4 ms·

The article characterizes Cleese as far right but utterly fails to defend that characterization. So he complained about "cancel culture" and "wokery", that mak

• serf 4y ago
  yeah, agreed. I don't understand the need to lump everyone into one big "enemy-or-not" set of categories. The points that Cleese has made regarding the consequences around the 'cancel culture' concept are entirely valid without the need to lump him into an all-encompassing politic-only position. (article) >And now, at age 82, Cleese has joined forces with the far-right... The hilarious irony is that he is now a victim of that very concept simply by mentioning the phenomenon, thankfully he's not in a position to care. If any political strategy makes you feel worried about simply stating an opinion, good chances that political strategy is doing harm to public discourse in some manner. People should be allowed to be wrong, the part that matters is that they acknowledge the position may be wrong and try to improve themselves. To condemn a human for eternity due to a past miss-step is more 'totalitarian' than anything else this article mentions.