Yes. Because we're trying to define "cancel culture", and I'm not seeing any evidence that cancel culture is actually a single thing beyond just people reacting to things in ways you personally don't like, even if those things are themselves provocative or hateful.
Lots of people react to things in ways I don't like, because the world has no shortage of assholes. It enters cancel culture when you take away their ability to be assholes, if I'm using that example.
Jordan Peterson has been pretty open about the fact that he believes in racial differences in IQ, a belief he shares with Stefan Molyneux and which they've discussed pretty openly on all the occasions they've done podcasts together.
I watched one of the podcasts for reference - Peterson focuses on IQ, he doesn't really go into racial differences.
Molyneux absolutely sees the world through IQ, and applies it to entire racial groups. Peterson, on the other hand...well, apart from an Askanazi Jew reference and the Bell Curve, he's not really saying much that I haven't seen elsewhere (e.g. Jonathan Haidt). Even recently, in workplace documents, it stressed how IQ tends to be relatively static after a certain point in a person's development, whereas EQ can vary wildly (I don't really buy into EQ, but that's another matter). General consensus seems to be that IQ is inheritable to a point between individuals, but there's not a causal link between groups.
How do you know?
Did you ask them?
This is the irony of crying about cancel culture. Weinstein got to appear on national news. He got interviewed over and over again. He had journalists climbing over themselves and salivating at the thought of getting access to his very important opinions, and yet he's been "cancelled." He's not allowed to express his opinions! Meanwhile, Vice (founded by Gavin McInness) interviews one white student in the interests of appearing balanced,, and conveniently cuts the part where they actually explain what the problem was.
Such free speech.
McInness had left Vice well after that video was made, so that's a red herring.
And yes, Weinstein wasn't cancelled from ever speaking again (few people are), but there was a concerted effort to get him fired for an inocuous email, to the extent where students practically took staff members hostage.
The video interviews a number of students (there's the student who wants him fired, there's "Kirsten," there's the group of students who go "fuck free speech," and recordings of them making demands and chanting, so there's not really a dearth of representation of the students' actions. But if your argument is "how do you know, did you ask them?" you're basically relying on the "were you there?" non sequitur. But let's say, hypothetically, the video is deliberately misrepresenting what's going on, then that's misrepresentation that's come from various sources.
Feel free to present evidence of your own if you want.
This isn't a criminal court.
Everyone can make up their own mind on whether Weinstein's actions incriminate him, just like everyone can make up their own mind on whether the protestors were justified.
I can say lots of things were justified, but not all justifications are equal.
Suppose a colleague sends out an email with statements I disagree with. Am I justified in getting a mob together, barging into their office, and trying to get them fired?
I'm not fundamentally seeing the problem here, and I'm certainly not seeing how it's related to all the otherr things we're randomly connecting and deciding constitute some big and serious problem of "cancel culture".
A person sends out a statement.
A mob descends on the person.
The mob has interpreted the statement in the most negative way possible.
The person tries to reason with the mob, but the mob keeps howling for their blood.
The person gives up and leaves the proximity of the mob.
Am I describing Lindsay Ellis, or Bret Weinstein?
So, arabs can't be European or British?
So now we've gone from religion, to race, to nationality. Somehow.
Fine. Arabs can be British, because British is a nationality. Whether Arabs can be European really depends on what the term means to you. Arabs are a recognised ethnic group that are indigenous to the Middle East, whether Arabs can be European depends on whether you see "European" as having any ethnic connotation, or whether it's a term that refers purely to a continent. For instance, I can call myself Australian, I can't call myself an indigenous Australian.
Though what this has to do with anything, I have no idea.
And you somehow made this about "cancel culture".
This thread is literally called "SCOTT CAWTHON (FNAF GUY) CANCELLED." One of these things is closer to the topic of the thread than the other.
Of course, if you actually look at the tweet and read the responses, you'll realise that people are actually talking about race and ethnicity.
If people are talking about race and ethnicity on a tweet that compares church bells with the Adhan, then those people are idiots.
It is explicitly the point of much of the criticism that Dawkins received.
Then it's criticism without basis.
Your insistence that this is actually about the BAD LEFTIST CANCELLING DICK DORKINS BECAUSE THEY LOVE MUSLAMICS is entirely unevidenced and entirely inconsistent with the actual substance of the criticism.
If your criticism is "you like church bells more than the Adhan, therefore you're racist," then there isn't any substance in the criticism.
There's at least a chain of logic to call Dawkins an Islamophobe based on the tweet (a flimsy chain, but a chain nonetheless), but that's it.
You don't get to decide that.
And let me guess, you do?
Why is this about Christianity vs. Islam? Dawkins just likes the sound of church bells more than the adhan, remember. It's a completely innocent statement of musical taste which has nothing to do with anything, remember.
The tweet itself? No. But it's symbolic as to how it's much easier to criticize Christianity than Islam.
Whether that's the point of the tweet, I don't know, but the reaction further proves the point.
Be intellectually honest for a second and ask yourself - if Dawkins had said he liked the Adhan more than church bells, would he have been called anti-Christian? Would people have come down on him nearly as hard?
Stop cancelling Hamid Dasabi.
How am I doing that?
I bring up Hamid Dasabi because it's emblematic of what the tweet represents - fine with Dawkins criticizing Christianity (which he was doing long before Islam), but criticize Islam? Islamophobe. Bigot. Racist. Shun him.
So what is being cancelled?
Because you haven't explained it, you've just listed a bunch of people, many of whom are literally just people who got criticized on social media.
I have explained it, numerous times. You just keep saying you haven't explained it.
I'm not indulging the farcical position that any sequence of words spoken with sufficient anger or contempt, becomes a slur.
How?
I want you to somehow defend such an idiotic line of reasoning.
That is the mentality of someone who has never actually had to consider the meaning of a slur.
That's an absolutely insane line of reasoning, and I think you know that. You're basically arguing that not being subjected to something, you can't possibly understand it.
Also, I have been subjected to slurs, which should be completely academic.
Nothing is wrong with it. I'm not the one who believes in a false dichotomy between words and actions.
So you see no distinction.
You see absolutely no distinction betwen me saying "poverty is bad" and actually doing something to alleviate poverty.
All words and actions are equal in your eyes.
Does free speech end at the point someone is being an asshole?
Well, you know how to be an asshole, so you tell me.
