The True Geordie
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
Cancel culture is not a thing. if you're not a dickhead people won't bother you. moreover, there are plenty of dickheads thriving - Louis CK won a grammy, Depp reportedly just secured a Fenty deal - but not everybody has the same juice.
"cancel culture" is a term weirdos made up to whine when they see famous/semi famous people get in trouble for dickhead shit they chose to do. I have a theory this whining comes from said weirdos likely wanting the latitude to engage in similar dickhead behaviour (but knowing they're losers). I mean you're free to do what you want, but choices have consequences - especially when you're making money as a public figure or w/e
This is the first bozo take I've ever seen from you. the addendum about being a proud black person just compounds it. reeks of "one of the good ones" rhetoric. If muslim folks not rocking with jokes about blowing themselves up, it's their right to voice it - then the chips fall where they fall if brands don't want to be associated with that. The game is the game.
Define "Zeitgeist kicking itself in the balls":
Some dude getting in trouble on Twitter for Islamophobic comments about...Andrew Tate.
Some dude getting in trouble on Twitter for Islamophobic comments about...Andrew Tate.
Islam isn't a race, so to suggest it's racist to make jokes about islam is ridiculous on it's face. Most people don't even know the meaning of half the words the epouse daily, they just think they look smart when they use them, when in fact the opposite is true.
Exactly this.
Even some of the Po faced ultra pc types on the cafe would surely offend someone if they're ranting gub hours every day.
Bit rich to call people out for not knowing words then getting “espouse” wrong to be fair.
Or, if deliberately phrased that way, it is genius.
My issue with cancel culture is that it is typically not driven by a desire to correct, it is usually based upon a desire to destroy, and quite often jealousy. Any transgression is immediately given a financial penalty. Why does it always have to come to targeting a person’s income? Usually they have a lot of said income too, which in and of itself appears to call the credibility of the outrage into question for me. I don’t think it’s so much about ‘being a dickhead’. People are miserable, and as a result have no desire to forgive one of the people who have been ‘lucky enough’ to make something for themselves. So while these acts/words may not be good - I’m not convinced by the genuineness of the outrage.
Regarding the racism, don’t get me wrong, I am very anti-racist, and as a black man in the west, I sort of appreciate the sentiment of a lot of white folk who are also keen to stamp it out at any opportunity. The intention is good. I just think they are largely doing it all wrong and focused on the wrong things.
Perhaps I speak only for myself here, but I really don’t get why ‘racist abuse’ trumps any other type of abuse. ACTUAL racism will always be the real problem, and in most cases these days - it doesn’t come with insults or slurs. Institutional police racism, lack of proportional representation etc are more where the point lies. But why the feck would I care less if a random white guy who is quite possibly of lower social standing than me or wields no influence or significance called me a ‘black cnt’? Yes, ‘he’s only saying that because of the colour of your skin’. Okay. And if he called me fat, it would be because of my weight, or if he insulted my teeth or anything else - I just can’t pretend to be extra offended if my skin colour is mentioned personally. I mean, if we are at the point of insulting each other, personally, the gloves are off. I could just as easily return an insult about race to him.
In the case of True Geordie - he should know better, given the platform, but privately - I think everyone makes jokes about race and culture. Them the best jokes! When people experience genuine racial hatred, they will know what it is. But the fight against that is almost lost by the mass simplification of it as ‘ooh, he used this word or that word’. Personally, I don’t really care. Raise your hand to me and it’s a different story, but if I get into a row on night out and someone insults me based on my skin colour I can’t say that I would personally be extra offended.
Generally speaking, I just think the public hyper-sensitivity to ‘racist language’ massively misses the point. A joke about me ‘probably liking jollof rice’ because I am Nigerian does not offend me. But it’s one of those things that would turn heads in the office with someone saying ‘you can’t say that. Anyone can like Jollof rice’. I’m one of those black guys that regularly uses the N-word amongst my own people. A word only has the power that you give it. I think real racism is being overlooked at the expense of outrage at language.
This is up there with technically he’s not a pedophile since the victim has to be below the age of..pedantic nonsense.
Glad you feel good about yourself.
Looking at the rest of the post, it definitely isn’t
It is an important distinction though because race is something you can't choose whereas religion is a choice. It's a lot less pernicious to make fun of something that someone can change than something that they can't.
Or gender. Or...pretty much anything and everything that could possibly be construed as some kind of -ism.
At least, that holds true for 99% of all people in - roughly - my own generation that I know personally. I dunno about younger generations - perhaps the online/SM culture they've grown up with has shaped them differently with regard to this. I honestly don't know (I've never spied on a group of younger millennials/Gen Zers bantering in private).
Good post, btw.
Bro you're waffling.
feck what you think is genuine, feck what you think is actual racism, feck what you think is damaging and feck what you had for breakfast too for giving you the strength to get up and type that nonsensincal wall-o-text, oh great scholar of the it-doesn't-offend me-it shouldn't offend you university.
Stay out of the way. You'll get a few pats on the back here from the "back in my days" crowd, for being the good - brother if I call you what I want to call you I'll catch a ban - but just know that fighting for TrueGeordie to keep his sponsors isn't the revolutionary enlightened battle you think it is. He has a lot of income because he's sponsored by companies which make a lot of money off of the people he's turning around and making jokes they find insulting and rooted in negative stereotypes that have affected them at different levels and to different degrees. The stuff you consider "actual racism" - whatever the feck that means - doesn't happen in a vacuum.
Dude decided to make distasteful/insulting jokes, unprovoked, on his platform - one that's so big because he has - guess what? - muslim followers. Said Muslim followers are not rocking with it and have made it known. Brands don't want that association. And you weirdos are on here hit dog hollering about "cancel culture". Just think about that chain of events for a second for feck's sake.
edit - I see you're already receiving the "good posts" butter biscuits you were fighting for your life for
Was the muslim he joked about an arab muslim, a chinese muslim, an indian muslim, a bosnian muslim, a somali muslim? Please clarify which race exactly that he offended.
He has a point, it's not racism.
It is Islamophobic though....
I wonder if he'd say that about the owners of his favourite football team though...
Bro you're waffling.
feck what you think is genuine, feck what you think is actual racism, feck what you think is damaging and feck what you had for breakfast too for giving you the strength to get up and type that nonsensincal wall-o-text, oh great scholar of the it-doesn't-offend me-it shouldn't offend you university.
Stay out of the way. You'll get a few pats on the back here from the "back in my days" crowd, for being the good - brother if I call you what I want to call you I'll catch a ban - but just know that fighting for TrueGeordie to keep his sponsors isn't the revolutionary enlightened battle you think it is. He has a lot of income because he's sponsored by companies which make a lot of money off of the people he's turning around and making jokes they find insulting and rooted in negative stereotypes that have affected them at different levels and to different degrees. The stuff you consider "actual racism" - whatever the feck that means - doesn't happen in a vacuum.
Dude decided to make distasteful/insulting jokes, unprovoked, on his platform - one that's so big because he has - guess what? - muslim followers. Said Muslim followers are not rocking with it and have made it known. Brands don't want that association. And you weirdos are on here hit dog hollering about "cancel culture". Just think about that chain of events for a second for feck's sake.
edit - I see you're already receiving the "good posts" butter biscuits you were fighting for your life for
As I said, I don’t think True Geordie should have made his comments. He may well have meant it in jest, but given his platform - it was a stupid thing to do. That’s as far as my 'defence' of him goes. After that I wasn't speaking about him.
And how can you tell me I’m ‘waffling’ about my own racial experiences? I can almost certainly guarantee you that whatever word you feel to call me doesn’t apply. I won’t go into too much detail about my personal life because this is not the place, but just know it’s definitely not that. But what I will say is that if I got into an argument in the town centre with a white guy I wouldn’t be anymore likely to throw a punch at him for calling me a ‘black cnt’ as I would about him saying ‘you’re mother’s a whore’. I’m not going to pretend that the former would cut me sooo deep and cause me to break down. It wouldn’t. Not because I’m indifferent to ‘racism’, but simply because I couldn’t give a shit about what that particular person happens to think about black people. Like, who the feck is he?
What I’m speaking about is the way it’s seen as the ‘cardinal sin’ these days to make a racial slur, above all. Personally, I think it actually demeans us a bit. Some angry guy chatting shit has no superiority to me at all in my eyes. We’re not some help cases who nobody should insult because we’re like less than or something. If you insult my race I‘d probably insult yours back. Like who are you?
The bigger problem comes from those who actually DO have some level of power and seniority over you. And more often than not, their racism won’t be in the form of an insult. It will just be maltreatment. Treatment that more time we can’t do anything about. Some guy at the bus stop can’t mistreat me. If he wants to insult me, I can give it back, and if he tried to harm me, then we can handle that too. The point is, these people are not even in any sort of position to put me down like they probably think they are.
That’s my own take, I’m not fecking out here marching and wearing Kanye t-shirts, I’m giving my views and experience on racism as I’m entitled to do.
If some guy with a can of Stella said ‘move you fkin n-word’ to you at the train station, would you go home and cry and be emotionally damaged by it, or would you tell him to f off and call him a few things I can’t say on here? I’m not even accepting this victim position to random people who wanna racially abuse man. We can all go back and forth. But different when it’s cops or a judge in posh language.
Last edited:
Most posters in this thread don't seem to have a problem with him losing his sponsors. though. The consensus seems to be that if you make a living spouting crap on live streams, you better watch what kind of language you use.
You could make an argument that islamophobia is a form of racism, especially as it is tied up with ideas of orientalism and is most often directed against people of colour in this country.
Anyway, that's one for the CE.
No you can't because Like someone previously mentioned there is no race in Islam. There are white Muslims, Arab Muslims, Black Muslims, Chinese Muslims etc.. In fact this comment was made about a Romanian Muslim. It would be a different argument if you see a brown person and then say they're going to blow up something, you can argue that that would be racist as you assumed he was Muslim without knowing him.
In fact there are white Arabs, brown Arabs and black Arabs just in the Arab 'race'. North Africa specifically (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia) are Arabs and yet the majority are white and would be considered Caucasian by race.
My comments on this were also more broad about cancel culture as opposed to just True Geordie. Whether him, or anyone else in a position transgress - it's always get their money off them first and foremost. Which makes me a little uncomfortable with the motive. Not the disapproval. But non-financial issues quickly become about how much money a person has when they do wrong, and there's always some push for them to essentially lose the right to have a lot of money. How about we stick to the matter at hand, and if there is an offence, seek to educate or something - but the desire seems to be to destroy, and I just find it difficult to claim the position of righteousness from such a place. Like, it's righteousness but righteousness wrapped in something else, perhaps envy or just vindictiveness.
Well, there is no such thing as 'race' full stop, so thinking about things in those terms is part of the problem. Anyway I will leave it there.
It's typically mixed up with more, let's say, traditional racist attitudes, no doubt.
I dunno - you see people call e.g. prejudiced attitudes in Western European countries towards Polish immigrants "racism" too these days.
"Race" is an unscientific and random concept to begin with, though - so I suppose calling any form of bigotry towards a group of people "racism" is fair enough on a certain level.
I'm not telling you you're waffling about your experiences. I'm telling you you're waffling because none of the stuff you're on about is relevant nor applicable. You're just trying too hard.
Again, you're not the sorcerer supreme of what people should be offended by or what's "actual" whatever you call it. The stuff you find damaging doesn't happen in a vacuum. What don't you understand? I assume you're an adult - why's this a hard concept to grasp? Historically, almost every atrocity committed against a minority group starts with language. Language that's used to demean. Language that's used to justify. You not personally being affected by some dickhead calling you racial slurs, won't change this.
Me personally, I look like the kind of person even an inebriated guy with a can of stella would have enough sense not to call racial slurs, but should they do it - no, I wouldn't go home and cry - I would get physical. That's my personal choice - I don't believe in turn the other cheek/call names back. I believe in letting my hands fly. You go low, I sink to hell. But generally speaking, people know better. That doesn't mean I don't think other people shouldn't reserve the right to take legal action/present it to the employers of the fat guy with the can of stella. The game is the game and we play with the tools available to us.
Yet the sentence you quoted was in response to:
or did you miss that? @Chesterlestreet
You can't make money off of being associated with people, spout prejudiced/damaging stuff to people, and when said people are not having it and the brands choose to go left, cry foul. It doesn't work like that.
"Seek to educate", "Righteousness"
Well, that's my main issue with a certain kind of "cancel culture" too: there is very little nuance in it and it does tend to shut down discussion. If you step out of line, you're fecked. We don't care about details - you're a racist, case closed, go hide somewhere and never come back.
This is highly complex, though. Not least because genuinely despicable people are increasingly starting to hide behind the fact that people like me have a problem with "cancel culture" (or rather, as I said above, certain aspects of it). They take this as validation and use it for all it's worth. Which makes me increasingly hesitant to say anything for fear of being labeled an enabler of - what have you: racists, sexists, homophobes, bigots of all descriptions.
No, I didn't.
I specifically commented on the general consensus, not on any particular post or poster.
Bro you're waffling.
feck what you think is genuine, feck what you think is actual racism, feck what you think is damaging and feck what you had for breakfast too for giving you the strength to get up and type that nonsensincal wall-o-text, oh great scholar of the it-doesn't-offend me-it shouldn't offend you university.
Stay out of the way. You'll get a few pats on the back here from the "back in my days" crowd, for being the good - brother if I call you what I want to call you I'll catch a ban - but just know that fighting for TrueGeordie to keep his sponsors isn't the revolutionary enlightened battle you think it is. He has a lot of income because he's sponsored by companies which make a lot of money off of the people he's turning around and making jokes they find insulting and rooted in negative stereotypes that have affected them at different levels and to different degrees. The stuff you consider "actual racism" - whatever the feck that means - doesn't happen in a vacuum.
Dude decided to make distasteful/insulting jokes, unprovoked, on his platform - one that's so big because he has - guess what? - muslim followers. Said Muslim followers are not rocking with it and have made it known. Brands don't want that association. And you weirdos are on here hit dog hollering about "cancel culture". Just think about that chain of events for a second for feck's sake.
edit - I see you're already receiving the "good posts" butter biscuits you were fighting for your life for
The onus being on aggrieved folks to respond with "seeking to educate" or "righteousness" is still killing me.
This thread is about an adult man in 2022 - who looked into a camera and decided to make them jokes. The folks most likely to be affected by them jokes are not rocking with it and brands chose to go a different way. No one's telling him to go hide somewhere and never come back. TrueGeordie will be just fine.
And speaking more generally, is this really the hill to die on? Like is this really the case study for "this is what's wrong with cancel culture!!"
My sentence was aimed at a specific person and in response to a specific point. Do you just randomly go about quoting excerpts addressing particular points, to make unnecessary remarks on "general consensus" or was this an exception?
Nevermind the fact that this thread has many posts using this situation as the foundation for their supposed issues with "cancel culture" - which again, is not a thing. Easily verifiable by the fact that many of the supposed "cancelled people" are doing just fine, some even thriving.
This thread is about an adult man in 2022 - who looked into a camera and decided to make them jokes. The folks most likely to be affected by them jokes are not rocking with it and brands chose to go a different way. No one's telling him to go hide somewhere and never come back. TrueGeordie will be just fine.
And speaking more generally, is this really the hill to die on? Like is this really the case study for "this is what's wrong with cancel culture!!"
My sentence was aimed at a specific person and in response to a specific point. Do you just randomly go about quoting excerpts addressing particular points, to make unnecessary remarks on "general consensus" or was this an exception?
Nevermind the fact that this thread has many posts using this situation as the foundation for their supposed issues with "cancel culture" - which again, is not a thing. Easily verifiable by the fact that many of the supposed "cancelled people" are doing just fine, some even thriving.
Ive only just started watcging some of these youtube pundits at the gym and in the background when working etc. This guy will do and say anything to generate views and attention. I've watched him a bit and he never really bothered me. He's in league with the likes of the Paul brothers though I read, which shows where his priorities lie.
This is the part I quoted:
You're talking about his sponsors and their reaction to what he said, yes? My response was a comment about how most posters seem to view that reaction. Seems relevant enough in the context of the discussion to me, and hardly random - but sure: if you have a problem with posters quoting you in order to make a general (but clearly on topic) observation, I won't do it again.
Nope, it ain't.
If you genuinely took it as that, though, I will doubly note to never make a general point around you again: I don't sympathize with TG and I have no issue with him losing sponsors. Is that to your satisfaction?
For clarity's sake I might add that I don't even consider this TG business an example (much less a potential case study) of "cancel culture". Some YouTuber losing sponsors over making inappropriate comments has nothing to do with what I understand by that term. No more than, say, someone losing their job for posting racist "jokes" on Facebook. That isn't "cancel culture". That's simply what those people get for doing something that isn't socially and/or professionally acceptable anymore - and I have zero nostalgia for an era when it was.
"Cancel culture" for me is a mindset, a tendency to categorize and subsequently (immediately) dismiss people based on very little evidence, often enough a single comment. In short, traits that have traditionally been associated with narrow minded idiots - but which are now being normalized and encouraged (turning this into a group mentality) by people who regard themselves as both enlightened and progressive.
Last edited:
I mean surely the real travesty here is a fat feck like him being sponsored by a fitness brand?
I'm not telling you you're waffling about your experiences. I'm telling you you're waffling because none of the stuff you're on about is relevant nor applicable. You're just trying too hard.
Again, you're not the sorcerer supreme of what people should be offended by or what's "actual" whatever you call it. The stuff you find damaging doesn't happen in a vacuum. What don't you understand? I assume you're an adult - why's this a hard concept to grasp? Historically, almost every atrocity committed against a minority group starts with language. Language that's used to demean. Language that's used to justify. You not personally being affected by some dickhead calling you racial slurs, won't change this.
Me personally, I look like the kind of person even an inebriated guy with a can of stella would have enough sense not to call racial slurs, but should they do it - no, I wouldn't go home and cry - I would get physical. That's my personal choice - I don't believe in turn the other cheek/call names back. I believe in letting my hands fly. You go low, I sink to hell. But generally speaking, people know better. That doesn't mean I don't think other people shouldn't reserve the right to take legal action/present it to the employers of the fat guy with the can of stella. The game is the game and we play with the tools available to us.
Yet the sentence you quoted was in response to:
or did you miss that? @Chesterlestreet
You can't make money off of being associated with people, spout prejudiced/damaging stuff to people, and when said people are not having it and the brands choose to go left, cry foul. It doesn't work like that.
"Seek to educate", "Righteousness"
But why are you acting as if my own account is, any more than yours, some sort of proclamation that this is how everyone should feel? I said 'perhaps I only speak for myself here'. If someone wants to sue, I appreciate that this is the game. But it is also my view that some of the narrative almost perpetuates some sort of notion that we are actually lesser than. I don't like that. Again, there's language that I don't really want to use here, but certain types of people are just not in a position to put me down for being black. But the way it is, it's like even some homeless man under a bridge is able to claim superiority by just adding 'black' to his insult. We're not some inferior being that the teachers have to tell the other kids to not tease.
I'm also probably not one that people would find it wise to try, but whether it got smokey or not, my point is, such a person's insult could not make me feel lesser is all. And again, just because I'm speaking for myself, doesn't mean others can't be upset. But I do feel that the hurt, the offence taken, by insults from people who are nobodies does almost validate them. The fact is, being black does not actually make me lesser than, and I know that to be true to the point where it doesn't anger me. I might be more angry if you took the piss out of an actual insecurity. My hairline might become one of them in the near future
. But that's just me.Again, cancel culture did not start with True Geordie ffs. Not every such conversation will relate to 'brands', I wasn't talking of this case specifically. Broadly speaking, people seem to have an issue with people with money. They don't look at it as something earned through hard work, it's a 'privilege' that you have on the condition you fit the mould. People feck up. If we held a mirror up to the outraged on Twitter, it would probably just as ugly. The point about 'seeking to educate' is because the point never seems to for long be about 'this is wrong, people shouldn't do this, this person needs to learn this' or whatever - it's always about stopping their bag. After R.Kelly's issues I saw someone ask a person 'why are you still playing that song?' He said 'because I like it' to which she responded 'yea but he gets money from it'. So what? Did he commit a financial crime? How does his actions mean he shouldn't have money? So as wrong as these people's actions often are - I do think the outrage is not always as sincere as often made out. I have no problem with disapproval, but I don't rate the way it's often gone about which makes it look like it's not so much about simply wanting people to do the right thing. It's an opportunity presented where we have a successful person bang to rights and we can kill them.
Nobody said anyone has an 'onus' to educate. You can if you want. Or you can simply just want to destroy out of anger. That's your choice, but the fact is, those choices mean different things. Perhaps people have a right to either, but the latter is what I refer to as 'false righteousness' - because it isn't driven by wanting people to do the right thing, it's capitalising on someone doing the wrong thing and taking the opportunity that position gives you to hit them hard. As you have already said, you're not a turn the other cheek guy, which is your right. Kanye made some comments the other day, and I've not seen anyone try to correct him or challenge his views. It's just been straight destruction. I don't like that.
True Geordie and Andrew Tate. I’m just going to choose to side with neither, thank you very much.
people who are Islamophobic usually don't care about your religion, they just don't like brown people
so saying religion is not a race is purposely distorting the real issue here
so saying religion is not a race is purposely distorting the real issue here
But why are you acting as if my own account is, any more than yours, some sort of proclamation that this is how everyone should feel? I said 'perhaps I only speak for myself here'. If someone wants to sue, I appreciate that this is the game. But it is also my view that some of the narrative almost perpetuates some sort of notion that we are actually lesser than. I don't like that. Again, there's language that I don't really want to use here, but certain types of people are just not in a position to put me down for being black. But the way it is, it's like even some homeless man under a bridge is able to claim superiority by just adding 'black' to his insult. We're not some inferior being that the teachers have to tell the other kids to not tease.
I'm also probably not one that people would find it wise to try, but whether it got smokey or not, my point is, such a person's insult could not make me feel lesser is all. And again, just because I'm speaking for myself, doesn't mean others can't be upset. But I do feel that the hurt, the offence taken, by insults from people who are nobodies does almost validate them. The fact is, being black does not actually make me lesser than, and I know that to be true to the point where it doesn't anger me. I might be more angry if you took the piss out of an actual insecurity. My hairline might become one of them in the near future
Again, cancel culture did not start with True Geordie ffs. Not every such conversation will relate to 'brands', I wasn't talking of this case specifically. Broadly speaking, people seem to have an issue with people with money. They don't look at it as something earned through hard work, it's a 'privilege' that you have on the condition you fit the mould. People feck up. If we held a mirror up to the outraged on Twitter, it would probably just as ugly. The point about 'seeking to educate' is because the point never seems to for long be about 'this is wrong, people shouldn't do this, this person needs to learn this' or whatever - it's always about stopping their bag. After R.Kelly's issues I saw someone ask a person 'why are you still playing that song?' He said 'because I like it' to which she responded 'yea but he gets money from it'. So what? Did he commit a financial crime? How does his actions mean he shouldn't have money? So as wrong as these people's actions often are - I do think the outrage is not always as sincere as often made out. I have no problem with disapproval, but I don't rate the way it's often gone about which makes it look like it's not so much about simply wanting people to do the right thing. It's an opportunity presented where we have a successful person bang to rights and we can kill them.
Nobody said anyone has an 'onus' to educate. You can if you want. Or you can simply just want to destroy out of anger. That's your choice, but the fact is, those choices mean different things. Perhaps people have a right to either, but the latter is what I refer to as 'false righteousness' - because it isn't driven by wanting people to do the right thing, it's capitalising on someone doing the wrong thing and taking the opportunity that position gives you to hit them hard. As you have already said, you're not a turn the other cheek guy, which is your right. Kanye made some comments the other day, and I've not seen anyone try to correct him or challenge his views. It's just been straight destruction. I don't like that.
R Kelly's issues? He's an absolute sicko.
He's been convicted of grooming, sex trafficking, sexually exploiting children, and producing child pornography. He's not the type of person I'd want to enrich. I think that's fairly obviously the point that was being made.
'So what?' is a feckin grim response in the context.
Personally, I actually do think it is that simple. Sponsorship is built around the idea that associating your product with a certain someone will lead to better brand awareness or access to a new customer base. A pillar to this strategy is the idea that the certain someone maintains an appropriate public image that allows this mutual relationship to benefit, otherwise the sponsorship doesn’t work. In this case, the certain someone is now more likely to do damage to any associated brands and it’s therefore no longer in the company’s interest to use him. It’s not the company’s responsibility to be “brave” for TG, whatever that means, as he is an adult who freely vocalized questionable material on his platform and now owns the consequences.
TG said something offensive and stupid and now has to live with the consequences, which is as it should be
the term "cancel culture" has only been invented since people in positions of power have had to start living with consequences to their actions as well
the term "cancel culture" has only been invented since people in positions of power have had to start living with consequences to their actions as well
And he's also been tried and sentenced to 30 years in prison for those crimes. Nobody is defending his actions, his punishment is widely supported.
It's not about him being 'the type of person you want to enrich'. Again, that suggests that the right to have a lot of money is awarded to people based on character and that just isn't the case. He was enriched in the first place because people enjoy the music he made. Not because anyone decided he was any type of person. If the guy still enjoys the song, why should he stop listening to it not on the basis of he no longer enjoys it, but because the writer gets paid? We end up back at the 'it's unfair that he gets to have a lot of money because he's not nice' point, which I think is a link that people, consciously or subconsciously draw whenever people of success transgress.
I have no problem with the outrage, but the hate to draw a financial link taints it a bit for me. By all means stop listening to R. Kelly because his music makes you uncomfortable or disagrees with your morals. But I don't see why his bank balance or earnings is an issue.
Doesn't it make sense for them to target fat people?
Fat people will often want to get in shape or have dreams of doing so.
Bro you're waffling.
feck what you think is genuine, feck what you think is actual racism, feck what you think is damaging and feck what you had for breakfast too for giving you the strength to get up and type that nonsensincal wall-o-text, oh great scholar of the it-doesn't-offend me-it shouldn't offend you university.
Stay out of the way. You'll get a few pats on the back here from the "back in my days" crowd, for being the good - brother if I call you what I want to call you I'll catch a ban - but just know that fighting for TrueGeordie to keep his sponsors isn't the revolutionary enlightened battle you think it is. He has a lot of income because he's sponsored by companies which make a lot of money off of the people he's turning around and making jokes they find insulting and rooted in negative stereotypes that have affected them at different levels and to different degrees. The stuff you consider "actual racism" - whatever the feck that means - doesn't happen in a vacuum.
Dude decided to make distasteful/insulting jokes, unprovoked, on his platform - one that's so big because he has - guess what? - muslim followers. Said Muslim followers are not rocking with it and have made it known. Brands don't want that association. And you weirdos are on here hit dog hollering about "cancel culture". Just think about that chain of events for a second for feck's sake.
edit - I see you're already receiving the "good posts" butter biscuits you were fighting for your life for
The poster you are referring to is not a "weirdo". You resorting to insults dampens your arguments.
You can also say that you are out for butter biscuits.
IMO you went in too hard on the wrong person here.