire him in that situation would be 'cancel culture'-ish.

So it’s a generic term for people protesting something? It’s just so overused for so many things that it’s just meaningless, people use it to make the protest seem disingenuous or to defend against other’s opinions. It’s become a catch all but really catches nothing.

nolivesmatter

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I get what you are saying , but how it that different (other than scale and reach) to the person on the street chasing signatures for some petition or other?

People have always tried to drive change , all that's happened recently is that the delivery mechanism is more visible and gets faster results.

Todays retweets and likes are yesterdays signatures scrawled on a clipboard.

Years ago, a TV show or presenter got "cancelled" by lots of people writing letters to the Newspapers or getting letters read out on Mailbag or Points of view.

Today, the exact same thing is achieved by Tweeting.

If what you're saying is that what we call 'cancel culture' always existed and that social media has simply elevated it to a higher level of visibility then I agree with you.

eagle eye

salmocab wrote:

Nobody anywhere is entitled to say anything without repercussions.

Repercussions in what way?

nolivesmatter

salmocab wrote: »

So it’s a generic term for people protesting something? It’s just so overused for so many things that it’s just meaningless, people use it to make the protest seem disingenuous or to defend against other’s opinions. It’s become a catch all but really catches nothing.

If you're asking me I don't think it means people protesting something, but more the act of people (typically en masse) calling on someone (or company/organization etc.) to fire a person or cancel an event etc. If people protest or boycott someone/something I don't consider that 'cancel culture'. If they demand someone fires someone else I consider that 'cancel culture'.

It's also situation-dependent on whether it's a good or a bad thing. If someone is guilty of a horrific crime and people are demanding the person be fired, I would say that that is 'cancel culture' in effect, but probably not unwarranted.

But I agree, the term is overused and has almost lost all meaning.

Tell me how

nolivesmatter wrote: »

If you're asking me I don't think it means people protesting something, but more the act of people (typically en masse) calling on someone (or company/organization etc.) to fire a person or cancel an event etc. If people protest or boycott someone/something I don't consider that 'cancel culture'. If they demand someone fires someone else I consider that 'cancel culture'.

It's also situation-dependent on whether it's a good or a bad thing. If someone is guilty of a horrific crime and people are demanding the person be fired, I would say that that is 'cancel culture' in effect, but probably not unwarranted.

But I agree, the term is overused and has almost lost all meaning.

Do you think Donald Trump was a practitioner of cancel culture given he called for journalists to be fired because he didn't like the questions they asked him?

Or those who called on him to #FireFauci, were they taking part in cancel culture?

We all agree that it has been around a long time but I think there is an attempt by some, as said by someone else, to disqualify and argument by deeming it to be part of cancel culture and there's a hyopcrisy there which also should acknowledged.

salmocab

eagle eye wrote: »

Repercussions in what way?

Well it depends really but you have the freedom to say whatever you want but you don’t have the right to say it without someone reacting. Obviously they have to react within the law but that would be them breaking a different law if they didn’t. Basically you can have whatever beliefs you don’t have immunity from people or companies treating you differently because of them only the state. A simple way to think of it is if you call your mother a bitch and she decides to write you out of her will you can’t say well I was using free speech. You’re entitled to think she’s a bitch but she’s then entitled to treat you differently.

eagle eye

salmocab wrote:

Well it depends really but you have the freedom to say whatever you want but you don’t have the right to say it without someone reacting. Obviously they have to react within the law but that would be them breaking a different law if they didn’t. Basically you can have whatever beliefs you don’t have immunity from people or companies treating you differently because of them only the state. A simple way to think of it is if you call your mother a bitch and she decides to write you out of her will you can’t say well I was using free speech. You’re entitled to think she’s a bitch but she’s then entitled to treat you differently.

This is what I said. You have the right to voice your opinion but they have the right to voice their opinion on your opinion.

ohnonotgmail

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think Donald Trump was a practitioner of cancel culture given he called for journalists to be fired because he didn't like the questions they asked him?

Or those who called on him to #FireFauci, were they taking part in cancel culture?

We all agree that it has been around a long time but I think there is an attempt by some, as said by someone else, to disqualify and argument by deeming it to be part of cancel culture and there's a hyopcrisy there which also should acknowledged.

A very long time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Boycott

salmocab

eagle eye wrote: »

This is what I said. You have the right to voice your opinion but they have the right to voice their opinion on your opinion.

No you said the poster wasn’t explaining it right and they were, free speech means you can say whatever without government doing anything, nothing more really. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and others to react as they want (within the law) but that’s a different thing.

nolivesmatter

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think Donald Trump was a practitioner of cancel culture given he called for journalists to be fired because he didn't like the questions they asked him?

Or those who called on him to #FireFauci, were they taking part in cancel culture?

We all agree that it has been around a long time but I think there is an attempt by some, as said by someone else, to disqualify and argument by deeming it to be part of cancel culture and there's a hyopcrisy there which also should acknowledged.

Those two examples at the top are as clear an example of 'cancel culture' as I've seen so I think we're in agreement.

I've laid out what I think 'cancel culture' is. The hypocrisy as I see it is when people only describe it as 'cancel culture' when the person/thing they like is being fired/cancelled or whatever. That definitely happens a lot and is why the term means so little.

Tony EH

The problem with "cancel culture" is the phrase itself and the simple minded application of it. The is no CULTURE of cancelling things. Saying that there's a culture of something implies that it's widespread and something that's part of an established pattern of normal behaviours and customs.

The reality is is that there is no such thing as a "cancel culture". It's a silly catchphrase that's been blown out of all proportion.

That there are people in all walks of politics that will call for someone or something's head that they don't agree with is a given. And there are people who are overly censorious of things that irk them. But those people have always existed. However, there's no actual "culture" of such.

Overheal

The reason cancel culture is so prevalent as a term is because it is being used for victimhood. Look at Josh Hawley:

Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) online interview with Washington Post reporter Cat Zakrzewski took a contentious turn when she asked him about his objection to certifying the 2020 election, and he retorted that she shouldn’t try to cancel or silence him.

“Senator, we’re hosting you here,” was Zakrzewki’s memorable reply.

Hawley, along with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), was one of the Republican Senators who voted against certifying President Joe Biden’s electoral college win against former President Donald Trump, and was one of the most vocal proponents of the efforts to challenge the election.

“Do you believe that Biden is the legitimately elected President of the United States?” Zakrzewski asked Hawley point-blank.

“I do,” said Hawley, giving the correct answer — but then he kept talking. “But let me go back, for just a second,” he began, bringing up Pennsylvania, which he called “the heart of my objection” that he had filed.

Hawley said that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not hear the merits of the claim that the Pennsylvania legislature had violated the state constitution by allowing universal mail-in balloting, describing it as “declin[ing] to hear it, they dismissed it, on a procedural ground called laches, and they violated their own doctrine in doing so.”

Hawley, a Yale-educated lawyer, is wildly misstating the law and facts of the case.

To clarify, “laches” is a defense to a plaintiff’s lawsuit that the plaintiff showed a lack of diligence and unreasonably delayed in bringing their claim, and to allow them to pursue it now would be unfair or unjust to the defendant. It’s a basic concept taught during the first year of law school. Common reasons to invoke laches are because witnesses or evidence are no longer available, circumstances have changed, or the defendant has made economic decisions relying on the status quo.

In the specific example of the 2020 election in Pennsylvania, the state supreme court ruled unanimously that if the plaintiffs wanted to object to the expansion of mail-in voting, the time to do so was when the bill was originally passed, or, at minimum, before the election was conducted.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (among multiple other courts on this specific issue and other similar challenges arising from other states) ruled that the lawsuit filed after the election had already taken place (and about a year after the bill became law) was just far too late, and the plaintiffs would never be able to show why they should be granted such an extraordinary remedy as tossing out the votes of millions of Pennsylvanians.

“They have failed to allege that even a single mail-in ballot was fraudulently cast or counted,” wrote Justice David Wecht in a concurring opinion.

“Senator, Senator, I just want to step in here,” Zakrzewski interjected, “if you’re going to challenge this on saying they didn’t hear the merits of the case, because there was an appeals court that ruled that the case lacked merit, so it’s difficult for a court to rule on the merits when they don’t exist.”

She then attempted to turn the conversation back to Biden being legitimately elected, but Hawley cut her off. “No, no, no, no, you can’t have it both ways, Cat…you can’t say they heard it on the merits and dismissed it, that’s wrong, that’s wrong –”

Again, to be clear, the court did not hear the case on the merits, because once they decided that laches applied — that the plaintiffs had delayed far too long to bring their claim — that meant that the lawsuit was dead on arrival. Laches essentially says that a claim is so unfair and without merit that it shouldn’t even be allowed in the courthouse door.

“No, no, I said the Third Circuit Court of Appeals –” Zakrzewski started.

“Listen, it’s an important point,” Hawley cut her off. “Don’t try to censor, cancel, and silence me here. You raised the issue–”

“Senator, we’re hosting you here,” Zakrzewski replied.

“If you raised the issue, you’ve got to listen to the truth,” Hawley continued, undeterred, “and the truth is the Supreme Court did not hear the merits of the case, they dismissed the case on laches grounds, that’s in violation of their own precedent.”

Once again (sigh), Hawley is just flat out wrong. He’s wrong about what Zakrewski said, he’s wrong about the law, he’s wrong about what the precedent says, and he’s wrong about what the court actually ruled.

Laches means the court tosses the whole complaint in the garbage and there’s no need to even debate the merits of the case.

Seriously, students at every law school in America are expected to know this by the end of their first year. Why can’t this Ivy League-educated Senator figure it out?

“Senator, we’re going to move on,” said Zakrzewski.

Watch the video above, via The Washington Post.

Losing a flapping argument about his complete feigned ignorance of the law and cries about being oppressed. Really.

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/dont-try-to-censor-cancel-and-silence-me-here-josh-hawley-clashes-with-washington-post-reporter-on-2020-election-objection/

everlast75

Biden must be doing a fantastic job if folk are posting on a thread about his presidency and banging on about a non existent phenomenon unrelated to the work he's doing....

Water John

POTUS aims for 70% vaccinated by 4th July.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2021/may/04/joe-biden-coronavirus-covid-fda-pfizer-politics-washington-live-latest

Another real deadline to aim for.

salmocab

everlast75 wrote: »

Biden must be doing a fantastic job if folk are posting on a thread about his presidency and banging on about a non existent phenomenon unrelated to the work he's doing....

Whilst I’m guilty of getting involved I was wondering how the conversation made it to here. I’m sure it started with Biden but it’s quite the tangent.

mcmoustache

Water John wrote: »

POTUS aims for 70% vaccinated by 4th July.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2021/may/04/joe-biden-coronavirus-covid-fda-pfizer-politics-washington-live-latest

Another real deadline to aim for.

It's a novel approach getting advice from experts and planning accordingly. As fun as it as to see a clown pull figures out of his hole that ended up having no basis in reality, it wasn't really what one would want in a leader.

EddieN75

everlast75 wrote: »

Biden must be doing a fantastic job if folk are posting on a thread about his presidency and banging on about a non existent phenomenon unrelated to the work he's doing....

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-climate-iran-nuclear-immigration-de7b288aa2b4315b5b7fe38559a6e666

See for yourself.

He has 2 masks on it that first picture. I just noticed

ohnonotgmail

EddieN75 wrote: »

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-climate-iran-nuclear-immigration-de7b288aa2b4315b5b7fe38559a6e666

See for yourself.

He has 2 masks on it that first picture. I just noticed

out of 61 promises he has already fulfilled 26, partially completed another 42 and has only 3 not met at all. Pretty decent for his first 100 days.

ohnonotgmail

EddieN75 wrote: »

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-climate-iran-nuclear-immigration-de7b288aa2b4315b5b7fe38559a6e666

See for yourself.

He has 2 masks on it that first picture. I just noticed

he is making up for the mask that trump refuses to wear. just doing his bit.