Television Dave Chappelle The Closer Netflix special

[CitizenVectron]

People who tend to complain about free speech and wokeness/cancel culture tend to believe (and are really trying to say) that they believe that speech should have no consequence.

[SimpleG]

3 hours ago, sblfilms said:

They didn’t share it in the way you are thinking, at least as described by another Netflix employee who also received the communication in which the link was a part

So how was it shared with her?

[legend]

45 minutes ago, LazyPiranha said:

What other punitive measures are people seeking though?  People are calling Dave an asshole and a bigot, some are saying they won’t pay for Netflix and others are encouraging others to not pay for Netflix too and… that’s it?  
 

Unless I’ve missed it, no one sane is saying he should be beaten, jailed, forced to apologize at gun point, expelled from the country, robbed of every penny he owns, whatever.  The cancel culture Chappelle is bitching about is just having to be aware of the fact that people think the things he says suck and they don’t want to support it with money.  

 

Chappelle specifically hasn't had anything of note happen to him, but there very much is a cancel culture that exists. When someone is a giant shit bird, the public doesn't simply ignore their show and comment online about they dislike them, they make pleas to have them removed from the network hosting them so *no one* can watch them.

 

In most cases of stuff like that, I believe that is an appropriate response, but the people who ascribe to philosophically pure free speech would advocate that you just not watch their show and comment on why you dislike them yourself, not move to have them removed.

 

I suppose there might be risk of something like that happen to him now, since you can find people petitioning Netflix to remove the content and cease further relationship with him.

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, LazyPiranha said:

What other punitive measures are people seeking though?  People are calling Dave an asshole and a bigot, some are saying they won’t pay for Netflix and others are encouraging others to not pay for Netflix too and… that’s it?  
 

Unless I’ve missed it, no one sane is saying he should be beaten, jailed, forced to apologize at gun point, expelled from the country, robbed of every penny he owns, whatever.  The cancel culture Chappelle is bitching about is just having to be aware of the fact that people think the things he says suck and they don’t want to support it with money.  

 

Wanting to block *other people* from spending their own money on a product because you find it offensive, mean, distasteful, etc. is a very different issue. These folks don't just want Netflix not to work with Chappelle, they don't want any company to do so because they believe his work causes material harm.

[LazyPiranha]

What is the functional difference between publicly saying you won’t support Netflix or anyone else who hires Chappelle then following through and just privately doing the same thing?  Am I cancelling every single person I don’t actively support financially?  

 

It’s all bullshit.  Nothing but lazy mental sleight of hand.  Somehow it’s free speech to say out loud that Dave Chappelle is an obnoxious chud but to then say I’m not going to pay for anything featuring him is somehow different.  Everyone is “cancelling” people every moment of their lives.

 

There is so little space between not liking a thing and not paying for a thing to continue that light cannot pass through.  Up until the very moment that people start taking actual physical or legislative action against someone, it’s all the same.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Wanting to block *other people* from spending their own money on a product because you find it offensive, mean, distasteful, etc. is a very different issue. 

 

I see that as the logical extension -- if not the natural, ultimate endpoint -- of the exercise of my (completely non-existent) right of free speech.

[legend]

37 minutes ago, LazyPiranha said:

What is the functional difference between publicly saying you won’t support Netflix or anyone else who hires Chappelle then following through and just privately doing the same thing?  Am I cancelling every single person I don’t actively support financially?  

 

An advocate of philosophical free speech would probably tell you you shouldn't cancel your Netflix subscription over it and certainly not anything and everything the person in question touches in any form. They would tell you to keep your subscription if there is other content in which you find value, and just avoid watching the content you dislike.

 

[Moa]

21 minutes ago, legend said:

 

An advocate of philosophical free speech would probably tell you you shouldn't cancel your Netflix subscription over it and certainly not anything and everything the person in question touches in any form. They would tell you to keep your subscription if there is other content in which you find value, and just avoid watching the content you dislike.

 

 

I don't think that position stands up to much scrutiny. If Netflix started publishing articles from The Daily Stormer on the side, nobody would seriously argue that those who don't like it should just consume the other content they do like. So there certainly is a line where anyone could find a piece of content so distasteful that they no longer support the company that produced it.

[legend]

10 minutes ago, Moa said:

 

I don't think that position stands up to much scrutiny. If Netflix started publishing articles from The Daily Stormer on the side, nobody would seriously argue that those who don't like it should just consume the other content they do like. So there certainly is a line where anyone could find a piece of content so distasteful that they no longer support the company that produced it.

 

Yeah, I don't agree with it either. I think the best argument I could make for their side is people are fucking dumb and it may be better to instill a simple policy of "don't boycott stuff for words" than it is to teach people to have more nuanced perspective when they decide whether something goes over the line. Otherwise the tables can too easily turn and you get puritanical mob rule. But there is just so much awful shit out there I think we simply have to ask for better judgement as a society, one where we can boycott and protest the obviously bad shit. If we can't ask society to do that, we're fucked anyway so we might as well try.

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, legend said:

 

Yeah, I don't agree with it either. I think the best argument I could make for their side is people are fucking dumb and it may be better to instill a simple policy of "don't boycott stuff for words" than it is to teach people to have more nuanced perspective when they decide whether something goes over the line. Otherwise the tables can too easily turn and you get puritanical mob rule. But there is just so much awful shit out there I think we simply have to ask for better judgement as a society, one where we can boycott and protest the obviously bad shit. If we can't ask society to do that, we're fucked anyway so we might as well try.

 

To be fair, this is my one concern with cancel culture, which I otherwise have supported in most cases of the person getting cancelled. I worry about neo-liberals like the Tipper Gore's and Joseph Lieberman's of the 1990's who said kids shouldn't play games and tried to get violent games banned even though these were ostensibly "liberal Democrats". I see a lot of that in online cancel culture, where I worry that they are not truly progressives (who believe in true freedom) and are simple left wing versions of puritanical mob rule.

 

Now with that concern being said, cancel culture isn't random, it's a part of historical context and by and large cancel culture is a reckoning, and a deserved one. I have seen very few instances where cancel culture wasn't by and large right to cancel this person or that person. People should have been treating these groups who these shitty people are getting canceled for (anti-vax, Nazi, racist, sexist, sexual misconduct, etc.) better for decades now. Finally, we've all had enough, and we're gonna call out shitty and bad behavior when it happens. I haven't really seen any "line crossing" yet and lots of comedy is still hilarious to me (plenty of great stand up specials still, plenty of great comedy shows) and they remain funny without punching down. None of this is directed at you Legend, just saying this in general.

 

That's all cancel culture really is, or what it is to me. To get everyone united on one front where we stop people from punching down, in whatever way that manifests itself. That seems like a mostly good and noble thing to demand to me. In heterosexual-cisgender Dave Chappelle's case, it's a straight, famous, rich, powerful black man punching down with jokes at the LGBT+ community/group. No, it's not a white person this time, but that matters little. Like Dave Chappelle ironically said in the special, "Can a gay person be racist?" and the answer is, of course, theoretically, yes. By that same logic though, "Can a straight black person be anti-trans and homophobic?" the answer is again, yes, of course. And here we are.  

 

I get his point at the end that his transgender friend felt like "one of his people" (because his friend was open minded enough to makes LGBT+ jokes and liked his jokes on it as well), meaning comedians, which are his people to him vs. the transgender community, which he sees as too sensitive to allow his people, comedians, to make jokes at their expense, even if they're good and well-intentioned jokes (in Dave Chappelle's mind at least). But none of that matters because comedy isn't up to the comedian to decide. You can think anything up you want, but we decide if it's funny and something you can/should say, not the other way around. Comedians are a very prideful lot, so many of them fail to understand this.

[legend]

23 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

To be fair, this is my one concern with cancel culture, which I otherwise have supported in most cases of the person getting cancelled. I worry about neo-liberals like the Tipper Gore's and Joseph Lieberman's of the 1990's who said kids shouldn't play games and tried to get violent games banned even though these were ostensibly "liberal Democrats". I see a lot of that in online cancel culture, where I worry that they are not truly progressives (who believe in true freedom) and are simple left wing versions of puritanical mob rule.

 

Now with that concern being said, cancel culture isn't random, it's a part of historical context and by and large cancel culture is a reckoning, and a deserved one. I have seen very few instances where cancel culture wasn't by and large right to cancel this person or that person. People should have been treating these groups who these shitty people are getting canceled for (anti-vax, Nazi, racist, sexist, sexual misconduct, etc.) better for decades now. Finally, we've all had enough, and we're gonna call out shitty and bad behavior when it happens. I haven't really seen any "line crossing" yet and lots of comedy is still hilarious to me (plenty of great stand up specials still, plenty of great comedy shows) and they remain funny without punching down. None of this is directed at you Legend, just saying this in general.

 

That's all cancel culture really is, or what it is to me. To get everyone united on one front where we stop people from punching down, in whatever way that manifests itself. That seems like a mostly good and noble thing to demand to me. In heterosexual-cisgender Dave Chappelle's case, it's a straight, famous, rich, powerful black man punching down with jokes at the LGBT+ community/group. No, it's not a white person this time, but that matters little. Like Dave Chappelle ironically said in the special, "Can a gay person be racist?" and the answer is, of course, theoretically, yes. By that same logic though, "Can a straight black person be anti-trans and homophobic?" the answer is again, yes, of course. And here we are.  

 

I get his point at the end that his transgender friend felt like "one of his people" (because his friend was open minded enough to makes LGBT+ jokes and liked his jokes on it as well), meaning comedians, which are his people to him vs. the transgender community, which he sees as too sensitive to allow his people, comedians, to make jokes at their expense, even if they're good and well-intentioned jokes (in Dave Chappelle's mind at least). But none of that matters because comedy isn't up to the comedian to decide. You can think anything up you want, but we decide if it's funny and something you can/should say, not the other way around. Comedians are a very prideful lot, so many of them fail to understand this.

 

Yeah, I also loathe mob rule and it's why that's the best argument I can make for "free speech." I just think we can and have to find a middle ground where we do punish the egregious but not "cancel" anything we reactively dislike. So far, I haven't had too much problem with what people have done. If it start tipping toward mob rule, I'll push back then.

[Greatoneshere]

11 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Yeah, I also loathe mob rule and it's why that's the best argument I can make for "free speech." I just think we can and have to find a middle ground where we do punish the egregious but not "cancel" anything we reactively dislike. So far, I haven't had too much problem with what people have done. If it start tipping toward mob rule, I'll push back then.

 

Yeah, I'd say I'm currently in the exact same place on cancel culture as you are, makes sense. Most instances so far have seemed very justifiable to me.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, LazyPiranha said:

What is the functional difference between publicly saying you won’t support Netflix or anyone else who hires Chappelle then following through and just privately doing the same thing?  Am I cancelling every single person I don’t actively support financially?  

 

It’s all bullshit.  Nothing but lazy mental sleight of hand.  Somehow it’s free speech to say out loud that Dave Chappelle is an obnoxious chud but to then say I’m not going to pay for anything featuring him is somehow different.  Everyone is “cancelling” people every moment of their lives.

 

There is so little space between not liking a thing and not paying for a thing to continue that light cannot pass through.  Up until the very moment that people start taking actual physical or legislative action against someone, it’s all the same.

I really don’t understand why people can’t see the difference between not wanting to give a person/business money because you have an issue with them and/or their product, even when stated publicly, and attempting to stop other people from having access to that content or product. It is genuinely baffling that you don’t get this concept.

 

4 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

I see that as the logical extension -- if not the natural, ultimate endpoint -- of the exercise of my (completely non-existent) right of free speech.

Utter nonsense. Your right to free speech does not necessitate attempting to stop other people from hearing speech you don’t like.

[LazyPiranha]

I can’t see the difference because there is no difference.  If I choose to not give money to any business that pays Chappelle, I am inherently attempting to prevent anyone else from having access to that content.  If he doesn’t get paid, he doesn’t make another special, if he doesn’t make another special, no one else gets to see it.  The two cannot be divorced from one another because the only reason he makes these things is for money.  

[Moa]

1 hour ago, LazyPiranha said:

I can’t see the difference because there is no difference.  If I choose to not give money to any business that pays Chappelle, I am inherently attempting to prevent anyone else from having access to that content.  If he doesn’t get paid, he doesn’t make another special, if he doesn’t make another special, no one else gets to see it.  The two cannot be divorced from one another because the only reason he makes these things is for money.  

 

This implies that these businesses are entitled to your active support. Cancelling your Netflix subscription is not active opposition to Netflix, it is just no longer actively supporting them. Billions of people are not subscribing to Netflix, and it'd be quite the stretch to say they are all trying to prevent Netflix from operating because of it.

[SuperSpreader]

I like how now y'all have been tricked into talking about the meaning of cancel culture rather than Dave being a POS.

[Kal-El814]

1 hour ago, SuperSpreader said:

I like how now y'all have been tricked into talking about the meaning of cancel culture rather than Dave being a POS.

 

Why not both and all that.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, LazyPiranha said:

I can’t see the difference because there is no difference.  If I choose to not give money to any business that pays Chappelle, I am inherently attempting to prevent anyone else from having access to that content.  If he doesn’t get paid, he doesn’t make another special, if he doesn’t make another special, no one else gets to see it.  The two cannot be divorced from one another because the only reason he makes these things is for money.  

But millions of people do want to pay Chappelle for his work, the goal of certain circles is to pressure producers and distributors not to work with him despite the financial win his audience brings. You personally not wanting to spend money on the guy is irrelevant. The vast majority of the world doesn’t want to spend money on him.

[CitizenVectron]

17 hours ago, sblfilms said:

 

Wanting to block *other people* from spending their own money on a product because you find it offensive, mean, distasteful, etc. is a very different issue. These folks don't just want Netflix not to work with Chappelle, they don't want any company to do so because they believe his work causes material harm.

 

10 hours ago, sblfilms said:

I really don’t understand why people can’t see the difference between not wanting to give a person/business money because you have an issue with them and/or their product, even when stated publicly, and attempting to stop other people from having access to that content or product. It is genuinely baffling that you don’t get this concept.

 

Utter nonsense. Your right to free speech does not necessitate attempting to stop other people from hearing speech you don’t like.

 

I don't think it's very clear-cut where the line is. For example, these are some possible options if I don't like something that Netflix is hosting:

• Simply cancel my own subscription, and don't say anything to anyone
• Cancel my own sub, and publicly tell people that I did so (and why)
• Cancel my own sub, and publicly (to the general public) say why I did it, and say why others should do the same
• Cancel my own sub, and start/take part in a large public movement to do the same (as pressure for the company to stop the content)

Personally, I think that only the last one really constitutes stepping over the line, but only in some cases. In the end, not spending money at a company is the only real recourse a consumer has to change that company's behaviour, and bringing attention to a company's behaviour publicly is a perfectly valid thing for someone to do to educate other consumers. 

 

Heck, as small as an impact it made, I stopped buying Nabisco products while their workers were on strike, and the same for Kellogg's. I don't think that is any form of cancel culture, I am simply taking part in a large boycott movement to try and change the behaviour of a company (in this case to do with working conditions). But changing a company's behavior, whether for working conditions or what they support/do in other areas, is perfectly valid. Other people don't have to listen to what I say.

[Kal-El814]

Let’s also take a moment to acknowledge that “canceling” meant a very specific thing on black twitter, then the whites came, took, and appropriated it, as we do.

 

Carry on.

[Jason]

1 hour ago, SuperSpreader said:

I like how now y'all have been tricked into talking about the meaning of cancel culture rather than Dave being a POS.

 

So you're saying the discussion of Dave got cancelled? 

[LazyPiranha]

How is that different from any other business decision ever?  What elevates something from “I don’t agree with this so I personally won’t pay for it” to “cancel culture” other than a chud got butthurt over it?  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, LazyPiranha said:

How is that different from any other business decision ever?  What elevates something from “I don’t agree with this so I personally won’t pay for it” to “cancel culture” other than a chud got butthurt over it?  

The attempt to block others from accessing it is the issue, particularly because it usually comes from people who haven’t ever been the audience for that product. This is explicitly what de-platforming is about, removing people from their audience because you don’t like what they say.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Heck, as small as an impact it made, I stopped buying Nabisco products while their workers were on strike, and the same for Kellogg's. I don't think that is any form of cancel culture, I am simply taking part in a large boycott movement to try and change the behaviour of a company (in this case to do with working conditions). But changing a company's behavior, whether for working conditions or what they support/do in other areas, is perfectly valid. Other people don't have to listen to what I say.

Did you attempt to prevent other people in your local grocery store from buying the products that they wanted by pressuring the grocery to stop doing business with Nabisco or Kellogg’s? Because absent that, you deciding not to buy something for any particular reason is of no consequence to anybody else that wants it.

[SuperSpreader]

35 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

So you're saying the discussion of Dave got cancelled? 

 

😮

 

Who cancels the cancellers

[LazyPiranha]

42 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

The attempt to block others from accessing it is the issue, particularly because it usually comes from people who haven’t ever been the audience for that product. This is explicitly what de-platforming is about, removing people from their audience because you don’t like what they say.

My point is that there is no way for me to NOT pay for something I don’t agree with that also doesn’t inherently threaten the ability of others to have it in the future.  If some accountant down the road has to decide if this is going to be profitable or not and they need to factor in people like me taking a pass on it, what difference does it make to their bottom line why I’m not going to cough up?  It’s not like my personal feelings on the matter swing the needle.

[CitizenVectron]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

Did you attempt to prevent other people in your local grocery store from buying the products that they wanted by pressuring the grocery to stop doing business with Nabisco or Kellogg’s? Because absent that, you deciding not to buy something for any particular reason is of no consequence to anybody else that wants it.

 

It depends on what you mean by "prevent." There are again multiple levels:

• Publicly ask people not to support the store because they sell Nabisco
• Publicly call for the store stop selling Nabisco
• Physically try and stop people from buying it/the store from selling it

The only invalid option is the third. There is nothing wrong with me publicly calling for a company to stop doing business with another company, and to put pressure on them by asking people to not support them until they do.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, LazyPiranha said:

My point is that there is no way for me to NOT pay for something I don’t agree with that also doesn’t inherently threaten the ability of others to have it in the future.  If some accountant down the road has to decide if this is going to be profitable or not and they need to factor in people like me taking a pass on it, what difference does it make to their bottom line why I’m not going to cough up?  It’s not like my personal feelings on the matter swing the needle.

You have no desire to buy tickets to see a movie at my theaters, and that has zero threat to my customers and their ability to enjoy what I offer.

 

Now, if you were to go through all my terrible takes here from over the years and start pressuring my landlord to no longer do business with me because I’m a terrible person, that does affect the ability of my customers to use my services.

 

12 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

It depends on what you mean by "prevent." There are again multiple levels:

• Publicly ask people not to support the store because they sell Nabisco
• Publicly call for the store stop selling Nabisco
• Physically try and stop people from buying it/the store from selling it

The only invalid option is the third. There is nothing wrong with me publicly calling for a company to stop doing business with another company, and to put pressure on them by asking people to not support them until they do.

 

I disagree. It isn’t any of your business what other people want to spend their money on!

[CitizenVectron]

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

You have no desire to buy tickets to see a movie at my theaters, and that has zero threat to my customers and their ability to enjoy what I offer.

 

Now, if you were to go through all my terrible takes here from over the years and start pressuring my landlord to no longer do business with me because I’m a terrible person, that does affect the ability of my customers to use my services.

 

 

I disagree. It isn’t any of your business what other people want to spend their money on!

 

With that logic, people should never make public efforts/requests for people to avoid certain businesses for actions taken, etc. Basically, no boycotts. There is nothing immoral or wrong about educating people about what a person/company has done wrong, and attempting to influence the person/business into changing through it. 

 

EDIT - Now, I think that specific efforts themselves can cross the line, and need to be determined on a case-by-case basis (in terms of the methods used to inform the public, etc). Because it can cross over into harassment. But the general idea of a public campaign to change a business' behaviour is not itself immoral.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

With that logic, people should never make public efforts/requests for people to avoid certain businesses for actions taken, etc. Basically, no boycotts. There is nothing immoral or wrong about educating people about what a person/company has done wrong, and attempting to influence the person/business into changing through it. 

You choosing not to buy something, even saying so in a public way is not remotely the same thing as trying to stop other people who want to buy it from being able to buy that thing. Convincing other people to no longer want something is also not the same thing as preventing them from buying the thing they do want.

[CitizenVectron]

Just now, sblfilms said:

You choosing not to buy something, even saying so in a public way is not remotely the same thing as trying to stop other people who want to buy it from being able to buy that thing. Convincing other people they shouldn’t want something is also not the same thing as preventing them from buying the thing they do want.

 

I did edit my previous post after you started replying, I think, but I think we would need to define what "preventing" is, vs. "informing/educating/persuading." Conveying information intended to persuade is fine. I don't know exactly what "preventing" would be defined as. If we define it as "changing the behaviour of a business so that customers can no longer support it for what they want," then I still don't think that's immoral. You could sue a businesses and get them shut down for entirely different reasons (workplace safety, etc) and prevent someone from buying Oreos, for example. But no one is suggesting suing them to stop selling Oreos. Even an extreme boycott campaign (e.g. putting up billboards on the street, asking people to avoid the grocery store until it stops selling Oreos) is perfectly moral. It's up to the business to then decide if it wants to retain the customers that want Oreas, or wants to retain the customers that don't want the company to sell/support Oreos. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I did edit my previous post after you started replying, I think, but I think we would need to define what "preventing" is, vs. "informing/educating/persuading." Conveying information intended to persuade is fine. I don't know exactly what "preventing" would be defined as. If we define it as "changing the behaviour of a business so that customers can no longer support it for what they want," then I still don't think that's immoral. You could sue a businesses and get them shut down for entirely different reasons (workplace safety, etc) and prevent someone from buying Oreos, for example. But no one is suggesting suing them to stop selling Oreos. Even an extreme boycott campaign (e.g. putting up billboards on the street, asking people to avoid the grocery store until it stops selling Oreos) is perfectly moral. It's up to the business to then decide if it wants to retain the customers that want Oreas, or wants to retain the customers that don't want the company to sell/support Oreos. 

I don’t care about the notion of morality here. I am arguing that it isn’t any of your business what I want to spend money on, and you not liking it is perfectly fine until the point at which you actively try and prevent me from accessing the product or service I want.

 

Look at something like pornography. Many people believe it is an unequivocal bad thing to view pornography. Many other people don’t. Is there a difference between expressing the position, including through advertisements, that pornography is a bad thing vs. trying to brow beat a web host into dropping a porn site so that those who do want that product can no longer access it?

[CitizenVectron]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

I don’t care about the notion of morality here. I am arguing that it isn’t any of your business what I want to spend money on, and you not liking it is perfectly fine until the point at which you actively try and prevent me from accessing the product or service I want.

 

Look at something like pornography. Many people believe it is an unequivocal bad thing to view pornography. Many other people don’t. Is there a difference between expressing the position, including through advertisements, that pornography is a bad thing vs. trying to brow beat a web host into dropping a porn site so that those who do want that product can no longer access it?

 

I guess it would depend on the methods taken. So far, I have just been describing education campaigns (including advertising). It would depend on what "brow beat" means. If it's convincing existing paying customers to switch (through an educational campaign), then that's fair game. People should be free to choose to not support something a company does, and people should be free to point out what a company does to other people. I don't think there is a solid black and white line where something goes from acceptable to not acceptable, it's a grey transition. 

 

It's not my business what you spend money on, but my own actions could affect your ability to spend how you want in a hundred different ways. I could sue a company for harassment against me (that shuts them down), I could open a competing store that drives them out of business, I could put up billboards saying that the company supports something I disagree with (and they shut down when other people stop shopping there, too). But companies shutting down can happen for hundreds of reasons, and if customer demand is one of them, then it's just a result of the market not supporting what they are selling/doing.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I guess it would depend on the methods taken. So far, I have just been describing education campaigns (including advertising). It would depend on what "brow beat" means. If it's convincing existing paying customers to switch (through an educational campaign), then that's fair game. People should be free to choose to not support something a company does, and people should be free to point out what a company does to other people. I don't think there is a solid black and white line where something goes from acceptable to not acceptable, it's a grey transition. 

 

It's not my business what you spend money on, but my own actions could affect your ability to spend how you want in a hundred different ways. I could sue a company for harassment against me (that shuts them down), I could open a competing store that drives them out of business, I could put up billboards saying that the company supports something I disagree with (and they shut down when other people stop shopping there, too). But companies shutting down can happen for hundreds of reasons, and if customer demand is one of them, then it's just a result of the market not supporting what they are selling/doing.

I’m not being vague in the slightest and you are responding as though I am  

 

Would you have a problem with anti-porn people attempting to get Only Fans removed from their web hosting services in an attempt to stop other people from accessing the content?

[CitizenVectron]

11 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I’m not being vague in the slightest and you are responding as though I am  

 

Would you have a problem with anti-porn people attempting to get Only Fans removed from their web hosting services in an attempt to stop other people from accessing the content?

 

I would have a problem in the sense that I wouldn't approve of the decision if it happened, but not in the idea of them putting pressure.