planetf1.com

Banana Man wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:07 am

Jeez, Matty has really nailed his colours to the mast on pretty flakey ‘evidence’. If she seriously has issues with what went on then attention seeking social media media posts, which are plenty vague enough to allow the reader complete creative license aren’t the way forward.

I’m still highly sceptical. I’m not going to commit either way on this but it’s safe to say she is the winner in all this, whatever went on.

If it was sexual assault and the initial statement was to just to cover it up, she’s far from the winner.

JN23 wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:02 am

Banana Man wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:07 am

Jeez, Matty has really nailed his colours to the mast on pretty flakey ‘evidence’. If she seriously has issues with what went on then attention seeking social media media posts, which are plenty vague enough to allow the reader complete creative license aren’t the way forward.

I’m still highly sceptical. I’m not going to commit either way on this but it’s safe to say she is the winner in all this, whatever went on.

If it was sexual assault and the initial statement was to just to cover it up, she’s far from the winner.

It depends on your agenda. For most women, yes you’re absolutely right but this isn’t just any woman. She’s a social media ‘influencer’ who hangs around with the sons of Russian billionaires on private yacht parties. The more this gets reported and rehashed in the press, the more followers her Instagram gets.

Whatever her personal thoughts, this saga is undeniably good for business and her recent posts have done little other than draw more attention to her.

Exediron wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:12 am

I have to say, I'm inclined to believe her -- mostly because literally everything we know about Mazepin implies he's not a good guy. Why does anyone have trouble believing he did this?

She saying she has partied with "donkey openings" no mention of Mazepin, no accusation of sexual assault. What is it I'm meant to be believing?

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:43 am

Exediron wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:12 am

I have to say, I'm inclined to believe her -- mostly because literally everything we know about Mazepin implies he's not a good guy. Why does anyone have trouble believing he did this?

She saying she has partied with "donkey openings" no mention of Mazepin, no accusation of sexual assault. What is it I'm meant to be believing?

Not familiar with this expression, what does it mean?

Is it another classic PlanetF1 Curse Correct? LOL. Tiddle me this.

Update: Ah I think I've got it. Donkey = A__ and Openings = Hole. Now to test it.


donkey openings.

Invade wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 17, 2020 9:19 am

Is it another classic PlanetF1 Curse Correct? LOL. Tiddle me this.

Update: Ah I think I've got it. Donkey = A__ and Openings = Hole. Now to test it.


donkey openings.

My god, didn't clock this at all!!!! Brilliant

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 17, 2020 9:28 am

Invade wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 17, 2020 9:19 am

Is it another classic PlanetF1 Curse Correct? LOL. Tiddle me this.

Update: Ah I think I've got it. Donkey = A__ and Openings = Hole. Now to test it.


donkey openings.

My god, didn't clock this at all!!!! Brilliant

Yep, as you say Brilliant!

Option or Prime wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 17, 2020 9:30 am

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 17, 2020 9:28 am

Invade wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 17, 2020 9:19 am

Is it another classic PlanetF1 Curse Correct? LOL. Tiddle me this.

Update: Ah I think I've got it. Donkey = A__ and Openings = Hole. Now to test it.


donkey openings.

My god, didn't clock this at all!!!! Brilliant

Yep, as you say Brilliant!

Sorry to interject into what is a serious topic but it's taken 7-8 years for people to figure this out and it's one of my proudest parts of the swear filter THIS is my legacy

But back to the topic at hand, it's a difficult one to know for sure. She's the winner if it was just an innocent thing between friends, but if she was actually assaulted then all this saga has done is advertise she's going to accept it if other men want to do similar. That might be good for her freedom and even her income, but internally that would be torture. And recent behaviour doesn't exactly back up the official version of events, sadly.

P-F1 Mod wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:01 am

But back to the topic at hand, it's a difficult one to know for sure. She's the winner if it was just an innocent thing between friends, but if she was actually assaulted then all this saga has done is advertise she's going to accept it if other men want to do similar. That might be good for her freedom and even her income, but internally that would be torture. And recent behaviour doesn't exactly back up the official version of events, sadly.

Sexual assault cases are very often the hardest to dissect. It doesn’t help that there’s very little evidence most of the time, just he said/she said. Context is also everything and there is a big difference between what appears to have happened in this video and for example walking up to a woman in the paddock and grabbing her boobs.

Here are two hypothesis:

1. This woman (Alma) is minding her own business at some bar, party, event or whatever. After chatting to Maz for a bit, he offers to drop her off at her apartment which is on his way home. Only when she’s trapped in his car does he turn on her, groping her and filming it for his own sick amusement and posting it on Instagram as a crude boast about his own promiscuity. Then in the cold sober light of day, after some furious phone calls from Haas, he issues an apology. To help cover it up, his Dad has some ruthless Russian mob guys send her threats to keep quiet and pretend it was all just a laugh... or else.

Or....

2. A social media influencer who’s livelihood is hanging around with the sons of billionaires, Arab sheikhs, Russian oligarchs and the like, meets a rich, naive young man who’s just been promoted to being the worlds next young Formula 1 talent. She hangs around, ordering free drinks on his tab, partying on his yacht and in his penthouse, generally living the life and is well aware that he wants something in return. They have an on/off sexual relationship, she’s performed several acts upon him in the back of a Porsche and one day, under drunken misguidance, he decides to film some of their antics. Realising this is social media gold dust, she borrows his phone and uploads it, not caring about his reputation, only the tens of thousands of hits her Instagram account it about to receive. After the furore dies down a bit, she stokes the fires with a couple of vague, "shouldn’t hang around with mule orifices and let them touch me," posts, to keep her in the news.

Two completely different versions of the same very scant evidence. None of us have any clue about how much either version (or dozens of others) borrow from the truth, which is why it’s very unwise for Matty and others to be so insistent wholly on version 1.

I have a good friend in the police force who has spent the last few years specialising in sexual abuse crimes. Their take on this was interesting . "Seen it a hundred times, she was drunk, he was drunk, it happens, it's not OK, but it happens. Her immediate response under pressure is typical, but my guess is her attitude and possibly story will change in a week or so.."

ta-da!

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:55 am

I have a good friend in the police force who has spent the last few years specialising in sexual abuse crimes. Their take on this was interesting . "Seen it a hundred times, she was drunk, he was drunk, it happens, it's not OK, but it happens. Her immediate response under pressure is typical, but my guess is her attitude and possibly story will change in a week or so.."

ta-da!

This is a very good take.

Even if it was consensual, and I have my serious doubts that it was, it was still in poor taste, and someone who had just scored an F1 drive should've known better than to put it on social media. Though looking at his background, it explains why he did what he did

If she were jerking him off in the car and he posted a video of it, does it make it ok if it were consensual ?

Juans Girl wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 17, 2020 11:57 pm

Even if it was consensual, and I have my serious doubts that it was, it was still in poor taste, and someone who had just scored an F1 drive should've known better than to put it on social media. Though looking at his background, it explains why he did what he did

If she were jerking him off in the car and he posted a video of it, does it make it ok if it were consensual ?

It's not that it makes it OK but the "crime" of posting something from your private life you shouldn't is very different, in terms of severity, to the actual crime of sexual assault.

Like, nobody should be losing a career over posting some content that would probably be best left private but breaks no laws.

Hence why it's important to try and donkeys what has actually happened. Especially if pundits are going to throw around words like "abhorrent" and go in on him in a big way.

Mazepin’s apology has been deleted from his twitter.

JN23 wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 18, 2020 9:01 am

Mazepin’s apology has been deleted from his twitter.

Things are definitely going on behind the scenes. If the lady is now saying it was non consensual than I don't really see how that can be left to lie by the PTB.

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:36 am

Russian oligarch money buys a carpet big enough to sweep anything under:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/haas ... e/4928539/

Let's be realistic... Haas aren't going to do anything of note. They can't really. Mazepin is paying for the whole thing. It's unreasonable to expect a business to inflict such self harm on itself. If anything needs to be done it has to come from the FIA.

I won’t comment on the video itself, as I haven’t seen either version and don’t wish to do so. He certainly should hold himself to higher standards regardless of the facts of the incident and it baffles me that such a video should find its way onto social media. Surely Nikita cannot be oblivious to the pay driver, not good enough for F1 and other comments that his announcement has been met with, and should be wanting to prove them wrong. This kind of video doesn’t help his cause and is just another reason for people to think that someone else should have been given the opportunity.

Haas reportedly seriously considering dropping Mazepin, and - presumably - the Mazepin contract.

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 11:33 am

Haas reportedly seriously considering dropping Mazepin, and - presumably - the Mazepin contract.

Apparently several of Haas's sponsors have told Haas they do not want to be associated with Mazepin. I don't know what the balance between the Mazepin money and the rest of Haas's sponsors is, but even if it's more than half, it would presumably make it very difficult for Haas to attract more if they publicly had an exodus of existing sponsors. The rumors are that Fittipaldi will take his seat, increasing their market in the US and Brazil, and kicking Mazepin out would carry some short term positive PR to get that ball rolling, especially if they spun it as doing the right thing over money.

Seems to be gaining traction.

I have mixed feelings, on the one hand I dont feel I've seen anything from him to say he is deserving of the seat over other drivers and he clearly has it because of money, which is an aspect of the sport I dont like. So looking at it from that perspective it wouldn't be any great loss to the sport IMO.

On the other hand I feel that, regardless of the real reasons behind it, it will go down as a victory for cancel culture, and I have a real issue with the constant stream of sanctimonious drivel everytime I open Twitter. There's been a full week of people tweeting every day, people who put out 1 tweet (if any at all) when F1 announced the new race in Saudi Arabia.

Black_Flag_11 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 2:34 pm

Seems to be gaining traction.

I have mixed feelings, on the one hand I dont feel I've seen anything from him to say he is deserving of the seat over other drivers and he clearly has it because of money, which is an aspect of the sport I dont like. So looking at it from that perspective it wouldn't be any great loss to the sport IMO.

On the other hand I feel that, regardless of the real reasons behind it, it will go down as a victory for cancel culture, and I have a real issue with the constant stream of sanctimonious drivel everytime I open Twitter. There's been a full week of people tweeting every day, people who put out 1 tweet (if any at all) when F1 announced the new race in Saudi Arabia.

This is basically my opinion.

I’ll third that. The issue here is not so much what he did as what he was seen doing. We all know some of the other money men involved in F1 have much spookier skeletons in their closets, they’re just more discrete about hiding them.

If they're even a slight doubt in their mind, Haas should drop him so they don't lose sponsors. He's not coming into F1 as the greatest F2 driver for decades, so I don't see it as being a big loss.

Black_Flag_11 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 2:34 pm

Seems to be gaining traction.

I have mixed feelings, on the one hand I dont feel I've seen anything from him to say he is deserving of the seat over other drivers and he clearly has it because of money, which is an aspect of the sport I dont like. So looking at it from that perspective it wouldn't be any great loss to the sport IMO.

On the other hand I feel that, regardless of the real reasons behind it, it will go down as a victory for cancel culture, and I have a real issue with the constant stream of sanctimonious drivel everytime I open Twitter. There's been a full week of people tweeting every day, people who put out 1 tweet (if any at all) when F1 announced the new race in Saudi Arabia.

I know where you're coming from, and I do partially agree with you here. However, I have zero problem if "cancel culture" means we get rid of undeserving scumbags or races in dystopian dictatorships. There is a burden of proof that comes along with things, so it might be a more complicated situation with Mazepin - though we don't need more evidence to know that we don't shouldn't be racing in a place where women being "allowed" to drive is used to show progress. F### that s###.

A.J. wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:07 pm

I know where you're coming from, and I do partially agree with you here. However, I have zero problem if "cancel culture" means we get rid of undeserving scumbags or races in dystopian dictatorships. There is a burden of proof that comes along with things, so it might be a more complicated situation with Mazepin - though we don't need more evidence to know that we don't shouldn't be racing in a place where women being "allowed" to drive is used to show progress. F### that s###.

Yep I tend to agree with you. Also 'Cancel Culture' is just a buzz word much like 'Virtue Signaling', sometimes it's justified and sometimes it's sanctimonious as Black_Flag_11 suggests.

Personally I think Haas would be right to ditch him - not because of the recent vid but because of his previous, which also begs questions of Haas, that is to say, they seem to be reacting to negative publicity rather than the actual subject of that publicity, which doesn't exactly shout moral authority

The Saudi race is a whole different ball game - who's up for a boycott?

Lots of chat coming through the media that he's been dropped by Haas.

Biffa wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 7:09 pm

Yep I tend to agree with you. Also 'Cancel Culture' is just a buzz word much like 'Virtue Signaling', sometimes it's justified and sometimes it's sanctimonious as Black_Flag_11 suggests.

IMO, 'Cancel Culture' is mostly a term used by those who wish for a return to the days when a company or a person in an important position could get away with anything. Ostensibly, the culture is about cancelling people at the slightest provocation -- but in reality, a lot of people seem to be mad that there are consequences for their actions at all.

Exediron wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 8:44 pm

Biffa wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 7:09 pm

Yep I tend to agree with you. Also 'Cancel Culture' is just a buzz word much like 'Virtue Signaling', sometimes it's justified and sometimes it's sanctimonious as Black_Flag_11 suggests.

IMO, 'Cancel Culture' is mostly a term used by those who wish for a return to the days when a company or a person in an important position could get away with anything. Ostensibly, the culture is about cancelling people at the slightest provocation -- but in reality, a lot of people seem to be mad that there are consequences for their actions at all.

Cancel culture is a very real and a many headed beast.

When conversation is shut down by people who want their disputable notions to become unquestionable "truths" that's cancel culture. When "safe spaces" are introduced to shut out people questioning dogma that's cancel culture. When an academic not only loses their job but is also prevented from finding another one in the same field because they question woke ideology (this actually happens a lot) that's cancel culture. When a well known figure loses their livelihood over a minor verbal transgression and gets hounded incessantly by the press that's cancel culture. When a woman who says that she would like female only spaces to remain and that self ID could be dangerous for women is smeared as a TURF or a "Karen" that's cancel culture.

It's very real and very dangerous and shouldn't be casually weaponised when it suits.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:18 pm

Exediron wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 8:44 pm

Biffa wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 7:09 pm

Yep I tend to agree with you. Also 'Cancel Culture' is just a buzz word much like 'Virtue Signaling', sometimes it's justified and sometimes it's sanctimonious as Black_Flag_11 suggests.

IMO, 'Cancel Culture' is mostly a term used by those who wish for a return to the days when a company or a person in an important position could get away with anything. Ostensibly, the culture is about cancelling people at the slightest provocation -- but in reality, a lot of people seem to be mad that there are consequences for their actions at all.

Cancel culture is a very real and a many headed beast.

When conversation is shut down by people who want their disputable notions to become unquestionable "truths" that's cancel culture. When "safe spaces" are introduced to shut out people questioning dogma that's cancel culture. When an academic not only loses their job but is also prevented from finding another one in the same field because they question woke ideology (this actually happens a lot) that's cancel culture. When a well known figure loses their livelihood over a minor verbal transgression and gets hounded incessantly by the press that's cancel culture. When a woman who says that she would like female only spaces to remain and that self ID could be dangerous for women is smeared as a TURF or a "Karen" that's cancel culture.

It's very real and very dangerous and shouldn't be casually weaponised when it suits.

That's the thing. I don't think all of the examples you give are cancel culture, or at least not in all contexts. If a broadcaster doesn't want to associate with a presenter/employee because of views they have expressed, then that's not really cancel culture, that's just a private company protecting their brand. Eric Bristow being sacked by Sky for calling sexual abuse victims "wimps" is not cancel culture IMO.

No platforming isn't cancel culture either. Event organisers are allowed to choose who speaks at an event, and educational institutions have a right to choose who they host. Yes you can argue it creates echo chambers, and shuts down legitimate debate. But it isn't cancel culture. It is also one of the most effective ways to limit the spread of disinformation. Same goes for social media.

On some aspects of the trans debate I agree. Sharon Davis got some horrible abuse for saying that biological males shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sport.

Cancel culture is absolutely a thing that exists. And it's used as a tool by both liberal and conservative people alike. However, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say it's (possibly) in action here should Mazepin be fired. Commercial interests are very different to ethical views, even if there's an overlap.

BMWSauber84 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:59 pm

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:18 pm

Exediron wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 8:44 pm

Biffa wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 7:09 pm

Yep I tend to agree with you. Also 'Cancel Culture' is just a buzz word much like 'Virtue Signaling', sometimes it's justified and sometimes it's sanctimonious as Black_Flag_11 suggests.

IMO, 'Cancel Culture' is mostly a term used by those who wish for a return to the days when a company or a person in an important position could get away with anything. Ostensibly, the culture is about cancelling people at the slightest provocation -- but in reality, a lot of people seem to be mad that there are consequences for their actions at all.

Cancel culture is a very real and a many headed beast.

When conversation is shut down by people who want their disputable notions to become unquestionable "truths" that's cancel culture. When "safe spaces" are introduced to shut out people questioning dogma that's cancel culture. When an academic not only loses their job but is also prevented from finding another one in the same field because they question woke ideology (this actually happens a lot) that's cancel culture. When a well known figure loses their livelihood over a minor verbal transgression and gets hounded incessantly by the press that's cancel culture. When a woman who says that she would like female only spaces to remain and that self ID could be dangerous for women is smeared as a TURF or a "Karen" that's cancel culture.

It's very real and very dangerous and shouldn't be casually weaponised when it suits.

That's the thing. I don't think all of the examples you give are cancel culture, or at least not in all contexts. If a broadcaster doesn't want to associate with a presenter/employee because of views they have expressed, then that's not really cancel culture, that's just a private company protecting their brand. Eric Bristow being sacked by Sky for calling sexual abuse victims "wimps" is not cancel culture IMO.

No platforming isn't cancel culture either. Event organisers are allowed to choose who speaks at an event, and educational institutions have a right to choose who they host. Yes you can argue it creates echo chambers, and shuts down legitimate debate. But it isn't cancel culture. It is also one of the most effective ways to limit the spread of disinformation. Same goes for social media.

On some aspects of the trans debate I agree. Sharon Davis got some horrible abuse for saying that biological males shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sport.

I disagree. All those things are types of cancel culture. I agree though that cancel culture isn't always misplaced. The Bristow example you give is a good one but it's still cancel culture.

As is no platforming. Even if it isn't wrong for event organisers to get to say who they want appearing at their events. At the end of the day expressing fairly main stream views shouldn't mean your career or ability to make money is damaged but it is if you're a feminists who doesn't 100% by into the current dogma around trans despite it actually being a view held by most people. Just a vocal minority on social media shout the loudest. Look at the reaction JK Rowling got earlier this year. It's absurd.

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 8:28 pm

Lots of chat coming through the media that he's been dropped by Haas.

Pietro Fittipaldi has also update his Twitter profile to “HAAS F1 Driver”

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... ame=iossmf

Do we put 2 and 2 together?

Charles LeBrad wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:18 am

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 8:28 pm

Lots of chat coming through the media that he's been dropped by Haas.

Pietro Fittipaldi has also update his Twitter profile to “HAAS F1 Driver”

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... ame=iossmf

Do we put 2 and 2 together?

I bet Mazepin didn't think this would happen when he was recording that video a few weeks ago...

BMWSauber84 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:59 pm

On some aspects of the trans debate I agree. Sharon Davis got some horrible abuse for saying that biological males shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sport.

It's a very nuanced topic hypercharged by outrage.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:18 pm

When an academic not only loses their job but is also prevented from finding another one in the same field because they question woke ideology (this actually happens a lot) that's cancel culture.

Which academics? I used to be quite heavily invested into that rabbit hole but once you start digging, there isn't much there. Bret Weinstein? Bo Winegard? Jordan Peterson?

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 11:21 pm

At the end of the day expressing fairly main stream views shouldn't mean your career or ability to make money is damaged but it is if you're a feminists who doesn't 100% by into the current dogma around trans despite it actually being a view held by most people. Just a vocal minority on social media shout the loudest. Look at the reaction JK Rowling got earlier this year. It's absurd.

Social media has supercharged social progressivism and allowed more obscure demographic minorities to connect, share their experiences and demand change.

I'm not sure how old you are but when Roy Jenkins was Home Secretary, he banned the death penalty and decriminalised homosexuality against public opinion. It was the right thing to do as both were human rights issues.

Also JK Rowling has faced a bit of backlash on Twitter but arguably she will continue to publish whichever books she likes and has plenty of followers to spread her views to. Hardly, "cancel culture".

F1Tyrant wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 22, 2020 9:23 am

BMWSauber84 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:59 pm

On some aspects of the trans debate I agree. Sharon Davis got some horrible abuse for saying that biological males shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sport.

It's a very nuanced topic hypercharged by outrage.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:18 pm

When an academic not only loses their job but is also prevented from finding another one in the same field because they question woke ideology (this actually happens a lot) that's cancel culture.

Which academics? I used to be quite heavily invested into that rabbit hole but once you start digging, there isn't much there. Bret Weinstein? Bo Winegard? Jordan Peterson?

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 21, 2020 11:21 pm

At the end of the day expressing fairly main stream views shouldn't mean your career or ability to make money is damaged but it is if you're a feminists who doesn't 100% by into the current dogma around trans despite it actually being a view held by most people. Just a vocal minority on social media shout the loudest. Look at the reaction JK Rowling got earlier this year. It's absurd.

Social media has supercharged social progressivism and allowed more obscure demographic minorities to connect, share their experiences and demand change.

I'm not sure how old you are but when Roy Jenkins was Home Secretary, he banned the death penalty and decriminalised homosexuality against public opinion. It was the right thing to do as both were human rights issues.

Also JK Rowling has faced a bit of backlash on Twitter but arguably she will continue to publish whichever books she likes and has plenty of followers to spread her views to. Hardly, "cancel culture".

JK Rowling has suffered months of horrendous abuse. She is too big to cancel but that doesn't mean a less prestigious author would be.

This is wear people go wrong with cancel culture. They think it refers to well known people. In reality it's no. Whilst it's hard to cancel a famous person it's very easy to cancel a regular Joe and that's what's happening - https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/ ... 2986336256

Lots of examples like this. Particularly in academia.

I’d have preferred Callum Illott got the seat to be honest, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd getting a shot at F1 is logical. 1st, 3rd and 5th with a social media incident doesn’t sit right with me.

-K- wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 22, 2020 9:52 am

I’d have preferred Callum Illott got the seat to be honest, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd getting a shot at F1 is logical. 1st, 3rd and 5th with a social media incident doesn’t sit right with me.

I believe he's recently signed as test and reserve driver for Ferrari.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 22, 2020 9:51 am

This is wear people go wrong with cancel culture. They think it refers to well known people. In reality it's no. Whilst it's hard to cancel a famous person it's very easy to cancel a regular Joe and that's what's happening - https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/ ... 2986336256

Lots of examples like this. Particularly in academia.

There is too much backlash against single-event tweets like that. But people also need to be aware that tweeting (or posting on any other social media) is by no means the equivalent of saying something casually to a friend at a party. It's gotten too big, too fast, and people tend to treat it far too casually for what they put out there.

Exediron wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 22, 2020 10:21 am

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 22, 2020 9:51 am

This is wear people go wrong with cancel culture. They think it refers to well known people. In reality it's no. Whilst it's hard to cancel a famous person it's very easy to cancel a regular Joe and that's what's happening - https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/ ... 2986336256

Lots of examples like this. Particularly in academia.

There is too much backlash against single-event tweets like that. But people also need to be aware that tweeting (or posting on any other social media) is by no means the equivalent of saying something casually to a friend at a party. It's gotten too big, too fast, and people tend to treat it far too casually for what they put out there.

Isn't that victim blaming?

Anyway, Is allowing a disputable notion to errantly become unquestionable fact, protected by what are effectively the 2020 version of blasphemy laws in anyway progressive?

Essentially you should be able to express a main stream view without fear of losing your job.