I'm not saying what Cawthon did was right, but I can't believe people are surprised that a guy who, from what I've heard, is a devout Christian, leans right politically. These people know he made Christian games before FNAF, right?
Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled
- Thread starter Johnny Novgorod
- Start date
For trans people, the anti-trans individuals listed in that donation list are as bad as Nazis, because the latter's actions while in government have reduced rights and freedoms of trans people. That's all it's reduced to when checking the list: traceable actions and tangible consequences.
Yeah, how dare trans people be angered at the people marginalizing them and publicly express that outrage.
Last edited:
So death threats and falsely claiming a person supports murdering children is fine because it's just said group expressing their outrage now?
And trans people picking one side over other just for that, wouldn't be anything special anyway. If i had a buck for every right-wing guy on twitter going "byeah, GOP sucks too, but they ain't touchin yer guns" i could retire.
Single-issue voters are an old phenomenom.
Big asterisk: By this i don't actually mean everyone should just "choose lesser evil", or that kind of platitude crap. I'm not surprised people feel cornered in a broken system, and i aplaud those that also have energy to fight this by other means.
Last edited:
NO ONE IN THIS THREAD HAS DEFENDED DEATH THREATS OR HARASSMENT. STOP WITH THAT STRAWMAN ALREADY.
No it's just seen people constantly conflate them with criticism by claiming people clearly objecting to those things are just against criticism
You, literally one post ago: "It's a line of defining something as cancel culture". Your literal, exact words.
Key word: "valid". You've arbitrarily decided that some criticisms you don't like are invalid.
This is a lie, I've never said this. It's straightforward strawmanning, making shit up. And you've got the chutzpah to accuse me of misrepresenting you, and climb onto your high horse about others being obtuse?
Firstly: you haven't the faintest fucking idea about my posting history, do you? I've been arguing in the Biden V. China thread for more pages than anybody else that what China is doing in Xinjiang is genocidal. So don't give me that. The sheer fucking arrogance of pretending to pre-empt my position on something, insulting me about a position you assumed I held, and then getting it demonstrably 100% wrong. It's painful to watch.
Secondly: This wasn't in the Jim Sterling video. Yet again you're making shit up. Your position requires you to dream up libellous positions for others to hold, and then condemn them for them. It's jumping at shadows.
A lie.
!?
I didn't ask you anything. You accused me of trying to get you to post a dox of Scott Cawthon. I never fucking asked you to do a damn thing in that regard.
This is all just a lie.
I don't know how on earth you can accuse me of malice and strawmanning with a straight face, and then make up this grotesque, malicious strawman. How is the cognitive dissonance possible to do so in the span of a single post?
And yet you're consistently labelling things that aren't anything to do with murder or threats as "cancel culture". We have here an instance of a comment which does not fit any of these behaviours. Not a single one. No abuse, no mob, nothing. But you've found excuses for all of that, and labelled it cancel culture anyway.
I'm saying that that single comment isn't any of that. But that's what Kovarex reacted aggressively towards.
And is every dog a Great Dane?
No
Therefore it's not the only way for something to be cancel culture.
I've said this probably 4-5 times now. Could you try take it in this time. I don't know if it's you're drunk posting or can literally only see the world as solid binary with every word only having 1 singular meaning ever but this is getting rather tiresome having to keep repeating these same points again and again only for you not seem to get it.
Yes we get it you think threatening to kill people is a valid form of criticism. I doubt most people would agree. You think making insane false claims just to damage peoples reputation is valid criticism. Again most people wouldn't agree.
In fact people disagree so much with you that society itself has laws and actions people can take in said instances against such things from reporting criminal threats to libel lawsuits.
If it's not a Strawman then how come despite 20 times in this thread clearly separating valid criticism from threats and libel are you still arguing this point? The only way position you have where continuing to argue this same line despite 20 times being told it's wrong is
A) You believe that death threats and libel are just valid criticims
OR
B) You're strawmanning me and potentially others here.
So which would you like to admit to or do you just want to cut to the chase where I point out you've run out of actual arguments are are resorting to Tu quoque and you ramp up you level of indignation hoping people confuse it for a cogent argument?
I'm not on a high horse here BTW. You've been digging yourself a ditch in the thread. One I gave you plenty of ways out of but you would keep digging.
Oh so you're claiming Jim never said about Genocide?
You really want to go down this line?
People can and will go back and watch it you know?
So you want to stick with your claim?
Yeh no tu quoque again, you really running that low on cogent points? People can and will happily check the video and see you're wrong here, Jim did say words to that effect.
RIGHT you just claimed there was no examples of malicious actions being taken posted in this thread which in this specific line of comments would be doxxing and death threats
So was it just examples of death threats you wanted posted? Or do you need examples of people doxxing him too for you to accept it happened?
I mean as I said you could google this stuff and find it fairly quickly but you were the one refusing to argue because specific examples of such activity weren't posted in this very thread.
Funny how you've chosen once indignant outrage over having to take an actual position here.
As I said before:
The only way position you have where continuing to argue this same line despite 20 times being told it's wrong is
A) You believe that death threats and libel are just valid criticims
OR
B) You're strawmanning me and potentially others here.
Now which one is it? Or would you infact care to explain how you've ignored the same explanation and correction 5+ times to bang the same drum and 20+ times being corrected on the same specifics of the arguments people are having?
Which things have I been labelling cancel culture again?
If you're pulling the "But you said only threats are cancel culture"
I say again
And is every dog a Great Dane?
No
Therefore it's not the only way for something to be cancel culture.
I've said this probably 4-5 times now. Could you try take it in this time. I don't know if it's you're drunk posting or can literally only see the world as solid binary with every word only having 1 singular meaning ever but this is getting rather tiresome having to keep repeating these same points again and again only for you not seem to get it.
If you want to claim I said "Only these things specifically are ever cancel culture" then feel free to quote me.
Otherwise kindly accept that you got it wrong and that all Dogs are not in fact Great Danes
No the comment was trying to get the developer to join in or help out with the effort to deplatform Uncle Bob
And where are the concentration camps for trans people? Seriously, you're equating mainly bathroom-related and sports legislation with Nazis? And, trans issues aren't the only issues and Scott or anyone can be supporting and voting for a republican for a host of other reasons. Has Scott said he hates trans people and has given this money in hopes of limiting trans freedoms?
And SCOTT CAWTHON, the guy this thread is about, has said he hates trans people when? Just because you give money to a candidate/party doesn't mean you 100% agree with every single policy that person/party puts forward. The same can be said about giving money to democrats.
His personal feeling towards trans people don't really matter when he's giving bunches of money exclusively to candidates doing their level best to hurt trans people.
I don't give a shit how he feels in his heart of hearts, his actions are causing material damage to the people I love
The problem isn't an new ideology is that people no matter what side they're on are in general incapable of doing mass criticism politely.
That sucks ass but even if we should just shut up it's impossible to implement. As clearly the people being targeted can't help but do it themselves.
It's like saying "I'll end gun violence by killing any who likes the 2nd amendment." Just nonsensical when seeing the scale of the problem.
That sucks ass but even if we should just shut up it's impossible to implement. As clearly the people being targeted can't help but do it themselves.
It's like saying "I'll end gun violence by killing any who likes the 2nd amendment." Just nonsensical when seeing the scale of the problem.
Without wanting to speak for other people, I'm guessing that that's not what is being equated with Nazis. Believe it or believe it not, trans issues exists outside bathrooms or sports.
(The bathroom one isn't that simple either, there's always moves to make it a serious crime to use the "wrong" bathroom, and some places declare both to be wrong)
So anyone who voted Democrat their feelings towards people from the middle east don't matter and we can claim they're all racists who want to kill middle eastern people?
Supporting an lesser evil when the systems makes anything good hard is different from supporting someone who worst and being in denial and/or lying about it about it. But the actual answer is: It depends. FP is starting to have dissents and shake ups and people can support alongside the lesser evil.
I mean, people already argue that, so... Go ahead, do it.
EDIT: Besides, it wouldn't matter in this case. Trump/Republicans would also keep supporting Israel.
So what? He's still doing damage. He's giving money to anti-trans politicians who are actively legislating policies to make life for trans people more difficult.
I think it bares repeating. Scott family did not deserve to be threatened, nor did he deserve those death threats either. With all that said, he knew what he was doing, and I hold no sympathy for him personally. Cawthon is not exactly what I would call innocencent nor blameless.
So those in the forum, constantly on the defense for him; can stop acting like he's a the biggest victim in all this. Who you should be really crying for is those that are the target of systematic abuse. But you lack that empathy, nor do you give a rat's ass about the LBQTG. Your apathetic to minorities and other sufferings, unless it personally affects you.
So those in the forum, constantly on the defense for him; can stop acting like he's a the biggest victim in all this. Who you should be really crying for is those that are the target of systematic abuse. But you lack that empathy, nor do you give a rat's ass about the LBQTG. Your apathetic to minorities and other sufferings, unless it personally affects you.