My problem is the application of these phrases.
Is this an example of cancel culture?
Some bells on Twitter with too much time on their hands, so are idiotically moaning at companies for advertising?
Or is it the people supporting GB news idiotically saying they’re gonna boycott Kopperberg?
Who’s cancelling who in this scenario? Has anyone actually been cancelled?
Or is it just a load of sh!tposters on Twitter, either pretending to get angry, or actually getting angry, while GB News, Kopperberg and Nivea rub their hands together at all the free advertising.
It's a crystal clear example of it. Something exists, we don't want it to exist, let's moan to companies to 'defund' it so it doesn't exist. I don't want to argue against the philosophy or politics of this thing, I just want it dead.
The 'boycott' reaction is just that, a reaction to the initial act.
Who wins in this? Not Kopparberg. They'll see sales go down, as the only people angered by this are the majority of consumers as seen with Gillette's plummeting sales after their nonsense. No, GB News win. Hands down. Everything they've said has been justified in an instant, not by their supporters, but by their opposition.
'Cancel culture' describes it perfectly and the application of it is often fine. It's the culture of left-leaning people in not engaging with political viewpoints that don't match their own, but instead to silence them.