🏳️🌈🖖🏽
🇳🇱
I thinkt he book awards can do whatever they like, and are within their rights. But it was the wrong decision. As far as I know Drew didnt hire any non-union writers, nor as she personally violated any of their asks... She is perfectly ok.
The bigger issue is the cancel culture, I know I will not give any attention to the book awards (As is my right) due to this decision.
She's crossing a picket line, her show is a struck show. That's why she's being called a scab.
Cancel culture is just a silly way of saying consequences. It's not a real thing, people just want to pretend there's a new wave of mob mentality punishing people, and it's just sometimes people get a backlash for their actions. It's not new, it's consequences.
> She's crossing a picket line, her show is a struck show. That's why she's being called a scab.
Yes that is the opinion of the strikers it seems. My opinion is that she is perfectly ok with what she did morally and the strikers are wrong to take issue with it. To each their own, we dont have to agree.
> Cancel culture is just a silly way of saying consequences. It's not a real thing, people just want to pretend there's a new wave of mob mentality punishing people, and it's just sometimes people get a backlash for their actions.
No you are thinking of the word Boycott. Cancel Culture is not simply any act of boycotting... It is when **frivilous** boycotts are central to the current culture. This is distinctly different from all acts of canceling someone (the word "Culture" in "Cancel Culture" isnt just there for show).
> It's not new, it's consequences.
Boycotting isnt new.. Cancel Culture is, re:above
"Yes that is the opinion of the strikers it seems."
Incorrect, it's a fact. Her show is listed as a struck show, and they will be picketing it.
"My opinion is..."
...Not what the unions use to determine which shows are struck shows.
"No you are thinking of the word Boycott."
Incorrect. Consequences may include boycotts, but boycotts are not the only consequences when there's a backlash.
"It is when frivilous boycotts"
Irrelevant.
> Incorrect, it's a fact. Her show is listed as a struck show, and they will be picketing it.
Yup, they were of the **opinion** that she was in violation, and decided to list the show as a striked show...
The fact that they listed it as striked is fact. It is the strikers **opinion**, and the decision that fueled, that caused them to make that decision.
> ...Not what the unions use to determine which shows are struck shows.
Of course not, they use their opinions to determine what to strike, not mine, duh.
When did I say my opinion is what unions base their decisions on? Its like your arguing against some imagined argument not even being discussed... your arguing against things i didn't disagree with.
> Incorrect. Consequences may include boycotts, but boycotts are not the only consequences when there's a backlash.
This is really getting silly now.. you keep saying you disagree with me, then state a bunch of stuff that in no way disagrees with me.
At no point did I say or even hint, that somehow boycotts are the only consequence when there is backlash... literally this whole comment was just you disagreeing with stuff I never asserted because you didnt bother to read what you disagreed with carefully first.
> Irrelevant
Since you are arguing that a term i used means something other than what it meant, and that understanding terminology is key to accurate communitication, it is very much relevant at this point.
"Yup, they were of the opinion..."
Nope, still a fact her show was already on the list of WGA shows and therefore struck. You may not like that fact, which is your opinion, but it remains a fact.
"This is really getting silly now."
What's silly is that several people have attempted to explain to you what cancel culture is but you refuse to accept the correction.
"Since you are arguing that a term i used means something other than what it meant"
irony
Holy hell, you are still arguing against fictional things I didnt say....
> Nope, still a fact her show was already on the list of WGA shows and therefore struck.
At no point did I say her show was or was not on the list of WGA shows.
You are literally arguing with a fantasy of something being said that wasnt said, its really annoying.
> What's silly is that several people have attempted to explain to you what cancel culture is but you refuse to accept the correction.
How many wrong people need to say something before I am obligated to accept it as true? The number of people who may disagree with me doesnt really matter when they are all wrong... just like if I got a bunch of Trumpers in here all saying the same nonsense it doesnt make them right either.
> irony
Finally something we agree on.
"How many wrong people need to say something before I am obligated"
You're the wrong one.
What someone would say if they're wrong is irrelevant. The facts determine that you've been incorrect and I and others have been correcting you.
Unfortunately no, the facts determined **you** are incorrect.. the fact that you keep saying things that an incorrect person would be expected to say just reinforces it.
"Unfortunately no, the facts determined **you** are incorrect."
Nope. You claimed the wga strikers used opinion to determine her show as struck, it isn't.
You claimed cancel culture is a frivolous boycott, it's not. Cancel Culture is a catchphrase for people who don't want to admit consequences exist.
The fact remains a talk show that has had wga writers is a struck show when those writers go on strike. If that show is broadcast during a strike, it will be picketed.
"I asked you to stop contacting me. Last warning, please go away."
No one asked you to reply.
You. keep. replying. to. me.
@freemo @georgetakei
Irrelevant, since I'm not wrong.