Imgflip Logo Icon
HEY TRUMPLICANS. ARE YOU READY TO CANCEL MARK HAMILL? | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
206 views 10 upvotes Made by Jesus_Christ_Super_Star 3 years ago in politics
95 Comments
[deleted]
4 ups, 3y,
1 reply
What's a GQP
6 ups, 3y,
2 replies
No. silly...YOU are known for spreading conspiracy theories( RUSSIA!!!) and misinformation( the Vaccine works!) surrounding EVERY political issue.
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y
Dang you beat me to it.
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
lol.

All you can manage is a "no u?"

When you say "Vaccines don't work" What do you mean? Do you mean they aren't 100% effective? Or they have no effect at all?
What do you mean by (RUSSIA!!!)?
Some examples with context please?
0 ups, 3y,
2 replies
I can manage a lot more than that, but you would find away to make what I say as a personal insult and have me put in the penalty box.
You people screeched “RUSSIA!!!” for four freaking years…figure it out for yourself.
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
Micheal scott yikes | THIS ISNT GOING WELL FOR YOU, IS IT? | image tagged in micheal scott yikes | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
"I didn't request a damn thing from you, I was merely telling you the truth.
You certainly are full of yourself, aren't you?"
Interesting that you think I'm full of myself when you mistook my point of clarification as flattery...
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
It's going QUITE well for me, Bub...what I was responding to was the duplication of the "tl;dr" part of your bullshit.
Go ahead and post more bullshit if you want, but I am through with you for now.
1 up, 3y
You're trying to redefine what I was communicating with the tl;dr response - putting words in my mouth. That's not what I was doing. Granted, I misunderstood your declaration of tl;dr for a request for clarification - which is the usual practice for that expression. Strangely enough, you took it as imitation, then morphed it into flattery, while at the same time saying that I am full of myself.

Wow, saying that out loud lends you to sound unstable.

So, you redefined what I said twice just to save yourself from the eggs that keep falling on your face. Now, you're going to "be through with me for now." because you painted yourself into a corner. Just like someone else in this stream has done; painted themselves into a corner and said "I'm done talking to you." Which, ironically this stream is big on accusing the left of doing.

Am I missing anything?
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
So you're saying, in spite of what the FBI/CIA reported, that Russia did not influence our political climate? Even though there's testimony to prove it corroborate their findings? I mean, it makes sense. You don't trust medical experts why should you trust any others?

Even if that were one conspiracy theory, how does that stack up to the countless theories the right wing has cooked up? Not well.
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
Wait, what?
Where did I say any of that?
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
So, that's not what you're saying? What are you saying?
0 ups, 3y,
3 replies
Exactly what i said:
"No. silly...YOU are known for spreading conspiracy theories( RUSSIA!!!) and misinformation( the Vaccine works!) surrounding EVERY political issue."

THAT is what I am saying...nothing more, nothing less.
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
"awwwwww...imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Thank you!"

How is granting a request for a shortened version of long text flattery or imitation? Usually, when people say tl;dr, they're asking for the shortened version, which I supplied. If you took it as flattery, kudos. If that helps you feel better, awesome. Self-care is very important in mental health.
0 ups, 3y
I didn't request a damn thing from you, I was merely telling you the truth.
You certainly are full of yourself, aren't you?
1 up, 3y,
3 replies
Correct, you accuse me directly of spreading conspiracy theories, where I have done no such thing. You're making a hasty generalization, number one.

Number two. Assuming that we accept your hasty generalization, you use the example "Screeching RUSSIA RUSSIA for four years." This is an obvious reference to the Mueller Report and how Trump had asked Russia (whether by intent of "satire" or "Humor" or not) to find "those [Hilary Clinton's] Emails. The Mueller Report in its investigation, found that there was no direct tie to Trump or Russia with regard to Hilary's Email Discovery. However, it is alarming that Russia heard Trump and formed a "Troll Farm" to spam facebook and other social media with propaganda to favor Trump. That propaganda campaign was successful in its efforts to swing the favor of the vote for Trump, there was a direct correlation with the propaganda activity (which was tracked) to polls that were taken in favor of Hilary to Trump.

Russia had learned how to use Social Media Algorithms to manipulate and twist Americans point of views through memes, or short phrases that were impactful and caused controversy and divisiveness. Facebooks algorithm was built around creating more areas where there were controversies. This is reflected in testimony through the investigation to Mark Zuckerberg. These dangerous practices have produced a massive hole into how our democracy works. Whether or not Mark is directly responsible is irrelevant. There was further evidence of issues and conflicts of interest where Trump and Russia were concerned.

That's what ukraine-gate was about. Russia has a vested interest in Ukraine, and they always have as this is a place for great economic power as an ally for its oil and other power plants. Trump was stalling sending weapons to Ukraine, our ally, to defend itself from Russian invasion. If I recall, there was some land taken, but not much. So, again, Trump aligning with Russian interests.

There was also a scandal with Trump having a tower in Russia. Also, there was allegedly a meeting he had with Russia, and he made sure there was no record of it. There is more, but this is the main issue of it.

Then, combine all the measures that he took to try and suppress the democratic vote. Trying to stop mail-in voting, demonizing the left. He was trying to get you to buy into his rhetoric so that you'd cheer him on for being a dictator and staying beyond his term limits. Which did happen. And you thought it was a joke.
1 up, 3y
3/

Trump was heading down the same path Putin did. Putin vaporized his equivalent of a senate. Putin's the dictator of Russia now. Anyone who didn't tow line of what Trump wanted for the country, he would single out one, by one, until he got you to vote for what he wanted, playing on your fears, playing on your frustration with the system at large and simply painting that your senators aren't doing what he/you wants them to do, until you replace someone he wants. The senate votes his way, he gets more power. Democrats lose bit by bit, and the check and balance system starts to fail. The Supreme Court is now 6/3 majority with 3 judges for Trump alone.

The House of Representatives Republicans are becoming more and more Trump-o-lyte and the vanilla Republican conservatives are becoming a dying breed.

A great deal of Republican Senators are also towing the MAGA line, voting in favor for MAGA movement to move in Trumps favor again to resume the cycle to the slow collapse of Democracy into a dictorial, authoritarian, right wing, oligarchy - which the Right wing loves rich families.
0 ups, 3y
tl;dr
0 ups, 3y
These things all did happen. Trumps views match with Russia's. And now Russia is poised to invade Ukraine with 100,000 troops on the border because Trump isn't in office anymore, he can't wait.
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
tl;dr:
You called Russia a Conspiracy Theory which is a mischaracterization of what Democrats have been saying about Russia.
0 ups, 3y
awwwwww...imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Thank you!
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Wow, didn't know you cared so much that you had to make a meme about it just to prove it... How thoughtful.
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
2 ups, 3y
You believe there's hats in every box of aluminum foil?

Not sure I believe that theory, but if I need to find some good deals, I'll be sure to ask you where to get them.
2 ups, 3y,
3 replies
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Where do you live? Because, Mark is like... everywhere.
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
He's a one hit wonder of a washed up actor. All he ever did was Star Wars. Not even most leftists care what he thinks.
1 up, 3y
He's not a one-hit wonder. Check his IMDB, he has quite an active career.
1 up, 3y
Oh, he's from that 1950s Reagan Hippie era y'all were fans of Neal Jung and Jonny Michell since.
0 ups, 3y
Exactly... LOL
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
1 up, 3y
lol
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Why? That's commies job.
Free Speech, ever heard of it?
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Like the GOP members who voted to elect Biden in the House of Reps that the GOP censured? Or how the Right Wing wanted to cancel Kaepernick? Campbell's? Nike? Keurig? I could go on... Or anyone who ever testified against Trump.

Sure, the left cancels people.. I don't deny that. Yet, to infer that the right doesn't is hilariously biased partisanship.
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Don't look now, but your entire argument is Whataboutsim.

Like the GOP members. Whataboutsim
Or how the Right Wing. Whataboutsim.
Campbell's, Nike, Keurig. Whataboutsim.
You could go on using Whataboutsim.
As you ramble on... Or anyone who ever testified against Trump. Whataboutsim.

Sure, the left cancels people.. You don't deny that. Yet using hilariously biased partisanship you attempt to deflect from the lefts cancel culture by using Whataboutism.

Your own statement in my screenshot says everything anyone needs to know about your argument.
1 up, 3y
Those are called examples.

You know, you use them to augment your claim.
My examples were the ones you listed of what has been cancelled within the right wing (inclusive of Trump, the individual, and conservatives, the collective right wing excluding the associated individual. That's citing more examples of who within the right wing, to augment my claim, have cancelled or called for cancellation. The individual has called for cancellation, the community endorsed through likes and retweets to share the sentiments. The community has made movements without calls by any individual and have demonstrated cancellation. The entirety of the right wing has been uniformly seen calling for cancellation.

That's not whataboutism. That's cementing your claim to be irrefutable on every aspect to cover every angle to what you're speaking. When I said the following in the comments below: (which I see you following)

"It's astonishing to me that it makes you that uncomfortable to even acknowledge that the Right is also guilty what they're accusing the left of doing. So uncomfortable, in fact, that you have to go through these massive loops, distractions, and semantics to reject such a notion."

In that, you think that the entirety of the left political wing (per Wisecrackers original comment which you are here in support of which is the core of this conversation:

"Conservatives don't cancel people. That's a liberal tactic.")

is guilty (or not guilty) of cancel culture. I also echoed his sentiment in the same very careful phrasing to use a hasty generalization to agree with him. I said: the right wing (inclusive of specific members) is guilty of cancel culture. Here is an example of an individual. Here is an example of the collective beyond the individual. Here is an example where both the collective and the individual agree. Thus being, the Right Wing as an organizational entity is guilty, whether other members participated in it or not.

That is what Wisecracker was alleging, and that's what I was agreeing with - that everyone does it, you guys just can't handle the truth when it involves looking at yourselves.
0 ups, 1y
“Wait, was that a confession I heard?”

Wait, was that an accusation you made?
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
Conservatives don't cancel people. That's a liberal tactic.
3 ups, 3y,
2 replies
So who cancelled Samantha Bee in 2018 for her use of free speech?
Who Cancelled Kaepernick for his use of free speech?
Who cancelled Beyonce for endorsing BLM in 2016?
Didn't the Right try to get the film "The Hunt" cancelled? Because it was supposed to go to theatres, but never did; just streaming services.

I mean, don't get me started on all the boycotts conservatives have done in the last 5 years alone.

... Or the actual governmental censures they've done since Biden has been elected.
1 up, 3y,
4 replies
We didn't demand they be fired, we stopped being their customers.

There's a huge difference between going after someone's job and not paying their employer.

I've been doxxed twice. I own my company and cannot be fired. My customers are insulated from this nonsense because my company does not publish any information about them. That didn't stop lefties from trying though - they spent weeks driving by my house and threatening to sacrifice goats on my lawn - and then, of course, death threats.

You're trying to conflate active intimidation with not buying a ticket to a football game.
3 ups, 3y,
2 replies
So Trump didn't say that Kaepernick should be fired?

Sounds like you were dealing with some seriously upset people. Sacrificing goats sounds like lunacy to me.
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
But they didn't fire him for what Trump said, they fired him because his game wasn't worth his headache and the loss of revenue.

My wife and I caught wind of a rave being planned for our town and we put a stop to it. The local drug users were none too pleased.
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Whether or not that's why he was fired is irrelevant. Trump still went after his job.
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
OK, if that's what you want to believe.
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
It's not a matter of belief. It is a fact.
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Where's your proof? You can't call anything a fact without proof. I have the public record of the 49ers press releases. Kaepernick was not fired, by the way, his contract was changed because he could not meet the terms. That nobody chose to hire him in 2017 probably had more to do with his injuries going into the 2016 season, weight and strength loss, and poor performance in the games he did play (he won 1 game as starter in 2016).

So, please - do indulge us with the proof you have that the 49ers fired him because of anything anyone said.
1 up, 3y,
3 replies
I would be happy to oblige. We need to stay on track though as it seems you're getting sidetracked from the topic. So let's take a moment to refocus and clarify some things before I satisfy your request to provide proof to substantiate my claim.

You're asking for proof that the 49ers fired Kaepernick because of what anyone said. I did make this assumption, but that is anecdotal to the claim that I was making. The claim that I was making is this: the right is just as guilty of cancel culture/boycotting/calling for people to be fired just as much as the left is. That is the premise of my topic. Going down rabbit holes is unconstructive to civil discussion. That said, let's look at this closer to the topic at hand:

Whatever caused his released is irrelevant to my claim: the right also cancels/boycotts/calls for firing people.

From what I am hearing is that you're suggesting that such actions are only valid if the attempt was successful. Is that correct?

Did Trump call for Kaepernick to be fired, call for NFL fans to boycott NFL or not?

I have multiple articles from the left (and the right) that corroborate the affirmative that he did. Assuming this is true (until evidence suggests otherwise), it invalidates your counter claim that the right does not cancel/boycott/call for people to be fired.
0 ups, 3y
So, now you're claiming to NOT have said that it's a fact but is anecdotal.....but that you have proof that a boycott is the same as going after someone's job.

That's the most pathetic thing you've tried yet.

OK, let's turn focus on your assertion that boycott is the same as going after someone's job.

As a consumer, are you forced to do business with any particular company - forced to buy a product or service from a particular company (excluding municipal services)? Of course not, we live with a capitalist economy - which allows companies to succeed or fail based on market sentiment. If you provide a shit service, nobody will buy from you. If you treat your customers like trash, they won't buy from you. If you engage in activities that your customers do not approve of, they can find another company to do business with.

When the NFL, or a team, or even an individual athlete, engages in activities that offend the fans - the fans are not obligated to continue doing business with that organization, team, or individual - this is capitalism. When I, as a consumer, don't like the product being sold to me - I am not obligated to purchase it.

Contrast to "cancel culture", where political groups organize harassment campaigns against companies and individuals for having a different political belief. People have been fired because companies were brought to a standstill with incoming phone calls demanding that an individual be fired. When that doesn't work, the distributors and retailers for those companies products are directly attacked with demands that the products be pulled from the shelves in order to force the issue up the food chain back to the manufacturer and eventually the employee they're targeting. Banks are harassed into closing accounts of targeted companies. Credit card processors are harassed into ending services for targeted companies. Individuals have had credit card companies cancel them, phone companies cancel them, social media accounts banned.

You seriously don't see the difference?

Did your mother boil your formula?
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y
You would be happy to oblige, then refuse to provide proof, hide behind a pitiful excuse of "We need to stay on track" when you are the one who switches tracks when your train goes off the rails.

The debate was about you saying Conservatives/The Right support cancel culture using examples I easily debunked.
When your train started going off the rails you switched tracks and changed the cancel culture track to the boycott track, when that failed you switched tracks again to the Buuuut Truuump track.

You claimed Conservatives/The Right cancelled Kaepernick ((A Blatant misrepresentation of facts).) Now that your train has begun to derail, you switch tracks and say your claim is anecdotal.
Anecdotal: Not necessarily true or reliable, because it is based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
Self owns are rare. Congratulations.

Going down rabbit holes is unconstructive to civil discussion. Your tracks led to the rabbit hole, so you change tracks...again

From what you are hearing, another attempt to manipulate the debate to fit your narrative.

Did Trump call for Kaepernick to be fired, call for NFL fans to boycott NFL or not.
Your train switched tracks derailed and exploded. The debate is about The Right/conservatives supporting cancel culture, Not Trump.

You have multiple sources, and yet you failed to list any of them.
And now you have a new train that derailed instantly, you are saying your sources corroborate the affirmative that Trump cancelled Kaepernick.
Trump is not the topic of the debate.

You admit Kap was fired, and yet you're still attempting to blame Trump, then you blame The Right.. You can't keep your lying narrative straight from one sentence to the next.
Even though you said whatever caused his release is irrelevant to your claim.

Just sad.
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
You keep changing your argument to fit your lying narrative.

First you said The Right, Then you said Conservatives, now you've blaming Trump when your argument crumbled. Typical tactic.
0 ups, 3y
Yes, the right-wing.
Conservatives are right-wing.
Trump is also right-wing.
Are you that stupid?
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
And by the way, boycotting is on the same coin as cancel culture; you're going after someone's livelihood. The end result is the same. You're putting pressure on the company to fire the person in question by not using their services over what one person said or did.
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
No, it isn't in any way the same thing. Why, where, and on what I spend my money is entirely - 100% - my business. What you're suggesting is that a decision to switch from one brand to another is an attack on the first brand - that somehow, I'm required to purchase a product because not doing so is an attack on that manufacturer. If I don't like the politics of a company, I'm still required to do business with them? That's lunacy....

Harassing an employer is going after someone else's business.

This is simple math, do try to keep up.
2 ups, 3y
It appears we need to re-establish some terms....

Boycott: boycott, collective and organized ostracism applied in labour, economic, political, or social relations to protest practices that are regarded as unacceptable.

When you boycott, it is of course your business what you do with your money. However, it is worth noting that you're making a conscious decision to cease all purchases with a brand based on the actions of an employer or employee. The politics of a company have nothing to do with the product that they make. Regardless of the semantics you wish to split, you're still seeking to economically damage someone, whether it is seeking to fire them, or boycotting a company because they still have the individual in question in their employ.

I would go as far to say that this is economic coercion. Sure, "liberals" may call out for people to be fired. I would also say that this leaves the decision up to the employer to discern the political and moral consequences of their actions. The only obvious escalation of this rallying call is boycott.

So, let's refine what you're saying.

If Imaginary Co. sold E-Z pretend, a product that the consumer base wanted to have, and there were no other brands available, would you still not purchase their brand because of their politics? Or would you get it anyway? Because if you refuse to purchase the product because of their politics, that's a boycott which is a the economic escalatory tactic in cancel culture.
1 up, 3y,
2 replies
As witnessed by the plethora of now 'FORMER' Neal Jung and Jonny Michell fans' memes since last week?
2 ups, 3y,
2 replies
Dude, check this out, Wisecracker can't answer a simple question in the threads above. He goes to change definitions, then argues semantics and claims the issue is with me.

Awkward. Maybe you can shed some light on the situation?
2 ups, 3y,
2 replies
Deflection, deception, distraction, disinformation, derision, discombobulation, definition reconfiguration... these aren't incidental or accidental, these are the tools of the trade straight out of the KGB playbook.
The whole purpose is to create a state where disorientation is the norm, logic is inconsequential, reason is a irrelevant, and reality is rendered a fantasy.

I'm usually against posting links, but this is a good read and shows that Trumpismania isn't necessarily always as totally blitheringly asinine as it seems:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/is-trumps-chaos-a-move-from-the-kremlins-playbook

It may be a cult, but it was made by a machine,,,
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Yeah.. That's kinda what I was picking up on.

I think Trump's stupidity is an act. This guy knows what he's doing. Very good at political sleight of hand.
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
It's both.

He is a moron - something his father never stopped reminding him of and the core of Donald's daddy issues and drive - and mental decline with age hasn't helped in that regard.
But he is a crook, a short cutting conniving grifter, selling his snake oil to the masses. This is someone that had marketed himself as his own brand since the 1970s.

The GOP siezed on his desperate need to appeal to those he sees as above him and exploited him to push their agenda. He's the Golden Goose, and they're using him. That's why they back him so. It isn't because he's so utterly amazing and charming, it's that they can get him to do what would be political suicide for them to do and what they dare not even try lest they end up in prison. That's why they backed out of backing his steal, and why he doesn't care about the threat of court. He bought his own mythology and believes he's immune from consequences.
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
Of course, this is all speculation.....
0 ups, 3y
They went from laughing at him to not giving into him for the first two years to now reshaping the party after him because they just weren't in NYC to witness his fame for absolutely nothing since the 1970s and thus it took that much longer for them to realize what a swell guy he is even though he's still a joke back here in his hometown?

Just a look at pics of him and his pa and no doubt who was the Eric in that family. I almost would have felt sorry for him if he wasn't so pompous about his cringe.
0 ups, 3y
created* by a machine
1 up, 3y,
2 replies
I haven't changed any definitions - you simply cannot comprehend them. That's a you problem.
2 ups, 3y
You're using a very narrow definition of cancel culture and using that as your mountain to die on so the right wing can avoid critique.

Cancel Culture includes boycotting.
Cancel Culture can apply to individuals as well as corporations.
Cancel Culture refers to social group shaming, pressure and ostracization.

Even if your definition were 100% accurate and not missing any information (which it is) this isn't how it is colloquially defined. It's astonishing to me that it makes you that uncomfortable to even acknowledge that the Right is also guilty what they're accusing the left of doing. So uncomfortable, in fact, that you have to go through these massive loops, distractions, and semantics to reject such a notion.

Yikes.
2 ups, 3y
Or you simply can't define it coherently.
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
They cancelled themselves, literally telling Spotify "take me off your platform".

They have exactly one person to blame, and they can do it in the privacy of their own mirrors.
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
No, they did not, they're still very much around ............ and gaining ground.

But you have my permish to tell the Cult45ers who claim this will end up otherwise!
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
They're not around on spotify
0 ups, 3y
When keen observational skills come into play,,,
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
So, you still are heavily avoiding this subject...
Look at the below comment where I asked whether or not Trump said Kaepernick should be fired.

Instead of answering, you went on to speak about whether or not that's what he was fired for, which is irrelevant.

Are you going to keep dodging all day? Or can you have some intellectual honesty and admit that the right is just as guilty of cancel culture.

I'll do you one better, there are 19 different occassions in which Trump said someone "should be fired" (His words.) Do you want to know how many likes and retweets those comments gained?

Seems like the right is just also guilty of cancel culture...
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Saying that someone should be fired is much different than harassing companies in order to force them to fire someone. It's sad that you're unable to comprehend this. Maybe you'd benefit from some some Omega-3 supplements.

You're hopeless arguments are pathetic and everyone can see it but you, fortunately, that's a "you" problem.
2 ups, 3y,
2 replies
Didn't you say
"We didn't demand they be fired, we stopped being their customers.

There's a huge difference between going after someone's job and not paying their employer."

I'm honestly trying to keep up with your changing definitions of what cancel culture is. First it's demanding that people be fired, and now it's "harassing companies to have someone fired."

Donald Trump has done both - he called for a boycott of NFL, and called for Kaepernick to be fired.

So, here's your chance since I am not woke enough to understand what cancel culture is.

Define cancel culture.
Define boycott.
Describe what it means to harass a company to fire someone.
Explain how the former two cannot be attributed to cancel culture
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Here's a prime example of boycott for cause.

Wisconsin based Penzeys Spices sent out an email to all of its customers which stated (and I'm quoting here): "Republicans Are Racists"

They lost 40k customers within 24 hours.

Would you continue to do business with a company who said something horrible and untrue about you? I'd like to think that any sane person would immediately sever that relationship - but in your case, I'm forced to ask this question, since you seem to think this is an attack.
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
I see, you're now referring to cancel culture surrounding a corporate entity rather than an individual. Because of their actions, they had been cancelled for their unpopular views.
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
No, I'm referring to a boycott - a group of individuals not purchasing from a company who insulted them. They aren't seeking to get anyone fired, they're not rewarding bad behavior by shopping elsewhere.
1 up, 3y
So, you're talking about boycotting a company for what it did. This is boycotting, nothing more.

Cancel Culture is inclusive of corporate entities. The definitions I have provided state this.
0 ups, 3y,
2 replies
Cancel Culture: attempting to cause someone to lose their job or access to services by harassment and intimidation.

(this requires you do something to someone else - active interference)

Boycott: refusing to do business with an individual or company.

(this requires that you not do something - passive interference)

buy a dictionary if you don't know what harass means.

Did Trump ask anyone to call the 49ers and demand they not renew the contract? No, he did not. Did Trump make that call himself? I seriously doubt it.

I'm sure you're woke enough, because you're trying to justify these actions by equating them to something completely different. You're attempting to create a comparison that brings the moral high ground down to your level.
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
So, given the definitions per the reccomendation by you to get a dictionary, with Donald Trump posting tweets for his userbase to like and retweet, this is an irrefutable example of group shaming among his base.

Case in point: the right is also guilty of cancel culture.
0 ups, 3y
It's pathetic to equate are re-tweet with calling a business and demanding they fire someone. This avenue of argument you've chosen is lazy and pathetic.
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
So I checked some dictionaries...

TL;DR Given the definitions you supplied regarding cancel culture, boycott, harassing, I found that your definition is extremely nuanced. The consensus among this is generally the same. Conclusion? The right is also guilty of cancel culture. Regardless of how you, the individual, choose to define it so that you can avoid criticism/looking in the mirror.

Now we're getting to the root of the issue. You're working with a very nuanced definition of Cancel Culture that is descriptive of its prescribed meaning.

Merriam Webster:

"the practice or tendency of engaging in mass canceling (see CANCEL entry 1 sense 1e) as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure"
--- Mind you, while you may not be in lock step with what Donald Trump said or dead, many of his followers were. Where he had placed such suggestions, many echoed his calls and that placed societal pressure on corporate entities and individuals.

dictionary.com

Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.
---- (repeating same comment in regard to Merriam Webster)

Here is an article which goes into further detail of the definition which I was using:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/cancel-culture-words-were-watching
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
So, you're going to ignore the definition of boycott in order to equate it with cancel culture YET AGAIN. I'm done with you, you aren't worth my time. Wallow in whatever reality you've created for yourself.
1 up, 3y,
2 replies
You're not triggered are you? This is just discussion.
2 ups, 3y
Dude, you made him melt.
0 ups, 3y
Only if by "triggered" you mean, in disbelief of your obvious cognitive deficiencies....then sure.
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Are you implying the Right/Conservatives ((Hasty generalization)) cancelled (( Blatant misrepresentation of facts)) the examples you listed?

Easy to debunk your ((Blatant misrepresentation of facts)).

Samantha Bee's TV ratings were as low as Bidens poll numbers. The Turner network cancelled her show when it lost ad revenue.The Right/Conservatives don't own the network. Blatant misrepresentation of facts

Kaepernick wasn't cancelled. The San Francisco 49ers owner Jed York fired him. Jed York is not The Right/Conservatives. Blatant misrepresentation of facts

There are a bunch of celebrities that endorsed BLM, odd none of them were cancelled. Blatant misrepresentation of facts.

The Hunt...that was supposed to go to theaters during a pandemic. No social distancing? And you said Democrats were champions of social distancing.
We tried to cancel a movie about Liberal psychopaths hunting innocent conservatives. Not sure why we tried to cancel it, I love documentaries. We tried and failed to cancel it. It streamed anyway. Blatant misrepresentation of facts.

Yeah, We don't want to get you started on all the boycotts conservatives... ((Another Hasty generalization)) have done in the last 5 years alone((Sweeping generalizations). Because the debate is about cancel culture not boycotts. You used the word "Cancel" in every misrepresentation of facts, not boycott.

... Or the actual governmental censures ((Sweeping generalizations)) they've ((Another Hasty generalization)) done since Biden has been elected.
You failed to provide a source or evidence for your claim.
I could search for it, but what you are talking about is far too ambiguous.That was your pitiful excuse on another Meme.

Lol. Self owns, those are rare. And you managed to Self own three times in one day, completing the trifecta.
1 up, 3y,
2 replies
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Holy f**k thanks xD
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
hahaha, he didn't even try to reply.
The rest of what he said is just twisting bs as well, of course.
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
You should check this out. I also did a coup de gras [sic?]
imgflip.com/i/63rh4c
Transcript in comments.
1 up, 3y
looks like 2 spellings on that,,,

hahaha, but no matter what they admit nothing.
1 up, 3y
You completely destroyed their entire platform.
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
HEY TRUMPLICANS. ARE YOU READY TO CANCEL MARK HAMILL?