how about this news source: https://entertainment.theonion.com/...aughter-begins-dating-man-raised-o-1819575196
Regardless. Only victims of fat jokes, can joke about being fat. IOW, in-shape people shouldn't make fat jokes. Extrapolate that fact to your favorite offensive subject. It's only rocket science to dummies. Dumbed down further: The minority population can make light of the verbal weapons of the majority. The majority can't.
GOP cancelling the 1st amendment again: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentucky-bill-insult-police-officer-crime/ Kentucky bill would make it a crime to insult a police officer A bill moving through Kentucky's Senate would make it a crime to insult or taunt a police officer during a riot. Supporters say the bill targets people who unlawfully "cross the line" but opponents call it a blatant attempt to crush protests and a violation of First Amendment rights. Senate Bill 211 mandates up to three months' imprisonment for a person who "accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words," or makes "gestures or other physical contact that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person." A person convicted of this misdemeanor charge could also face a $250 fine and be disqualified from public assistance benefits for three months. The bill also has a provision pushing back on the "defund the police" movement, stating that government entities that fund law enforcement agencies must "maintain and improve their respective financial support." The bill advanced through the Senate's Veterans, Military Affairs and Public Protection committee on Thursday in a 7-3 vote, with only Republicans supporting it. It now moves to the full Senate and could be passed there as early as next week, and would then need to be passed in the House. Republicans control both chambers of Kentucky's legislature. CBS News requested comment from state Senator David Carroll, a Republican and retired police officer who is the bill's lead sponsor. Following publication of this story, he wrote in an email, "After looking at you're headline, I don't think I have anything to say to you. I miss the time when we actually had unbiased journalists!!" [SIC] CBS News also reached out to the staff of Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, a Democrat. Carroll told the Louisville Courier-Journal that the bill is a response to riots that broke out in many cities across the country last summer. Louisville was an epicenter for racial justice protests due to the death of Breonna Taylor, a Black woman killed in March 2020 during a raid of her home by Louisville police officers. "This country was built on lawful protest, and it's something that we must maintain — our citizens' right to do so," Carroll told the Courier-Journal. "What this deals with are those who cross the line and commit criminal acts." The ACLU of Kentucky called the legislation "an extreme bill to stifle dissent" and said it would criminalize free speech.
So flip the cop a bird, and that would provoke a violent reaction from the cops? The fuck, they have snowflake cops in Kentucky? Asshole legislators! Nobody knows the definition of context anymore! Now is the time for the Kentucky folks to get it out of their system when they protest then, before their rights are taken away!
My position on "Cancel Culture" is very clear. It is unacceptable on both sides of the political spectrum. The rush to "cancel" things that magically offend a group of people -- is out of control. This "cancel" culture is very different than repudiating someone who has committed a criminal offense -- most "cancel" movements attack and attempt to "erase' people over their "thoughts" or "speech". Likewise this also applies to companies and products. However some left-wing advocates (e.g. H4M) somehow believe that painting everyone with a broad-brush who does not strictly follow their progressive agenda as "Nazis" makes it acceptable to "cancel" all these "Nazis" -- so therefore in their minds it is perfectly acceptable to apply cancel culture to non-liberals --- or to liberals who somehow stray from their self-anointed party line. I am here with the message that "Cancel Culture" will come and bite these people in the rear as well -- sort of like a self-eating watermelon.
No, as a centrist who respects private property & free market capitalism, I have no problem with corporations taking action on who they employ or do business with based on their unprotected political speech, even moreso when the GOP has been the main obstructionist in regulating some of these industries and treating them as public utilities which could reduce some of those actions. I have a huge problem with government trying to curb 1st speech or being perfectly OK w/criminalizing speech, something you seem to support with your implication of "This "cancel" culture is very different than repudiating someone who has committed a criminal offense" if that's your take to the Kentucky story.
& I clearly have a problem w/certain opinions being retaliated against (as seen on OP) by employers so I'm playing devil's advocate. This "cancel culture" isn't going anywhere unless there's wrongful termination protections for speech and we don't want to go down that rabbit hole. I will not hire/keep a guy who's publicly said "n****rs & f****ts ought to hang from trees" or "all women are c**ts" and expect him to fit in w/a diverse team. I do not want to extend boycott protections to "corporations are people too" who advance those beliefs either.
Don't worry, I won't bring up my simple question you haven't answered yet, in this post. But let's properly define exactly what is meant by 'cancel culture,' and exactly what you consider wrong with it. (Later, we'll address the oft parroted phrase, 'cancel culture has gone too far!') I think we agree that, in the U.S. (as oppose to communist societies): Everyone is entitled to their own options. Everyone is entitled to free speech. Everyone is entitled to protest. Now, a large group of U.S. citizens, have the opinion that a few Dr. Seuss books shouldn't be accessible to kids. Opinion. They voiced their opinion. Free speech. Call it a protest if you want. Protest. Tell us exactly what they did wrong. It is one thing to counter-protest, or offer a counter-opinion. It is quite another to suggest that people shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion. ... unless you are in a communist society. Previously, you didn't want facebook canceling a whole country. The US government would be the only entity that could force them not to cancel. Now, you don't want people peacefully protesting Dr. Seuss. The US government would be the only entity that could force them not to protest. Or, you don't want the publisher to voluntarily pull the books. The US government would be the only entity that could force them to keep the books. You sir, don't believe in democracy. You clearly support beliefs from both socialism and communism.