Anti-Cancel Culture Crusader Charlie Kirk Tries to Cancel Christian Rapper Lecrae

[Pommer]

Sure.

I also believe that without the ability to openly express and discuss our opinions we will lose our ability to solve problems. Robust discussion and debate is pretty important to western civilization. We can have these discussions behind closed doors or openly....but popular ideas aren't typically good ideas. They just appeal to the mediocre majority.

“Talking is good but don’t change anything!”—Conservative Mantra

 

[Ana the Ist]

“Talking is good but don’t change anything!”—Conservative Mantra

Never heard that one.

The people afraid of debate are typically the ones with bad ideas.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Lecrae performed at a get-out-the-vote event sponsored by Democratic Senate then-candidates Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff.

Charlie Kirk, founder of Talking Points USA, and frequent critic of "cancel culture", then tells Pastor Jack Hibbs in front of a crowd at Calvary Chapel that Lacrae shouldn't be allowed to perform at churches again.

Charlie Kirk says rapper Lecrae shouldn't be allowed to perform in churches after Warnock support

Read the article. Charlie Kirk offered his opinion, for good or ill.

But he did not dox, threaten, interfere with employment contracts, or threaten the family of the performer. I think we can see the difference here with little effort.

He made comments. So what? Others can disagree.

Offering opinions to someone that you don't approve of X is not "canceling" for those who are confused about that.

Taking specific actions to interfere with a person's life is canceling, like doxing, showing up at his house with a crowd, threatening, calling his employer, or invading his personal space or documents.

 

[durangodawood]

...Taking specific actions to interfere with a person's life is canceling, like doxing, showing up at his house with a crowd, threatening, calling his employer, or invading his personal space or documents.

No, cancelling is different from harassment.

Cancelling is exactly about terminating performer appearances when their opinions get too "weird" for the host.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Read the article. Charlie Kirk offered his opinion, for good or ill.

But he did not dox, threaten, interfere with employment contracts, or threaten the family of the performer. I think we can see the difference here with little effort.

He made comments. So what? Others can disagree.

Offering opinions to someone that you don't approve of X is not "canceling" for those who are confused about that.

Taking specific actions to interfere with a person's life is canceling, like doxing, showing up at his house with a crowd, threatening, calling his employer, or invading his personal space or documents.

As a musician, Lecrae is self-employed. Encouraging his fan base to not hire him or promote his shows is no different than encouraging an employer to fire an employee.

 

[rambot]

Never heard that one.

The people afraid of debate are typically the ones with bad ideas.

Sadly no. Dunnigan Kruger. The people with bad ideas are SUPER excited to...."debate".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Not sure if that's entirely true. My understanding of Lecrae is that, at least for a time, his audience was largely white.

The same is true for a lot of hip-hop artists.

Here's a Lil Wayne concert...

...but the white people who were/are Lecrae fans still probably weren't getting their marching orders from Charlie Kirk.

The "Charlie Kirk" crowd, and the "I like hip hop" crowd probably don't have a lot of overlap regardless of race.

Most Cardi B fans I know are white, but they're not people who would be swayed in the least by Ben Shapiro's high profile critique of her song.

 

[bèlla]

I’ve never heard of Kirk but I know who Lecrae is and that’s probably the problem. It isn’t uncommon for Christians to call out and trash others with more success, wealth, or popularity. It happens often. They do it under the guise of opinion or helpfulness. But it’s really jealousy.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sadly no.

Nothing sad about it .

If someone with a bad idea engages in vigorous debate, at least they have a chance to understand why they hold a bad idea.

Censorship helps no one.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sadly no. Dunnigan Kruger. The people with bad ideas are SUPER excited to...."debate".

Were you trying to refer to the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Sadly, you overestimated your own understanding of it.

Also possibly not real.

 

[Sketcher]

I’ve never heard of Kirk but I know who Lecrae is and that’s probably the problem. It isn’t uncommon for Christians to call out and trash others with more success, wealth, or popularity. It happens often. They do it under the guise of opinion or helpfulness. But it’s really jealousy.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

For that to hold water, Charlie Kirk would need to be jealous of Lecrae somehow. Lecrae is a rapper, Charlie Kirk is not - he's a political speaker and writer. I am certain this is political, not personal.

 

[bèlla]

For that to hold water, Charlie Kirk would need to be jealous of Lecrae somehow. Lecrae is a rapper, Charlie Kirk is not - he's a political speaker and writer. I am certain this is political, not personal.

He doesn’t need to be a rapper to be jealous. He needs to feel inadequate.

~bella

 

[cow451]

Sure.

I also believe that without the ability to openly express and discuss our opinions we will lose our ability to solve problems. Robust discussion and debate is pretty important to western civilization. We can have these discussions behind closed doors or openly....but popular ideas aren't typically good ideas. They just appeal to the mediocre majority.

The easiest states in which to get fired are Red states.

 

[Sketcher]

He doesn’t need to be a rapper to be jealous. He needs to feel inadequate.

~bella

I don't know if he feels inadequate, but since he's been a political speaker and writer for years, and since this has to do with Warnock's election, my belief is that it has everything to do with politics.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

No, cancelling is different from harassment.

Cancelling is exactly about terminating performer appearances when their opinions get to "weird" for the host.

Not really. Almost always, harassment is included if the segment who needs to "cancel" for everyone is involved.

At several universities, I remember that conservative speakers were hindered from entering the grounds. The intolerant ones could not simply decline to go hear him, or complain about it online. That's what normal people do when they think something is bad policy.

The distinct difference is that the intolerant ones make threats and block entrances and damage buildings and cause problems preventing everyone from hearing a speaker. THIS is the policy that should never be tolerated; and any such divisive people should be ousted from campus. Don't like a speaker (and we all have some we don't want to hear)? Stay home. You don't have the right to demand no one else listen to him.

There have been several recent incidents. Milo was blocked from giving a full speech at UC Berkley. The intolerant ones shouted him down so no one could hear him. He was warned not to appear at all, but he did, and got a few words out before they silenced him.

The College Republicans invited a journalist to speak at the University of Connecticut. Something about "It's Ok to be White" or something. They shouted him down the entire time. Then a woman came up on stage and stole his script or notes, and he grabbed back, and a fight ensued and HE was arrested. They got what they wanted. They silenced him. But they also damaged the building and broke windows outside, merely because they were unable tolerate someone with whom they disagreed being able to speak. On a freaking COLLEGE CAMPUS, you know, the place where the open exchange of ideas is to be welcomed? You cannot make this stuff up.
Lucian Wintrich to seek 'legal justice' after arrest on UConn campus

At Columbia, they silenced some speaker who was talking about Muslim migration across Europe and some of its outcomes, because he was invited by the College Republicans.

University of Oregon's president was attacked on stage by those who could not tolerate even hearing him speak a word against Fascism. In Oregon, for goodness sakes.

Duke University President was making some banal speech against "change in labor practices and student support" when the intolerant ones screamed at him to get off the stage. Eventually they left, so they only interrupted that speech. Group of students protests President Price's alumni address, issues demands

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

As a musician, Lecrae is self-employed. Encouraging his fan base to not hire him or promote his shows is no different than encouraging an employer to fire an employee.

Neither are acceptable. You don't like his music? Don't buy any. Don't listen. Tell your friends you don't like X about what he sings about (I have no idea).

 

[durangodawood]

Not really. Almost always, harassment is included if the segment who needs to "cancel" for everyone is involved.

At several universities, I remember that conservative speakers were hindered from entering the grounds. The intolerant ones could not simply decline to go hear him, or complain about it online. That's what normal people do when they think something is bad policy.

The distinct difference is that the intolerant ones make threats and block entrances and damage buildings and cause problems preventing everyone from hearing a speaker. THIS is the policy that should never be tolerated; and any such divisive people should be ousted from campus. Don't like a speaker (and we all have some we don't want to hear)? Stay home. You don't have the right to demand no one else listen to him.

There have been several recent incidents. Milo was blocked from giving a full speech at UC Berkley. The intolerant ones shouted him down so no one could hear him. He was warned not to appear at all, but he did, and got a few words out before they silenced him.

The College Republicans invited a journalist to speak at the University of Connecticut. Something about "It's Ok to be White" or something. They shouted him down the entire time. Then a woman came up on stage and stole his script or notes, and he grabbed back, and a fight ensued and HE was arrested. They got what they wanted. They silenced him. But they also damaged the building and broke windows outside, merely because they were unable tolerate someone with whom they disagreed being able to speak. On a freaking COLLEGE CAMPUS, you know, the place where the open exchange of ideas is to be welcomed? You cannot make this stuff up.
Lucian Wintrich to seek 'legal justice' after arrest on UConn campus

At Columbia, they silenced some speaker who was talking about Muslim migration across Europe and some of its outcomes, because he was invited by the College Republicans.

University of Oregon's president was attacked on stage by those who could not tolerate even hearing him speak a word against Fascism. In Oregon, for goodness sakes.

Duke University President was making some banal speech against "change in labor practices and student support" when the intolerant ones screamed at him to get off the stage. Eventually they left, so they only interrupted that speech. Group of students protests President Price's alumni address, issues demands

I'm fine with "cancelling" people like Milo, by not inviting them, before it gets where people harass him, which I also don't agree with.

I do notice how campus Republicans seem to like these "bomb thrower" types rather than people of ideas, which is what conservatism used to claim to stand for

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm fine with "cancelling" people like Milo, by not inviting them, before it gets where people harass him, which I also don't agree with.

I do notice how campus Republicans seem to like these "bomb thrower" types rather than people of ideas, which is what conservatism used to claim to stand for

It’s all a game. Campus Republicans hire the antagonists because they know it’ll trigger the libs. The libs get triggered and stage a protest. Both sides gin up support, claiming the other side is terrible.

 

[rambot]

Read the article. Charlie Kirk offered his opinion, for good or ill.

But he did not dox, threaten, interfere with employment contracts, or threaten the family of the performer. I think we can see the difference here with little effort.

He made comments. So what? Others can disagree.

Offering opinions to someone that you don't approve of X is not "canceling" for those who are confused about that.

Taking specific actions to interfere with a person's life is canceling, like doxing, showing up at his house with a crowd, threatening, calling his employer, or invading his personal space or documents.

But "cancel culture" happens when a lot of people are just offering their opinions that someone shouldn't perform/be banned etc... NONE of those people have the power to do anything about it either.

That CK just offered his opinion; just as so many others have done before.

 

[*Starlight*]

Regardless of what some guy did, "cancel culture" is really creepy. Having big corporations as ultimate judges of what people are allowed to say is like something from a dystopian story, especially when they also encourage internet hate mobs against people.