Roger Waters victim of Cancel culture???

[cannabineer]

Have you seen the movie? It's a pretty strong theme.

That was 44 years ago.
This is now.

Roger Waters: Former Pink Floyd star's UN speech criticised by Ukraine - BBC News

Roger Waters tells the United Nations Security Council that Russia's invasion was "not unprovoked".

www.bbc.com

 

[Sir Napsalot]

I never took the wall album as a commentary on fascism or authoritarianism, seemed more about wrestling with one's own mental demons.

It seemed like radio-friendly pop compared to their earlier works

 

[lusidghost]

fuck entertainers with opinions. when they have a degree in a subject they're talking about, i'll listen, no degree, they're just another loud mouthed fuck with an opinion i could not possibly give a fuck less about.
when very popular ones cancel themselves with their mouths and attitudes, i have ZERO sympathy...
And that is the only thing waters is a victim of, his own big mouth.

Yeah fuck Charlie Chaplin, Woody Guthrie, Bob Dylan, Sam Cooke, John Lennon, Muhammad Ali, Curtis Mayfield, Marvin Gaye, RATM, The Dixie Chicks, Willie Nelson, Public Enemy, Killer Mike, ect ect.

 

[lusidghost]

That was 44 years ago.
This is now.

Roger Waters: Former Pink Floyd star's UN speech criticised by Ukraine - BBC News

Roger Waters tells the United Nations Security Council that Russia's invasion was "not unprovoked".

www.bbc.com

So somehow the movie has a different theme? Follow along.

 

[lusidghost]

From that article: "He called for a ceasefire and condemned Russia's "illegal" invasion, but also denounced "provocateurs" in the West who he claimed were responsible."

Geez, what a monster. Accusing the west of allowing itself to wage yet another proxy war with Russia isn't really the argument that any of you were making.

 

[cannabineer]

So somehow the movie has a different theme? Follow along.

The movie no longer represents his current politics.

Notice that he did not specify these probably fabricated provocateurs. He is aiding and abetting the autocrat.

 

[HGCC]

Have you seen the movie? It's a pretty strong theme.

My take was that was Pink was wrasslin with his own fascist tendencies, that was part of what was broken in his brain. It did not seem to be for or against it, just that it was there and yet another thing that caused his isolation.

 

[Fogdog]

From that article: "He called for a ceasefire and condemned Russia's "illegal" invasion, but also denounced "provocateurs" in the West who he claimed were responsible."

Geez, what a monster. Accusing the west of allowing itself to wage yet another proxy war with Russia isn't really the argument that any of you were making.

Why are you so upset?

 

[lusidghost]

Why are you so upset?

Great post. I'm not the one basing my argument off of the emotional response that headlines triggered.

"A good tool" is very ironic.

 

[CunningCanuk]

Roger Waters isn’t a real fascist like Pete Townsend isn’t a real pedophile.

 

[ANC]

 

[Fogdog]

Great post. I'm not the one basing my argument off of the emotional response that headlines triggered.

"A good tool" is very ironic.

You are very emotional about this. People have the right to differ with you and Waters. While you and Waters see a benevolent dictator provoked into defending Russia by attacking Ukraine, others see an invasion of Ukraine and war on a people whose only act of "provocation" was to look to the west as a means to improve their lot.

I happen to think the latter is true because the evidence clearly lies in that direction. Some people, especially right wing authoritarian followers prefer to take their beliefs from the words of their leaders rather than base them upon objective facts. When authoritarians are confronted with beliefs that challenge their own, it is well known that they tend to become angry and sometimes violent. Hence your emotional outbursts.

 

[cannabineer]

Yes, I understand how soft people go about functioning on this forum. My point was you were not adding to the conversation, just tainting it.

Shouldn’t that assessment be aimed squarely at the one poster who is providing not one referenced fact, but is using bandwidth to express strictly negative sentiment manipulation in a bid to elicit emotional responses?

 

[lusidghost]

Shouldn’t that assessment be aimed squarely at the one poster who is providing not one referenced fact, but is using bandwidth to express strictly negative sentiment manipulation in a bid to elicit emotional responses?

I used your own link and his own words. I understand how these things work. I'm defending an artist from being called an antisemite and a fascist, based off of supposed evidence that is at best out of context.

 

[cannabineer]

I used your own link and his own words. I understand how these things work. I'm defending an artist from being called an antisemite and a fascist, based off of supposed evidence that is at best out of context.

False.

I see no citation(s) from an article that convicts him, or from any other source.

I see no specifics.

I see no viable defense, only your emotioneering.

Framing a reasoned defense requires a foundation of listed and referenced fact.

 

[lusidghost]

False.

I see no citation(s) from an article that convicts him, or from any other source.

I see no specifics.

I see no viable defense, only your emotioneering.

Framing a reasoned defense requires a foundation of listed and referenced fact.

You are making the claims. The burden of proof is on you. If you were arguing that bigfoot is a racist, I'm not going to be able to come up with sources proving that he is not. I can only scrutinize the claims against him.

 

[cannabineer]

You are making the claims. The burden of proof is on you. If you were arguing that bigfoot is a racist, I'm not going to be able to come up with sources proving that he is not. I can only scrutinize the claims against him.

I posted an article that anyone else would read as confirmation. If you have a counterargument, you haven’t made it.

Bigfoot is a classic straw man. You’re undercutting your credibility and nobody else’s.

 

[lusidghost]

I posted an article that anyone else would read as confirmation. If you have a counterargument, you haven’t made it.

Bigfoot is a classic straw man. You’re undercutting your credibility and nobody else’s.

I quoted that article in my counter argument.

Bigfoot is a great example of the burden of proof. My cousin once said, "I'll stop believing in sasquatch when they proof that he doesn't exist." Religious people make the same argument.

 

[cannabineer]

I quoted that article in my counter argument.

Bigfoot is a great example of the burden of proof. My cousin once said, "I'll stop believing in sasquatch when they proof that he doesn't exist." Religious people make the same argument.

You have a freestanding post that contains words in quote marks that could be from anywhere, including your imagination. Are you seriously suggesting that qualifies?

You’re trying to conceal your absence of actual argument behind a wall of fallacy and sentiment.

Since you have nothing, I say good day, sir.

 

[lusidghost]

You have a freestanding post that contains words in quote marks that could be from anywhere, including your imagination. Are you seriously suggesting that qualifies?

You’re trying to conceal your absence of actual argument behind a wall of fallacy and sentiment.

Since you have nothing, I say good day, sir.

What? You have the same debate strategy of a sovereign citizen.