Right. So in this analogy, Kramer is the one who doesn't want to buy FNAF. And Cedric & Bob are the ones telling him he's "cancelling" Cawthon for making that innocuous personal choice.
Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled
- Thread starter Johnny Novgorod
- Start date
Please do not act abusively towards other users
Checks post...
I didn't mention Carrano at all in that post you lying piece of shit.
If you want to claim I said Carrano was harder done by than Kapernick, give me an actual quote where I said that.
Edit: And just so we can have Post 99 for reference, here's everything I said:
Maybe people aren't discussing events from forty years ago because they're from, I dunno, forty years ago?
I'd rank Avatar, T1, T2, and Aliens from "good" to "excellent" - mostly the latter for all of them bar Avatar. True Lies is simply average.
Again, not cancel culture.
If you want actual examples of cancel culture in sport, you can look at Ollie Robinson - tweets resurface from nine years ago, and...he's gone. Not just from the team, but banned from all international cricket until further notice. Or to use another example, this time from the music field, take Daniel Elder.
So, go on then. Where did I mention Gina Carrano in Post 99?
I mean, if you think cancel culture is a real thing, then I have no issue telling you that you're wrong on that one. Cancel culture is literally just a thing right wingers made up to explain why they aren't winning every societal debate and to avoid the far more reasonable explanation that they're just wrong, and the things they say aren't convincing.
It's not particularly prevalent on the left though.
Again, let me stress an important part of my anecdote. The people I'm talking about were well meaning. They wanted to listen to the voices of marginalized people. The problem is that they weren't exposed to enough of those voices to have any kind of informed opinion.
On the right, the situation is infinitely worse. The level of discourse on the right isn't even at the level of considering what marginalized people think, it's only concerned with justifying why those people are evil and wrong and why it's okay to discriminate against them.
The people I'm talking about, for all their faults, had absorbed a realistic sense of a perspective outside of their own. That is entirely outside of the capability of almost anyone on the right. The right views other people purely through their own needs, prejudices and phobias, because they don't fundamentally care about anything but themselves.
To even attempt to compare the two, let alone come to the conclusion that the former is somehow worse, is weird..
Again, she specifically does not call it cancel culture.
Because again, noone wants to give credence to the right wing belief that being justifiably called out for things you have actually done is a problem.
Gina Carano has a long history of saying stupid, bigoted shit. She was actually fired for comparing the treatment of conservatives in the modern US with the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany, which is an incredibly stupid thing to say. She has also helped spread conspiracy theories and misinformation about the election and about the pandemic. She wasn't fired because she mocked trans people putting pronouns in their bios (although that was a shitty thing to do), she was fired because she has consistently used her social media presence to say stupid shit, and because her employers at Lucasfilm no longer felt that she was an asset to their brand. Lucasfilm is owned by fucking Disney, you think they give a tiny singular shit about politics? You think she would have even gotten the chance to appear on a Disney+ show if she was trans?
Katie Hopkins. Jesus fucking Christ do I even need to begin on the things Katie Hopkins has done? She has openly called for violent attacks against Muslims. She has promoted literal neo-Nazi conspiracy theories. She has suggested that people with dementia should be killed to free up hospital beds. She has compared immigrants and refugees to cockroaches and viruses, described Romani people as "feral humans" and called for a "final solution" to the Muslim problem. She interacts with and is openly supported by neo-Nazi organizations. She hangs out with neo-Nazis and holocaust deniers all the time, and is clearly friends with many of them, even if we accept the increasingly unlikely premise that she doesn't share their views. The fact that Katie Hopkins has a career at all is pretty definitive proof of the fact that cancel culture doesn't exist. The fact that she was able to continue writing for nationally circulated newspapers for so long is proof of how much conservatives can get away with.
Do we need to go on? Stefan Molyneux is a literal scientific racist and antisemite who advocates weird incel shit. He still has a youtube channel. He still gets to appear on conservative media spreading his horrible fashy beliefs. Milo was a fashy weirdo who somehow made a career out of harassing people. He wasn't cancelled, he ran out of money because he alienated the weird swivel eyed right wingers who supported him. Steve Bannon is, again, an actual straight-up fascist who got suspended from youtube for violating the TOS, because it turns out calling for people you disagree with to be beheaded is violating the TOS. If these are the only victims of "cancel culture" that you can come up with, then cancel culture definately isn't real.
The people you just listed aren't even examples of the same phenomena. Let alone having anything in common with Lindsey Ellis.
You've confused privilege and power here.
Joe Biden isn't privileged because he's the president (well, he is, but that's a different sort of privilege), he's privileged because he's white, and straight, and cis, and because noone feels the need to comment on these things or how they impact his life and his views. He just gets to be a normal person, and when you're the kind of person who just gets to be a normal person, who never has to be judged or hated just for being what you are, then being told that you are probably a racist because you live in a racist society is probably not going to be something that you're amenable to hearing.
No. I'm not talking about virtue signalling.
The reason we're all "guilty" of virtue signalling is because virtue signalling is a meaningless concept. The idea that people say things in order to make themselves look good is so non-specific that it doesn't even matter. What is the alternative to virtue signalling? Intentionally expressing your points badly? Intentionally trying to make yourself look bad? To make it even stupider, if we take the definition of virtue signalling seriously then accusing someone of virtue signalling is virtue signalling. Oh wow, look at you trying to make yourself look good by claiming you don't try to make yourself look good. What a self interested wanker! Oh no, did I just virtue signal!
I'm talking about performative allyship because, amazingly, that's what I'm talking about. The term performative allyship has been around longer than virtue signalling, and it's far more specific and descriptive because it's a thing anyone in a position of marginalization actually has to deal with. We all need allies, if we didn't we wouldn't be marginalized. It's a good thing that people care about the feelings of trans people, or that people want to express solidarity with POC. These are good things. The people who do them are better people than people who don't. However, allies, by definition, do not share political interests with the marginalized groups they support, and sometimes their self-interest conflicts with that of the groups they claim to be allies of. Thus, performative allyship happens when allies place their own self interest above those of the marginalized people they claim to be allies of. We have all encountered this, both in our personal lives and in society as a whole. It's not exceptional or special, it's merely a reflection on the fact that actually being an ally is hard.
The difference here is that you are making excuses for why a person shouldn't care about supporting marginalized people, and I'm saying that they absolutely should, but that sometimes doing so is hard and people get it wrong. But what's the alternative, being a shitty person and justfying yourself by accusing everyone else of virtue signalling?
Last edited:
I have to wonder what proportion of people whinging about cancel culture are aware of things like this and what proportion are aware, they just either don't care or worse, actively agree.
And I have no problem disagreeing.
Except people who aren't right wing are cancelled as well.
If the right made up cancel culture, then only the right should be sufferring its effects. I've listed people on this thread who aren't on the right who've been fired, and if you don't think moral puritanism isn't going to drive people away from the left, then you haven't learnt the lesson of Trump.
It really, really is. And if you're on the left, it's even worse, because the left is eating itself by doing so.
I mean, off the top of my head, Brett Weinstein, Richard Dawkins, J.K. Rowling...these were all once progressive darlings until they weren't.
I don't really care how well meaning people are if their actions are terrible. Well meaning people have committed terrible actions throughout history. I fully agree that intent matters (as taboo a belief as that is in some circles), but if your end goal is to drive an author off Twitter (among other things) for daring to claim that two cartoons are similar, then "but I had good intentions" isn't going to fly.
Certainly there's an ugliness on the right that the left hasn't matched (yet), but:
Again, we're at a fundamental disagreement here, because you're never going to convince me that making someone's life hell for stating two cartoons are similar is a "realistic sense of perspective."
Where did I say that the left was worse?
I mean, call it "cancel culture," call it "the beast," call it whatever you want, I've stated repeatedly that it isn't an exclusively left-wing phenomenon. The right's happily wielded cancel culture and has employed its own brand of moral puritanism, and that includes Twitter mobs as well (remember Gamergate?).
So literally everyone listed here was called out justifiably? Was fired justifiably?
I've listed plenty of victims in this thread. Conservatives don't come to mind as readily, but if we're going by (attempted) deplatforming, then we can add Ben Shapiro, Gavin McInnes, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Carl Benjamin, Jacinta Price, James Damore, and Mark Meechan off the top of my head, the last of whom is a classic example of the left pushing people to the right (and you don't have to take it from me, you can listen to everyone from Jared Taylor to Steven Fry). And I already said that most of them outside Carano were terrible.
First of all, there's a borderline paradox here that you said that Biden is "white, straight, and cis, and that no-one feels the need to comment on his views because of it," while...commenting on those very things.
Second of all, everyone feels the need to comment on those things, mainly on the left. There's, like, no disputing that. On websites from The Good Men Project, to Medium, to The Mary Sue, that's a regular point of contention. There's a reason why "straight white male" is used as a slur (and before you say anything, no, I am not saying it's equivalent to older, more wretched slurs in the English language). There's also a reason why it was decided that Biden's VP would be a POC before any finalization.
It's not as if the right doesn't play at identity politics either mind you.
Again, we're at fundamental disagreement here.
The opposite to virtue signalling is action. It's the difference between commenting on an issue, and acting on an issue. And we're all guilty of it because a) it's nice to get brownie points for being a good person, b) no-one has the time or energy to fight the good fight 24/7, and c) no-one's morally pure enough to be Jesus Christ 2.0, and there's always going to be some level of compromise or 'sin' (which is a lesson that the left should take to heart before it eats itself). Since I see performative allyship as a synomn, the opposite is then actual allyship. I try not to use that term, but it's the difference between saying "gee, it's bad that gay people can't marry" and actually doing stuff to help that thing come true. I try to avoid using the term allyship, but that's the distinction I make - between words and actions.
First, you're the one who's made excuses for a Twitter mob on the basis that they had good intentions.
Second, see above as to what the opposite to virtue signalling is.
Third, I'll happily accuse companies of virtue signalling, but I'd hardly ever accuse people of doing it because anyone could, rightly, pull an "Tu quoque."
We can always expand it further.
"Who?! Who Doesn't Want to Knell for a Flag that doesn't care about them?!"
"Who?! Who wants to wear a mask/limit their exposure to quell a spread of a virus/take a Vaccine to prevent Covid?!"
"Who?! Who wants to limit guns after every weekend there are a bunch of Mass Shootings we just take tallies over?!"
"Who?! Who wants to protect voting rights of all Americans, even the ones we disagree with?!"
"Who?! Who wants to hold those accountable who stormed and tried to overthrow our government?!"
The crowd that surrounds them are just so concerned with individual freedoms, they want to harass and yell at anyone expressing their own opinions that just differs from their own.
Again, were the accusations directed against any of these people actually wrong?
Did these people not deserve to be called out for things they said?
If anything, what this tells me is that you are incapable of any form of political nuance and simply assume that any criticism of something a person has said and done implies some total and complete negation of the person, and if you think like that it's not surprising you would come to believe in a meaningless concept like cancel culture. The reality is, all these people either fucked up, or behaved with outright malice, and the people who are angry with them have every right to be angry.
And yet you want us to feel sad for people who have been called out for terrible actions..
Why is it a single phenomenon at all?
I cannot see a single reason to associate any of these things with each other. There is nothing in common between people expressing anger at a well known children's author for seemingly devoting her entire life to some bizarre crusade against trans people, professional bad actors fabricating rumours that someone is a paedophile to try and get them fired, and a small youtube personality being dogpiled on twitter by a bunch of white people trying to prove how not racist they are. These things are completely unrelated.
I mean, as a trans person in the UK who was, at the time, receiving therapy for gender dysphoria, let me say that that period when JK Rowling decided to throw her transphobic hat in the ring was truly frightening. The kind of language used to talk about trans people in the British media during that time was of a ferocity we had not heard since the AIDS panic (and that's not an exaggeration, many of the ways trans people were talked about were literally the way gay people were talked about in the 80s). I am so, so glad for all of the cis people who took it upon themselves to push back, even just by getting angry on twitter, because if that hadn't happened a lot of trans people, including me, would have felt truly, truly alone.
And I am not going to sit here and listen to you compare that to what happened to Lindsey Ellis.
A man who goes around misgendering trans people for a career, who describes LGBT people as mentally ill and who has been repeatedly forced to apologise for saying extremely fascist and racist shit.
A man who founded a violent hate movement who march around in uniforms assaulting people, who has at the very least dabbled in holocaust denial and neo-Nazi conspiracy theories, who also really hates transgender people and who once showed up at a protest with a fake sword, ostensibly to celebrate the murder of a Japanese leftist politician by a fascist terrorist.
Again, at this point I have to ask again what "cancelling" even means? Does any criticism of someone's politics at all count as "cancelling" them?
Oh no. Not Carl Benjamin! Who could possibly disagree with Carl Benjamin? He's always so respectful of other people's opinions..
Who?
To be fair to Damore, I do actually feel for him. He's autistic, and he got sucked into a weird genre of predatory right-wing celebrities who fed him bad ideas. He clearly lacked the capacity to understand the implications of his own actions or how they would affect people, or to understand the limitations of his own knowledge. Also, I'm just going to say it, he probably just repeated the prejudices of those around him at Google without having the duplicity to conceal his sexism like they would.
That doesn't change the fact that it's entirely reasonable he received the reaction he did, and while I personally think he shouldn't have been fired or blacklisted, it was Google's decision and anyone who thinks Google actually cares about politics is a bigger idiot than James Damore.
Oh, the guy who ran an anti-SJW cringe youtube channel.
I mean, if that's not the height of respect for other people's opinions, I don't know what is. A+ for class.
The fact that you could even imagine that "straight white male" is a slur is is pretty much the perfect illustration of what I'm talking about.
What action?
Being visible, being willing to publicly criticize things that are bad, is action. It can make people who don't have the strength or the clout or the ability to speak out themselves feel less alone. It can make people think harder about the way they behave and, yes, it can make people more afraid to say disgusting shit. Participating in public life is important, because if we don't do that then we concede the floor to the people who are willing to participate, who don't have to feel afraid or moderate their opinions or think twice before attacking people they've never met. Sure, expecting some kind of reward or approval from posting on the internet is pretty silly, but that doesn't make it a bad thing to do.
And this is a great example. What are you supposed to do to make that thing come true?
Do you make a bomb in your basement and threaten to blow up parliament unless they legalize gay marriage?
None of us actually have the power to legalize gay marriage, or to make any kind of sweeping policy decision by ourselves. All we can do is express our preferences, participate in public life, and vote. Recently, the UK government abandoned proposed reforms of the gender recognition act, which would have made a quantitative difference to the lives of trans people, including myself. They did that because the opposition from media and public figures was overwhelmingly loud, and because public opinion had turned against the proposed reforms. In other words, because of words, not actions. Pretending that words don't matter is a convenient lie, it's a concession to the people who already have the power to determine whose words get heard. The only reason you have the word "virtue signalling" at all is because some journalist came up with it, some journalist who could get their words printed in a national newspaper. Words matter, and people who think they don't are just committing to being useless.
Last edited:
Funny how all of these conservative loudmouths need to have their free speech protected against even the most softball criticism, yet we on the left are expected to do all the heavy lifting with being civil to people who want us dead.
Remember when Tucker was talking about FBI agents being at the Jan 6 'disagreement', fanning the flames of insurrection.
A bunch of people stated, equivocally, that there were no agents there.
Then Tucker realised he ACTUALLY meant FBI informants, and journalist who thought that there were no agents there should be fired.
It shouldn't be hard, it happened this week
Asking for people being fired because he didn't like what they said. And he said this in front of his audience which will all know cant see through the Culture Wars BS. I wonder what we call that?
First off, Gavin McInnes did a fuck load of cancelling. Eg. James Gunn and Sam Seder. If there is anyone in this world that deserved cancelling based on that fact they were cancellers themselves, its him. (And Bari Wiess and Neera Tanden)
Ben Shapiro went onto college campus and told everyone that their idea were bad and then posted it make them look worse. His job was to demean and belittle people and attack them before they even got a job. I wonder what that sounds close to?
You guys keep looking at WHAT they say and not realising HOW they say it. They deliberately target people, encouraging their audience to do so. Hawki doesn't care what they say. Hawki has made that abundantly clear. Maybe focus on how they say it. Just because they branded cancel culture and made it cool to say, doesn't mean they own it. Use the term every time they do it to help them realise what they are doing.
Cancel Culture is a by product of a lot of things. Rep like Newt Gingrich and how he poisoned his own party. Dems response of online hate groups to counter Rep tactics. The Event That Shall Not Be Named. Atheists from the 90s to today just going out there to belittle people. Voting in a President who promoted and did cancel culture.
Fuck, I had a point, then rambled into something else
Here's a chuckle for you. An Australian journalist thinks that the Manchester bombing happened because the UK wasn't racist enough
Now, you arent allowed to say the word racist. That's a naughty word. Or point out the flaws of this idea. That's cancel culture. Trust me, this guy sees cancel culture everywhere
Did Brett Weinstein deserve to be hounded off campus because he said that the day of absence was a bad idea?
Did Dawkins deserve to be piled on for saying that church bells sounded nicer than the Adhan? (Which, incidentally, showed the hypocrisy of people like Hamid Dabashi - fine to Christianity, but criticize Islam? Islamophobe and racist.)
And you haven't answered the question I raised earlier, whether everyone mentioned in this thread deserves to be fired.
And what this tells me is that you don't have any principles. You're fine with people being fired, or having their lives ruined, but at the same time, you'll turn a blind eye when it's a cause you happen to agree with.
Sad? Not necessarily. As I've already stated, some people are indeed terrible.
I'm not sad for the likes of Stefan Molyneux, but I am sad for the likes of Amelie Zhao for instance.
Not that you care. On this very thread, Trunkage lied about what I said, I called him out for the lie, and I'm the one who got reprimanded for it, so if I can't expect consistency from this site, why should I from you?
It's absolutely the same phenomena of social stigmatization, on the intent to silence people and ruin their lives. I fully agree that not all targets are equally heinous (or heinous at all), but if you're operating under a principle of "free speech for me, then not for thee," then that's not a principle I support. I wouldn't lump Lindsay Ellis in with Alex Jones for instance, but I absolutely would lump her in with Amelie Zhao, Kiera Drake, and Laurie Forest.
No. Of course you wouldn't. You've defended people acting horribly, because they happen to align with your sphere of interest.
Let's take that as being writ, does that mean the Berkerly riots should have happened?
If you disagree with someone (not you personally), actually lay out an argument, because anyone can chant a slogan over and over.
Gavin McInnes is terrible, I agree with you there.
Years ago, Hirsi Ali came to Oz. A bunch of protesters tried to stop the event from happening. The event was cancelled due to security concerns. And, for shits and giggles, one of the protesters went on the radio saying that they didn't actually want to stop the talk from happening.
So yes, that's an of being cancelled - you disagree with something someone has to say, instead of arguing your case, you just try to shut them down.
That's not even counting the countless death threats from Islamists.
I do, for one, on various issues. Doesn't mean I support censorship.
An indigenous rights activist who's tried to bring attention to the epidemic of domestic violence in indigenous communities in Oz, who on at least one occassion, was stopped from giving a speech by activists.
Like Benjamin, I agree with her on some things, and disagree on others, but I'd never try to shut her (or almost anyone) down because my beliefs conflicted with theirs.
So because you disagree with his opinions, that supports being fined?
See, this is why I said you have no principles. You're fine with some people being cancelled, and others not.
I don't have to imagine, I've seen the footage, seen it in real life, and seen it in published work.
And honestly, I don't even know what you're talking about, because slurs aren't cancel culture, and as slurs go, that's such a minor one.
What action?
Being visible, being willing to publicly criticize things that are bad, is action. It can make people who don't have the strength or the clout or the ability to speak out themselves feel less alone. It can make people think harder about the way they behave and, yes, it can make people more afraid to say disgusting shit. Participating in public life is important, because if we don't do that then we concede the floor to the people who are willing to participate, who don't have to feel afraid or moderate their opinions or think twice before attacking people they've never met. Sure, expecting some kind of reward or approval from posting on the internet is pretty silly, but that doesn't make it a bad thing to do.
Well, marches, petitions, written work, representation in media, etc.
I agree, but voting is bottom-tier effort. Yes, I voted to allow gay marriage in the referendum we had here a few years back, I don't expect brownie points.
Yeah, you don't care what I say either. Maybe that's why you have to make shit up about what I've said, then fall silent when I call you out for it, and then walk away free when I'm reprimanded for calling you out on your lies.
Reads article...
This isn't chuckle. 22 people dead, and a security guard refused to report Abedi because he feared being called racist. There was a chance that the bombing could have been prevented, but a security guard refused to take action.
And you find that funny.
Jesus Christ...
Edit: Also:
Manchester Arena inquiry: What were the missed opportunities to stop Salman Abedi on night of attack?
The inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing outlined a series of security failings on the night of the attack in which 22 people were killed and hundreds more injured.
It's not just Brendan O'Neil saying that, it's the actual report saying that.
Racism is good people.Reads article...
This isn't chuckle. 22 people dead, and a security guard refused to report Abedi because he feared being called racist. There was a chance that the bombing could have been prevented, but a security guard refused to take action.
And you find that funny.
Jesus Christ...
Edit: Also:
Manchester Arena inquiry: What were the missed opportunities to stop Salman Abedi on night of attack?
The inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing outlined a series of security failings on the night of the attack in which 22 people were killed and hundreds more injured.news.sky.com
It's not just Brendan O'Neil saying that, it's the actual report saying that.
Yes because I definitely said terrorism is good somewhere. /s
Being against racial profiling doesn't mean I want terrorism. I can actually be against both at the same time. That's what you call a fallacy.
Edit: Racial profiling stopping terrorist is also a fallacy
Ooh, feel like I'm saying that you've said things that you say you haven't? Gee, where have I seen that before...
First, you're the one who responded that "racism is good," as if that's what I was actually suggesting.
Second, I agree that racial profiling is bad, but it's a fact that fear of being called racist prevented Kyle Lawler from acting, and if he did, there's a chance those people would still be alive.
It isn't the only case of this where political correctness has done harm - take the Rotherham sex abuse scandal, where people didn't speak out for fear of being called racist. Or, in London, where stop and search policies were dropped (because Black British boys were ten times as likely to be searched than White British, ergo, racism), the rate of knife crime skyrocketed (over 100% in some cases). In the words of John McWhorter, "gosh that's not pretty. But like a lot of things that aren't pretty, it's also true."
This is a whole load of stirred up BS on so many fucking levels.
First he donated to the politicians then they did things people see as kinda shitty which in Tulsi Gabbard's case had a reason to them.
He did NOT donated to them to do said things.
IF we want to go down this road anyone who donated to Kamala Harris or Biden are responsible for their border policies harming many immigrants (those detention centre photos are worse than the ones from the Trump era and were in the middle of a global pandemic. In the Trump era photos they weren't packed in so much per sector and had at least a mattress each not a god damn roll mat to sleep on. Are we ok to play this game of blaming everyone who donated and supported for everything said politician ever does at any point in the future?
Scott isn't Orson Scott Card the Sci-Fi author whose hugely anti-LGBTQ and has literally donated to organisations that opposed gay marriage and pushed conversion therapy and the idea all Gay people were monsters.
Scott isn't even Doug TenNapel who has said some pretty off colour things over the years.
I'm really sick of how also it's no longer "Don't like it don't buy it" but "No-one else should be allowed to like or buy it". What's next protestors outside the next Fantastic Beasts movie trying to stop or shame people trying to go in and see it because J.K. Rowling will make some money from it?
This is shit we used to see from the religious bible bashers in regards to films and other stuff. How the tables have turned.
Oh and anyone in here on about how "Oh Scott gave to Politicians who did real world harm".
So have:
Basically every AAA games company
The head of Disney
The head of probably most film studios.
Guess you shouldn't be watching films or playing games anymore.
Funny how it was basically the indie guy who made it who once again became the target isn't it?
Funny how this info was publicly available for months but it was released in Pride Month on the main weekend of E3 and released and spread initially by an account that has a history of drumming up controversy against other creators for perceived offenses isn't it? Pretty sure it's the same account that also helped dig up and share stuff about The Last Night and Tim Soret. Hell I think the same account has drummed controversy up about Chris Pratt multiple times now too.
With Aquaman 1 I didn't see it in cinemas and only recently saw it (because it was on prime) as I objected to Amber Heard.
I've still not seen Deadpool 2 over my objection that corporate greed lead to the death of a stuntwoman on set just to save a few thousand having to do a bit of extra CGI work. I'd like to see the film but I just refuse to support it.
I feel a paraphrased quote is needed now.
First he donated to the politicians then they did things people see as kinda shitty which in Tulsi Gabbard's case had a reason to them.
He did NOT donated to them to do said things.
IF we want to go down this road anyone who donated to Kamala Harris or Biden are responsible for their border policies harming many immigrants (those detention centre photos are worse than the ones from the Trump era and were in the middle of a global pandemic. In the Trump era photos they weren't packed in so much per sector and had at least a mattress each not a god damn roll mat to sleep on. Are we ok to play this game of blaming everyone who donated and supported for everything said politician ever does at any point in the future?
Scott isn't Orson Scott Card the Sci-Fi author whose hugely anti-LGBTQ and has literally donated to organisations that opposed gay marriage and pushed conversion therapy and the idea all Gay people were monsters.
Scott isn't even Doug TenNapel who has said some pretty off colour things over the years.
I'm really sick of how also it's no longer "Don't like it don't buy it" but "No-one else should be allowed to like or buy it". What's next protestors outside the next Fantastic Beasts movie trying to stop or shame people trying to go in and see it because J.K. Rowling will make some money from it?
This is shit we used to see from the religious bible bashers in regards to films and other stuff. How the tables have turned.
Oh and anyone in here on about how "Oh Scott gave to Politicians who did real world harm".
So have:
Basically every AAA games company
The head of Disney
The head of probably most film studios.
Guess you shouldn't be watching films or playing games anymore.
Funny how it was basically the indie guy who made it who once again became the target isn't it?
Funny how this info was publicly available for months but it was released in Pride Month on the main weekend of E3 and released and spread initially by an account that has a history of drumming up controversy against other creators for perceived offenses isn't it? Pretty sure it's the same account that also helped dig up and share stuff about The Last Night and Tim Soret. Hell I think the same account has drummed controversy up about Chris Pratt multiple times now too.
With Aquaman 1 I didn't see it in cinemas and only recently saw it (because it was on prime) as I objected to Amber Heard.
I've still not seen Deadpool 2 over my objection that corporate greed lead to the death of a stuntwoman on set just to save a few thousand having to do a bit of extra CGI work. I'd like to see the film but I just refuse to support it.
I feel a paraphrased quote is needed now.
People calling for the stuff to be pulled from Steam and buried? Yeh fuck that whole pile of bullshit.Bob Chipman said:
Jim will just go full breadtuber it's been on the cards for 18 months or more now.
So we just fine with the doxxing and death threats now?
That is cancelling.
Sorry to break it to you but yeh that is still cancelling. It was done to Stanley Kubrick in the UK over A Clockwork Orange in the past and I find it kinda worrying people are ignoring that aspect and that you know people were threatening the life of his pregnant wife over this? This was bullshit done in the past by puritan idiots who thought A Clockwork Orange would cause more murders and rapes to happen just by existing. How have we now moved into an era where the people claiming to be progressive and "On the Right side of history" or whatever are fine with doing basically what the puritans of the past used have done only over a persons political donations?
Ah yes powerless in the land of gun.
Remember when some deranged terrorist thought that some politicians were fascists so went to the congress baseball game with a gun?
Scott doesn't have that kind of protection and the rhetoric some people have been pushing has been "They want us dead" and sooner or later that becomes or it gets floated "well we should get them first before they come for us". Even if it's in some corner with deranged idiots.
We live in a world where some idiot tried to hire a hitman on the dark web to kill youtube Boogie 2998. We live in the world where some psycho broke into the home of Rooster Teeth's Gavin Free and Meg Turney because he thought Gavin wasn't good enough for Meg.
The Scott Cawthon situation from my perspective is people trying to drum up outrage and stoke the fires in the hopes some unhinged person goes too far. Or hell even the police show up and things go badly when some-one uses that personal info to swat him.
As a reminder Tarantino was actually on the back seat of the car during that incident, he was the one filming. People tend to forget that little bit of info lol. Yes he screwed up but you kinda have to admit his logic was somewhat sound "Well we've checked going one way down this stretch of road and it was fine so why would going the other way down it suddenly be more dangerous" and if he at least put himself on the line too.
After all the years of being told I by preachers etc on the street that I'm a sinner who will burn in hell because I don't believe in some magical sky man. At this stage it takes a real personal set of insults to actually get to me or some pretty impressively nasty bullshit to actually get me truly peeved. Some have actually managed this (Hello publisher who once told me that they can't wait for "You and people like you to become extinct for the good of all humanity".)
How does one cancel a Bus company?
I get the USA has this weird thing about treating companies like people but generally cancel culture targets an individual
Wouldn't that be more a case of people not wanting political demonstrations and statements as part of their sports ball matches?
Hell I can see it as a dangerous precedent to set and there's a reason UEFA and the Olympics bans overt political demonstrations.
As a reminder the Red Poppy literally a sign of remembrance in the UK was deemed too much of a political symbol to be allowed to be worn by footballers only a few years ago.
Funny how the NBA was fine with kneeling etc but not very fine with fans in the stands with Stand with Hong Kong banners though......
Adding to this.
The Ickabog thing is how activists do try to get things cancelled by trying to throw as many wrenches as possible into the machinery. It seems to be a modern thing and honestly I can see companies more and more working to vet out activists simply because of crap like this. It wasn't protesting it was calling for the company to make sure no-one could get the thing and prevent it's existence.
Also Gina was actually fired for sharing round some-one else's post. She never actually said sides or mentioned conservatives. People interpreted it that way but she never said it and while some of her comments etc could be seen as more supporting one side than the other previously I'm reminded in the UK that there's a contingent of people (a worryingly large one) who are Anti-Vaccine sharing conspiracy theories about it, Anti-Mask, Anti- Lockdown but also vehemently left wing Anti Boris Johnson and the conservative government and Pro remain. Gina was initially probably slightly right leaning but only slightly and mostly politically neutral probably before the start of the crapstorm. Now well she's taken far more of a side due to the backlash and it being how she would survive in an old tweet (since deleted) she was pretty critical of Trump not acting against I think it was animal poaching infact.
What baffles me more is the people trying to cancel Henry Cavill for dating Gina. And also now trying to cancel him because his latest GF did "Blackface" at one point and in context everything but her face was what was made to be a different skin tone and seemingly it was due to applying the same kind of mud the tribes people applied to themselves in said countries.
You can have your stamp on history removed very definitely. I seem to remember that was a fear of what the Nazis would do during World War II if they got hold of certain artworks by artists they deemed to be from people they viewed as inferior.
But you can blame Scott for not having precognition to know months or years into the future politicians he supported would put forward Anti-LGBTQQIAA2+ bills (I think I got the acronym right).
So people who are fine with certain drugs used today developed thanks to highly immoral (not just unethical) Nazi experiments on prisoners support the Nazis still?
How about Nasa and space exploration? Nazi Scientists helped with that stuff so I guess supporting Nasa is now supporting the Nazis too?
What is the limit on this stuff? Is there one or is all time now something we can retroactively look back and say people are bad to support now because of things they were built on?
Past actual representation in some things is being deemed modern problematic because it doesn't live up to specific modern standards.....