Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled

[Silvanus]

No I didn't say it was only true in said case.
If you read it that way it's on you.
I've now said 5 times that was not what I meant.

I'm more than happy to stop "banging the drum" if you're happy to stop bringing it up as a line of attack.

Really no-one posted malicious claims?
Not the whole Jimquisition video posted earlier in this threat which contained claims about how Scott wanted people dead or wanted to kill them?

Just watched the entire video to check. This is a lie.

Or are you trying to get me in a catch 22 where I need to show a person doxxing Scott to show people doxxed Scott thus helping actually spread those doxx and risking trouble myself here for that?

No, I didn't ask for that nor want it. Don't accuse me of shit I'm not doing.

...A few lines ago, you insinuated I was being dishonest and malicious, didn't you?

Because it was trying to get said developer to join in on mob action or show support for the mob.
Same as if the anti-Ghandi mob demanded a person put #Ghandimustfall in their twitter bio.
Just because I can politely call some-one a bastard doesn't mean I'm not still calling a person a bastard.
Mary Whitehouse always tried to present her side as being the polite and proper side vs the uncouth / nasty / impolite people who opposed her.
It was an illusion of civility in the end.
The response to it chose to call it out for the illusion it was.

So... we can't criticise anyone, then. Because criticism is "politely calling them a bastard", and that's not allowed. You're outlining a set of rules that disallow any and all criticism.

As for the "mob action" comment: this was a single comment, from a single person. There was no "mob" on the blog at that point. What does a single comment need to do in order to be construed as part of that "mob action"?

....Hey, you're disagreeing with me on this forum right now. You're just one guy, but I can just as validly say you're "trying to get me to join in on mob action or show support for the mob".

What's the fucking difference?

Except those trying to cancel Uncle Bob are more than one person.
The interaction with the 1 person lead to another person and more people (the subreddit moderators) banning said developer.

...Because he responded to the comment with hostility, which is against the terms and conditions of the blog. That was specifically why.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I'm more than happy to stop "banging the drum" if you're happy to stop bringing it up as a line of attack.

How is it a line of attack?
It's a line of defining something as cancel culture.
Who am I attacking by saying death threats are cancel culture? People sending death threats?
Oh dear how dare I be even slightly critical of people sending others fucking death threats eh?

Just watched the entire video to check. This is a lie.

Yeh no it's not.
Jim in the video:
Accuses Scott of supporting Fascism
Scott is giving money to the party of family groping but totally doesn't support family groping (implied wink wink)
That Scott by extension wants to put kids lives in danager
They're scared of what Scott wants to do to them. (Jim is they)
That the legislative move by those Scott supports wish to wipe them from the face of the Earth
That there is a genocide attempt happening against them

No, I didn't ask for that nor want it. Don't accuse me of shit I'm not doing.

...A few lines ago, you insinuated I was being dishonest and malicious, didn't you?

Ok so why do I need to show people actively doxxing Scott Cawthon in this thread to prove he was actively doxxed when a simple search of your own can and will find that information? According to some twitter users it would only take a quick twitter search to find the information having been posted online so you should have no problem at all verifying the claims. Yet no you can't check this claim on your own you need me to spoon feed you this. Did you just not at any point think "Hey maybe it wouldn't be a good move having another poster literally sharing some-ones personal info on this forum" ? Because for that thought and realisation not to have crossed your mind is pretty baffling to me.

So... we can't criticise anyone, then. Because criticism is "politely calling them a bastard", and that's not allowed. You're outlining a set of rules that disallow any and all criticism.
[/quote]

You know you are truly, truly exasperating and I'm seriously sincerely starting to believe it is absolutely by design here

For the 19th time.
NO-ONE IS TRYING TO BAN ACTUAL VALID CRITCISM.
"You won't condemn this person for things I dislike" is NOT what I'd consider Valid criticism of a person. It may be considered valid criticism to those inside a cult or something but out in the real world people aren't obliged to like and dislike the same things nor are they obliged to go along with peoples subjective likes and dislikes just to appease individuals who have so little sense of self they need corporations and everyone else constantly unendingly validating their views.

As for the "mob action" comment: this was a single comment, from a single person. There was no "mob" on the blog at that point. What does a single comment need to do in order to be construed as part of that "mob action"?

....Hey, you're disagreeing with me on this forum right now. You're just one guy, but I can just as validly say you're "trying to get me to join in on mob action or show support for the mob".

What's the fucking difference?

Just to repeat this exact same argument for a 2nd time as you either didn't read it or chose to ignore it entirely.
The developer was banned from the subreddit.
The poster they replied to wasn't a moderator unless you'd like to show otherwise.
Therefore no it wasn't the result of the action of 1 person. 1 person commented but others too action.
That 1 commenter just happened to be 1 in a mob approaching the developer to also join the mob against Uncle Bob.
The developer called it out for what it was, an attempt to get said developer to use their platform to support the mobs efforts.

So again does the developer now have the right to criticise the commenter?
Why are you not upset at the developer being banned when you care oh so much about criticism?

...Because he responded to the comment with hostility, which is against the terms and conditions of the blog. That was specifically why.

Reddit. He responded on Reddit.
You know that you couldn't even get that detail right really does make me further doubt the sincerity of your engagement. It's not even a hard detail to check.
Can you even tell me the specific rule he broke?

Also so now criticism can only be done if it's polite unless it's Scott Cawthon in which case insane hyperbolic claims about him wanting to murder people are fine and perfectly valid criticism? How are claims Scott Cawthon wants to murder people just polite criticism again? How does that even work?

Forum had a funny an messed up the above so repeating it properly formatted. In next post as I can't seem to edit it to go right.

reposted the messed up bit later the forum keeps reformatting it into a quote block unfortunately so I couldn't just edit fix it.

 

[Schadrach]

I think it's cute that you believe any mere critics can be tarnished by the separate existence of harassers and abusers. We probably shouldn't criticise anyone, then, eh?

I hate to do this because it's technically against forum rules, but would you like to talk about the state of games journalism and the ethical issues therein? Because even suggesting it as a topic in the gentlest and most serious tone you can imagine is considered misogynistic harassment/abuse now. Look at the backlash against an article on this very site after the v2 revamp for an example.

I find it weird that "critics" and "harassers and abusers" are definitely separate and distinct, unrelated things, but only in some cases and that I can predict which are which when they occur based entirely on how the target relates to social justice. Even to the point that in some cases impolite criticism is "harassment" and in others threatening to bomb people is "criticism."

b) The employer has the legal right to fire anyone for expressing an opinion.

You absolutely see no problem with that? None at all?

Oh, I'm sure they see the problem with that, just only for positions they strongly agree with, or positions they can try to claim "belong" to a protected class and thus opposition to the position is discrimination against the protected class.

Second, I don't know the rules of Parlor or Gab - are opinions banned, or is it just a kind of 'mission statement?

Parler (that's how the site is spelled, literally looked it up to be sure) was created to be a conservative friendly alternative to Facebook. Gab is intentionally light on rules regarding permissible content, I think just "Nothing illegal by US law, and no porn." (It's also just a mastodon instance [technically the largest mastodon instance], albeit one that several mastodon clients explicitly block from being accessed using their clients which is apparently acceptable in the same way that making your email client specifically refuse to connect to Google IMAP/POP servers isn't). But any site that allows right wingers to exist without restraint becomes a de facto right wing safe space and opposed to wokeness, because the woke immediately leave for somewhere offending them too much is a bannable offense and there are people willing to serve that clientele. There are also people willing to actively try to prevent people from using such a site.

Speaking of "someone got offended and now there must be consequences", E. Gary Gygax Jr through more or less shenanigans got the trademark for TSR. The new TSR Games has already been banned from Gen Con, because in an interview E. Gary Gygax Jr said "There's a ton of artists and game designers and people that play..... and recently they were dissed for being old-fashioned, possibly anti modern trends, and enforcing, or even having the concepts of gender identity (laughs)." Which was enough to set off the online hordes, leading to the predictable harassment and threats (including at members of his family) and made banning him from Gen Con seem like a reasonable PR move. Just to point this out, this is Gary Gygax's son, after having managed to regain his father's trademark being preemptively banned from the convention his father started for saying something not woke enough in an interview.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So... we can't criticise anyone, then. Because criticism is "politely calling them a bastard", and that's not allowed. You're outlining a set of rules that disallow any and all criticism.

You know you are truly, truly exasperating and I'm seriously sincerely starting to believe it is absolutely by design here

For the 19th time.
NO-ONE IS TRYING TO BAN ACTUAL VALID CRITCISM.
"You won't condemn this person for things I dislike" is NOT what I'd consider Valid criticism of a person. It may be considered valid criticism to those inside a cult or something but out in the real world people aren't obliged to like and dislike the same things nor are they obliged to go along with peoples subjective likes and dislikes just to appease individuals who have so little sense of self they need corporations and everyone else constantly unendingly validating their views.

As for the "mob action" comment: this was a single comment, from a single person. There was no "mob" on the blog at that point. What does a single comment need to do in order to be construed as part of that "mob action"?

....Hey, you're disagreeing with me on this forum right now. You're just one guy, but I can just as validly say you're "trying to get me to join in on mob action or show support for the mob".

What's the fucking difference?

Just to repeat this exact same argument for a 2nd time as you either didn't read it or chose to ignore it entirely.
The developer was banned from the subreddit.
The poster they replied to wasn't a moderator unless you'd like to show otherwise.
Therefore no it wasn't the result of the action of 1 person. 1 person commented but others too action.
That 1 commenter just happened to be 1 in a mob approaching the developer to also join the mob against Uncle Bob.
The developer called it out for what it was, an attempt to get said developer to use their platform to support the mobs efforts.

So again does the developer now have the right to criticise the commenter?
Why are you not upset at the developer being banned when you care oh so much about criticism?

...Because he responded to the comment with hostility, which is against the terms and conditions of the blog. That was specifically why.

Reddit. He responded on Reddit.
You know that you couldn't even get that detail right really does make me further doubt the sincerity of your engagement. It's not even a hard detail to check.
Can you even tell me the specific rule he broke?

Also so now criticism can only be done if it's polite unless it's Scott Cawthon in which case insane hyperbolic claims about him wanting to murder people are fine and perfectly valid criticism? How are claims Scott Cawthon wants to murder people just polite criticism again? How does that even work?

 

[Silvanus]

How is it a line of attack?
It's a line of defining something as cancel culture.
Who am I attacking by saying death threats are cancel culture? People sending death threats?
Oh dear how dare I be even slightly critical of people sending others fucking death threats eh?

So now you're saying it is definitive of cancel culture. Can you see why I said you need to choose a lane and stick with it?

It's a line of attack against online critics of people like Cawthon, or Kovarex. They get accused of cancel culture -> And cancel culture is defined by death threats and abuse! -> Therefore even if they personally didn't take part in death threats or abuse, they're tarred by association.

Yeh no it's not.
Jim in the video:
Accuses Scott of supporting Fascism
Scott is giving money to the party of family groping but totally doesn't support family groping (implied wink wink)

Yup, that's true. The accusations are levelled at the Republican Party. Which has indeed done the shit they accused them of (sponsored bills allowing genital inspections; stripped protections away from trans people; attempted a violent insurrection). And Cawthon did indeed give them money.

That Scott by extension wants to put kids lives in danager
They're scared of what Scott wants to do to them. (Jim is they)
That the legislative move by those Scott supports wish to wipe them from the face of the Earth
That there is a genocide attempt happening against them

....And now you're into hyperbole again.

Ok so why do I need to show people actively doxxing Scott Cawthon in this thread to prove he was actively doxxed when a simple search of your own can and will find that information?

You don't need to show that. I'm not disputing it. I genuinely don't know why you're asking me "why you need to do" something I never asked you to do.

For the 19th time.
NO-ONE IS TRYING TO BAN ACTUAL VALID CRITCISM.
"You won't condemn this person for things I dislike" is NOT what I'd consider Valid criticism of a person. It may be considered valid criticism to those inside a cult or something but out in the real world people aren't obliged to like and dislike the same things nor are they obliged to go along with peoples subjective likes and dislikes just to appease individuals who have so little sense of self they need corporations and everyone else constantly unendingly validating their views.

And for the 19th time: I don't give a shit whether you consider it "valid" criticism or not. It's still just criticism.

You have come up with a framework that allows you to label almost any criticism you dislike as "cancel culture". It's just a convenient term to throw at criticisms that don't suit.

Just one guy? Doesn't matter, it's still "cancel culture" because you can just say he's appealing to a "mob" (no need for a mob to actually be there). Not actually abusive at all? Doesn't matter, it's still "cancel culture" because I can just say politeness doesn't prevent it being abusive. Doesn't even ask for anything to be removed? Doesn't matter, it's still "cancel culture" because.... etc etc.

 

[Silvanus]

Just to repeat this exact same argument for a 2nd time as you either didn't read it or chose to ignore it entirely.
The developer was banned from the subreddit.
The poster they replied to wasn't a moderator unless you'd like to show otherwise.
Therefore no it wasn't the result of the action of 1 person. 1 person commented but others too action.
That 1 commenter just happened to be 1 in a mob approaching the developer to also join the mob against Uncle Bob.
The developer called it out for what it was, an attempt to get said developer to use their platform to support the mobs efforts.

Firstly: I never said the poster he replied to was a mod.
Secondly: You cannot just fucking say any one person is "1 in a mob" if you don't like what they say. When Kovarex responded, it was a single comment. You have hallucinated a mob to justify aggressiveness against an individual poster.

So again does the developer now have the right to criticise the commenter?
Why are you not upset at the developer being banned when you care oh so much about criticism?

Of course he does! But if the rules of the subreddit don't allow personal attacks or hostility, then those rules should apply to everyone.

Reddit. He responded on Reddit.
You know that you couldn't even get that detail right really does make me further doubt the sincerity of your engagement. It's not even a hard detail to check.
Can you even tell me the specific rule he broke?

Oh, for... this bit is just pathetic. I used the term "blog" in a technically incorrect way. Well done! You got me.

It was still a subreddit where they had subreddit-specific rules in place. Why don't you engage with the actual salient point rather than moaning about terminology?

Can you even tell me the specific rule he broke?

Rule #4 on that Subreddit is "Be nice". The moderator specifically quoted it in response.

 

[Silvanus]

I hate to do this because it's technically against forum rules, but would you like to talk about the state of games journalism and the ethical issues therein? Because even suggesting it as a topic in the gentlest and most serious tone you can imagine is considered misogynistic harassment/abuse now. Look at the backlash against an article on this very site after the v2 revamp for an example.

I find it weird that "critics" and "harassers and abusers" are definitely separate and distinct, unrelated things, but only in some cases and that I can predict which are which when they occur based entirely on how the target relates to social justice. Even to the point that in some cases impolite criticism is "harassment" and in others threatening to bomb people is "criticism."

I'm not going to be drawn into this obvious trap. Nice try, though.

 

[CaitSeith]

People are mad at this dude for only donating money to republican campaigns?

No (he has actually donated to Democrats).

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So now you're saying it is definitive of cancel culture. Can you see why I said you need to choose a lane and stick with it?

No I'm clearly NOT saying it is definitive and the entire whole of cancel culture just like I've not been claiming all dogs and Great Danes and you continued inability to grasp this concept is either a result of you presently being 5 times over the legal limit to drive or being deliberately obtuse at this point. I'll leave it at your discretion as to which you wish to admit or if you wish to allow people to draw their own conclusion as to that.
I've chosen a lane, you either can't or won't accept it and wish to argue with a strawman an refuse to accept my actual positon.

It's a line of attack against online critics of people like Cawthon, or Kovarex. They get accused of cancel culture -> And cancel culture is defined by death threats and abuse! -> Therefore even if they personally didn't take part in death threats or abuse, they're tarred by association.

For the 20th time this thread an this is getting plainly ridiculous at this point.
No-one is objecting to actual valid criticism.
It is You choosing to conflate the positions of sending death threats and making false allegations against people as just criticism.
So o kindly please tell everyone else just how telling some-one that you plan to brutally murder them unless they comply with your demands is just totally fine valid criticism?
I've not been the one conflating criticism with death threats and abuse I've been trying to draw a clear line an have stated as much 20 times in this thread. So again either you're in a state of being where pink elephants are walking through your vision or are being deliberately obtuse about this and wilfully failing to understand this or pretending not to understand it.
I'll once again leave it to you to decide if you wish to claim you're drunk posting, are being deliberately obtuse or wish to let everyone else draw their own conclusions.

Yup, that's true. The accusations are levelled at the Republican Party. Which has indeed done the shit they accused them of (sponsored bills allowing genital inspections; stripped protections away from trans people; attempted a violent insurrection). And Cawthon did indeed give them money.

So that's the new definition of genocide is it?
Yet what China does is just patriotic retraining and education of certain residents in camps with free lifetime contraception I pressume?

....And now you're into hyperbole again.

No I'm quoting the video. So Jim would be into Hyperbole not me.

You don't need to show that. I'm not disputing it. I genuinely don't know why you're asking me "why you need to do" something I never asked you to do.

Ok then if you weren't asking that. What were you asking?

And for the 19th time: I don't give a shit whether you consider it "valid" criticism or not. It's still just criticism.

Well thank you for admitting you think just threatening peoples lives an making up malicious claims about them is just as fair and fine valid criticism and you don't at all see any difference there.
I don't think there's much I can actually say in response to such an open honest confession. I guess no bad tactics only bad targets as a mentality is rather unfortunately very much alive and well.

You have come up with a framework that allows you to label almost any criticism you dislike as "cancel culture". It's just a convenient term to throw at criticisms that don't suit.

Yeh, no I haven't I've been pretty clear to define than an to say otherwise is rather malicious bovine excrement.
If you see no different between accusing a person of murder, threatening their family and saying you think maybe they were a bit short sighted then the problem is with you not me for it is you trying to reframe death threats and libel as just criticism.

Just one guy? Doesn't matter, it's still "cancel culture" because you can just say he's appealing to a "mob" (no need for a mob to actually be there). Not actually abusive at all? Doesn't matter, it's still "cancel culture" because I can just say politeness doesn't prevent it being abusive. Doesn't even ask for anything to be removed? Doesn't matter, it's still "cancel culture" because.... etc etc.

Are you saying there is no mob trying to cancel Uncle Bob?
Are you saying Uncle Bob wasn't recently uninvited from a conference after people claimed they didn't feel safe attending because of his presence just because he doesn't align with them politically?
If so you might want to google what's gone on because it seems you lack a fair bit of background and information on events around Uncle Bob.

 

[Kwak]

Oh no, toyota is cancelled.





Toyota has come under fire after news emerged that it has donated significant sums of money to Republicans who voted against certifying the results of the 2020 general election.
....
Many social media users also weighed in. Some identified themselves as Toyota owners and vowed never to purchase a car from the company again.
....

In January, several high-profile companies announced they would suspend donations to lawmakers who objected to the certification of the election. But CREW's report found that 34 companies have donated at least $5,000 to the campaigns and leadership PACs of one or more election objectors this year. The data shows that Toyota donated close to double the total amount than any other company and to nearly five times as many candidates as the next leading company, the public transport company Cubic Corporation, which made eight donations.

Among those who benefited from Toyota's donations: Representative Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), who helped organize the "Stop the Steal" rally prior to the Capitol riot, which took place after a mob of former President Donald Trump's supporters stormed the Capitol, spurred by his falsehoods about the election results.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Firstly: I never said the poster he replied to was a mod.
Secondly: You cannot just fucking say any one person is "1 in a mob" if you don't like what they say. When Kovarex responded, it was a single comment. You have hallucinated a mob to justify aggressiveness against an individual poster.

So therefore more than one person was ultimately involved. Thus your claims about it merely being one person acting are false.
Again are you saying there is no mob trying to cancel Uncle Bob an that recent events just haven't happened and people imagined them? Because that would be a very special kind of malice there.

Of course he does! But if the rules of the subreddit don't allow personal attacks or hostility, then those rules should apply to everyone.

And was the poster asking for warnings to be placed on the blog not being hostile just veiling the hostility in false politeness?

Oh, for... this bit is just pathetic. I used the term "blog" in a technically incorrect way. Well done! You got me.

It was still a subreddit where they had subreddit-specific rules in place. Why don't you engage with the actual salient point rather than moaning about terminology?

I did engage with the point I asked you to state the specific rule he broke.

Rule #4 on that Subreddit is "Be nice". The moderator specifically quoted it in response.

Well at least you can state a specific rule there.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I'm not going to be drawn into this obvious trap. Nice try, though.

So you refuse to actually explain how some criticism is acceptable to you but other kinds shouldn't be allowed despite you rallying for all criticism to be fine?

 

[Kwak]

(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".)

What particular 'people like you' did he mean? Because there absolutely are certain types that would enhance the general tone of the human race if they died out.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

What particular 'people like you' did he mean? Because there absolutely are certain types that would enhance the general tone of the human race if they died out.

Any-one who voted leave or in my case objected to statements that people who voted leave were subhuman scum who it should be legal to shoot on sight

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

No (he has actually donated to Democrats).

Well, Tulsi Gabbard. Which, if you're coming at this from an LGBT angle, is the same as donating to a Republican

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Speaking of "someone got offended and now there must be consequences", E. Gary Gygax Jr through more or less shenanigans got the trademark for TSR. The new TSR Games has already been banned from Gen Con, because in an interview E. Gary Gygax Jr said "There's a ton of artists and game designers and people that play..... and recently they were dissed for being old-fashioned, possibly anti modern trends, and enforcing, or even having the concepts of gender identity (laughs)." Which was enough to set off the online hordes, leading to the predictable harassment and threats (including at members of his family) and made banning him from Gen Con seem like a reasonable PR move. Just to point this out, this is Gary Gygax's son, after having managed to regain his father's trademark being preemptively banned from the convention his father started for saying something not woke enough in an interview.

The new TSR games has been up to a *lot* of Flagrant Bullshit

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Predictably, we're back to the "should people be forced to work with people they don't like" part of the cancel culture discussion

TSR - Companies & Freelancers Distance Themselves From The New TSR

The new TSR (which I refer to as TSR3 to avoid confusion) has doubled down on its stance--which has been widely condemned online--via an ongoing series of tweets and replies from its TSR Games, Giantlands, and Dungeon Hobby Museum social media accounts (possibly operated by Justin LaNasa) in an...

www.enworld.org

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No (he has actually donated to Democrats).

It doesn't matter what party (D/R) you donate to, you're part of the problem IMO. But I'm not gonna get mad at someone for donating to a party unless they're like the Nazi party. If you go by supporting the political party you don't like as a reason to cancel someone, you gotta at least cancel 74 million Americans if you're a democrat and at least 81 million Americans if you're a republican. I guess I have to cancel at least 155 million Americans then since both parties suck. And how is that gonna help anything?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Yeh no it's not.
Jim in the video:
Accuses Scott of supporting Fascism
Scott is giving money to the party of family groping but totally doesn't support family groping (implied wink wink)
That Scott by extension wants to put kids lives in danager
They're scared of what Scott wants to do to them. (Jim is they)
That the legislative move by those Scott supports wish to wipe them from the face of the Earth
That there is a genocide attempt happening against them

Jim's video was pretty trash, I actually unsubscribed to him sorta because of it. The video was mainly all about how evil republicans are vs what Scott actually did or his views or really anything. I don't really care that Jim doesn't like republicans but I don't come to watch a gaming video to just watch a political video (keep the politics out of my games... which he did a video about... ha-ha!) that other people do way better than Jim. I haven't liked a Jim video in awhile now anyway and it was just mainly the last straw. The main reason I did like Jim was because he was at least honest with how much he liked or didn't like a game (he doesn't even do reviews anymore), I rarely agreed with his analysis though (how can you not like Vanquish!?!?), but he was 1 of maybe 1 reviewer for a time that honestly reviewed games. And his Jimquisition videos used not always be basically "everything sucks".

 

[Trunkage]

Dan Crenshaw just said an Olympic athlete should be removed from the team for where a T-shirt that doesn’t jive with what he thinks America is... another one with not much self awareness