Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled

[Silvanus]

Because your demanding proof in this thread of this happening.
Here's an article saying he was doxed

Here's Kotaku also saying he and his family were doxxed

Or do people need to provide primary sources now?

Right, so you were quite easily capable of providing sources without personally doxxing anybody. So long as we're both clear that that accusation was full of shit.

So, RE: doxxing of Scott Cawthon: do you think that's what people in this thread were referring to when they talked about "cancel culture" from the start? D'you think that's what they had in mind: doxxing, harassment, death threats etc?

Because I don't.

So what was all those posts accusing me of holding a position I don't?

Yeh it's performativity outrage on your part as I predicted you'd go for. Oh also I thought you were fine with criminal accusations (Which I have NOT made but don't let that stop you) and saw false criminal accusations as all part of valid criticism because that's what you've been arguing when I've said it's literally liable but no you kept going in words to the effect of "No that's just criticism"
So you're happy to make false allegations against me but are made that you claim I (Despite not having done so) made false criminal accusations against you?
You want to claim I've accused you of criminality.
Quote me.
Quote me doing so.
This will be good to see you try and justify this latest lot of sophistry.
Because for all your claims of hypocrisy you just showed your own here.

Your exact words: "you think threatening to kill people is a valid form of criticism. [...] You think making insane false claims just to damage peoples reputation is valid criticism. 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."

Directly accusing me of condoning libel and death threats. And a fucking lie.

No as (C) is due to a shocking level of personal incredulity on your part not anything I've actually said. I've been pretty damn clear and to now claim I've been wildly inconsistent in my position is nothing short of gaslighting when saying I draw a line between valid criticism and threats and libel again will now be the 22nd time I've said such a thing in this thread and likely the 15th to 18th time you won't accept it and will once again try to demand I take the strawman position you wish to argue with not my actual position.

Here you are, responding to someone saying that Cawthon hasn't actually been banned from anywhere by saying, "We just fine with the doxxing and death threats now?"

And on page 14 of this very thread, myself and several other posters repeatedly state that nobody is condoning harassment or death threats, and in response you repeatedly say that that constitutes "a large chunk" of it, and that death threats and abuse are "mostly in the woke sphere", whatever the fuck that means.

You want to use death threats and harassment as a cudgel to beat your political opponents, but then deny conflating it with cancel culture as soon as it becomes rhetorically inconvenient.

It was me being nice and giving you an easy out to save face and easily justify your antics in here in a way that was something other than malice. So to try and turn it round on me is rather funny and rather does show a level of malice lol

"Being nice", yeah, okay.

For several pages, now, you've been throwing grotesque personal accusations and insults, post-after-post. It's some of the most intensely aggressive bollocks I've seen here in ages.

It's the context of the reality of the situation.
"Why won't you do what I want you to" is not valid criticism.
No-one is obliged to hang massive warning labels about the nature of people everywhere.
If you want to argue that is somehow valid criticism then clearly every Hollywood film should start with a 4 hour segment where the actors and director all tell you their full political views to allow you to be warned about them before the film fully starts lol

Indeed.

And nobody is obligated to fucking buy stuff from someone they find objectionable. But you appear to be aiming for a world in which a consumer cannot make a personal decision to criticise a creator or decide not to buy their product; to do so is "cancel culture", and unacceptable.

 

[ObsidianJones]

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how these are counterpoints, nor am I sure what part of the post you're responding to. I mean, the issues you raise are, well, issues, but the questions of unfair application of law and mob rule have been universal issues for human history. You don't need a metaphor to encasulate that, you can replicate it in a work of fiction easily.

Really? In a world where we can't teach about how Africans actually came into America because it would teach "kids to hate their country and to hate each other", you think you don't need metaphor? You think people will just wholesale accept the truth when it's presented to them?

How about the Big Lie? What actually happened at 1/6? How Antifa was to blame for the riot at the Capitol, but lulz, when we found no Antifa breaking and entering, there was NO RIOT! Just a casual walk around the capitol and the police were making a fuss for no reason... This highly tolerant and enlightened world is the world you think you don't need nuance to show people the other side of things?

Sidenote to DeSantis's framing of what CRT would do. I learned about slavery in school. I learned about racism in school. I knew from first hand experience that my family and I weren't welcome in certain parts of this nation. I didn't hate this nation. I only started to hate this nation when the denyist bluster become Political Mandate and a certain party's feelings became how we would educate vast students that Blacks weren't slaves, but "workers"

Completely disagree.

I mean, sure, there's no doubt comic books that exist that explore such scenarios, but every comic book ever? Really?

Every comic book ever? We were talking about the X-Men. It was mentioned by name. You were referring to it when I quoted you. I think you're referring to the fact that I left out the 'the' before comic books. If that's the case, then it's explained. My whole response to you is keeping the X-men in mind, because it was specifically designed with the idea of what if the heroes were hated.

Also, in Stan Lee's own words.

The greatest manifestation of that idea was the X-Men. Introduced in September 1963, the X-Men were a team of teenage mutants, led by their teacher and mentor Professor Charles Xavier, who fought super-criminals and other mutants, led by Magneto, bent on the destruction of humanity. But rather than be a black-and-white battle between good and evil, the X-Men had a wrinkle: mutants were hated by the “normal” humans they defended.

“I loved that idea,” Lee told the Guardian in 2000, as the first X-Men movie hit theaters. ”It not only made them different, but it was a good metaphor for what was happening with the Civil Rights Movement in the country at that time.”

Oh, and speaking on miscommunications, the last part where I said On Point wasn't directed to you. It was the topic at hand, why people might dislike Cawthon after it was found out that he was donating to Republican Figures. Because of late, Trump flags have been flown side by side with Confederate ones. And I don't think there's any likelihood that anyone of those hate groups on the rise voted for Biden...

How Stan Lee's X‑Men Were Inspired by Real‑Life Civil Rights Heroes | HISTORY

Did Stan Lee support the Civil Rights Movement through his comic books for Marvel?

www.history.com

Stuff like Injustice, Red Son, and Brightburn may all explore that take for instance, but the circumstances and themes differ in each case. And that's even assuming that there's a theme to begin with. It's not as if superhero comics are exactly known for in-depth themes.

I was talking about the 'twist' aspect of it. Like the twist of "Superman but Evil" excites people for some reason, the twist of Heroes But Hated (The X-Men) did the same thing for people who felt ostracized.

Okay, but the entire conceit of the X-Men is that if all of humanity ("the majority") banded together to take out mutants ("the minority"), then there's a strong chance that mutants would win. Hence why it doesn't work well as a metaphor, where in the real world, "the majority" and "the minority" are on equal footing on a 1:1 basis. And even then, most of history has been small groups (kings, emperors) controlling large groups (everyone else), and you can find "minoritarian regimes" in the world today (e.g. Syria and Iraq), so we can flip this around. It arguably HAS been flipped around in fiction (e.g. The Reckoners).

Hence part of why I don't think the X-Men work well as a metaphor for any oppressed/disadvantaged group. It's actually something I think the X-Men films did reasonably well in that a lot of it was framed in the context of evolution and specism. As in, Homo sapiens outcompeted every other species of human and became the top dogs, what happens when a new species of human appears that's inherently better than you, is going to increase in numbers with every passing generation, and has people who want you either eradicated or subordinated? That doesn't work well as an allagory for oppression, but it does work as an allagory for evolution/survival of the fittest.

Days of Future's Past.

Dude, you might have the ability to hit the jump shot better than anyone else, but if you don't exercise it, you won't be able to. Do you think Shaq can ball like he used to after he hasn't touched a ball in, what, decades?

We know of the famous mutants. The ones that have a danger room and training. Most Mutants don't have that, don't understand their powers, would rather hide because they don't want to be ostracized, and the like.

Regular humans got together and won. Whole Heartedly. Didn't even need all of humanity to be onboard. Just Trask, some scare tactics, and funding. The Sentinels are real and they continually wreck face for most mutants.

 

[Hawki]

Really? In a world where we can't teach about how Africans actually came into America because it would teach "kids to hate their country and to hate each other", you think you don't need metaphor? You think people will just wholesale accept the truth when it's presented to them?

You don't need CRT to teach the history of slavery, and you don't need a metaphor to learn history.

I mean, works of literature can absolutely help in understanding history, including metaphors (cliche example, but take Animal Farm and the USSR), but I don't think a work like Animal Farm has much worth in a history course.

How about the Big Lie? What actually happened at 1/6? How Antifa was to blame for the riot at the Capitol, but lulz, when we found no Antifa breaking and entering, there was NO RIOT! Just a casual walk around the capitol and the police were making a fuss for no reason... This highly tolerant and enlightened world is the world you think you don't need nuance to show people the other side of things?

Again, I'm not sure what point you're actually responding to that I made, or you think I made.

Why would we need metaphor to report on 1/6? We know who stormed the capital, and know it wasn't Antifa, despite some people still believing it was a false flag operation. Why would I need metaphor to convey the facts?

Days of Future's Past.

Dude, you might have the ability to hit the jump shot better than anyone else, but if you don't exercise it, you won't be able to. Do you think Shaq can ball like he used to after he hasn't touched a ball in, what, decades?

We know of the famous mutants. The ones that have a danger room and training. Most Mutants don't have that, don't understand their powers, would rather hide because they don't want to be ostracized, and the like.

Regular humans got together and won. Whole Heartedly. Didn't even need all of humanity to be onboard. Just Trask, some scare tactics, and funding. The Sentinels are real and they continually wreck face for most mutants.

Okay, but isn't DoFP the exception to the rule?

Take the movies by themselves for instance. Yes, they did DoFP, but they also did The Last Stand, First Class, and Apocalypse, all of which have the implicitation that if there weren't some mutants who fought against other mutants, humanity would be screwed, because when humans go up against mutants, they're screwed.

I also recall the 90s cartoon. Yes, season 1 did DoFP, but the premise of the season is, even then, that mutants outclass humans so much that if mutants ever acted in one group, humans would be screwed, considering that human antagonists fail miserably every time, even with Sentinels. Magneto just by himself is able to storm a missile base and launch the actual missiles. The only reason that Magneto's brotherhood doesn't accomplish their goals is because of the X-Men.

Maybe that changes in later seasons, but I do recall an episode where there's this battle between an army and mutants or something, and the mutants wipe the floor with their foes, so the implication remains clear.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Right, so you were quite easily capable of providing sources without personally doxxing anybody. So long as we're both clear that that accusation was full of shit.

So, RE: doxxing of Scott Cawthon: do you think that's what people in this thread were referring to when they talked about "cancel culture" from the start? D'you think that's what they had in mind: doxxing, harassment, death threats etc?

Because I don't.

Well if you'd been paying attention to events and done a little of your own research you would know what had been going on and would understand that's what people have been referring to and it wouldn't have had to be pointed out 22 times.

Also yes it's very clear you THINK people are on about something different to death threats because what is it now between 16 and 19 times I've said that's not what people are on about. Honestly it really doesn't matter if you think let alone what you think because people are still not on about banning criticism, that is not the reality we are in and it's quite astounding and baffling you've come to the conclusions you have about other peoples positions based on what's been said here.

Five Nights at Freddy's creator 'won't apologize for' Trump support

Scott Cawthon says he's ready to be "cancelled" for financial contributions to Republican candidates including Donald Trump (though there's no indication of any cancelling).

www.pcgamer.com

Five Nights At Freddy’s Controversy Explained: Creator Scott Cawthon Steps Down Amid Scandal

Five Night's At Freddy's creator Scott Cawthon steps down amid controversy over political contributions. Here's what's going on.

www.forbes.com

Your exact words: "you think threatening to kill people is a valid form of criticism. [...] You think making insane false claims just to damage peoples reputation is valid criticism. 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."

Directly accusing me of condoning libel and death threats. And a fucking lie.

Because probably 17 times you have to be told that no I wasn't arguing against Valid criticism.
17 times.
including you then trying to frame it as "Oh so you get to decide what's valid or not who are you to decide" or words to that effect.
What the hell man.
Seriously what the hell.
Then you got tetchy over my suggesting you were drunk posting.
Can you not see why?
Can you not see just how unbelievable it looks that it took 17 times before you're now even starting to accept what I'm saying as my position is?
Can you really not see how it looks like conflating libel and threats with criticism by getting all haughty about how I'm somehow deciding?
Reasonable society is decided these things and did decide them long ago it's not merely my standards making the choice here.

Here you are, responding to someone saying that Cawthon hasn't actually been banned from anywhere by saying, "We just fine with the doxxing and death threats now?"

And on page 14 of this very thread, myself and several other posters repeatedly state that nobody is condoning harassment or death threats, and in response you repeatedly say that that constitutes "a large chunk" of it, and that death threats and abuse are "mostly in the woke sphere", whatever the fuck that means.

You want to use death threats and harassment as a cudgel to beat your political opponents, but then deny conflating it with cancel culture as soon as it becomes rhetorically inconvenient.

So was Stanley Kubrick not actually banned.
I stand by the position that what was done with A Clockwork Orange was still censorship.
It was forced self censorship.
It wasn't the creator having a change of heart about the work even after it was pulled he still kept saying his same position on the subject matter that got him targeted before at least in part.

I didn't deny conflating it with cancel culture it is an element of it just as a Great Dane is part of the species of animals we call dogs it is not the entire species itself.
I'm really struggling to see what you find so hard here..........

"Being nice", yeah, okay.

For several pages, now, you've been throwing grotesque personal accusations and insults, post-after-post. It's some of the most intensely aggressive bollocks I've seen here in ages.

Says the person who has been choosing to take everything I say as some grave insult and attack and massive affront to them while either grossly missing the point and refusing correct to a degree that's becoming comical or outright strawmaning mine and others positions then getting tetchy and pretending what you think is correct and everyone is just actually against any criticism but are lying, for what reason people would everyone lie I have no clue though perhaps you believe we are all secret members of some evil cult or something I don't know.

Indeed.

And nobody is obligated to fucking buy stuff from someone they find objectionable. But you appear to be aiming for a world in which a consumer cannot make a personal decision to criticise a creator or decide not to buy their product; to do so is "cancel culture", and unacceptable.

And no-one is saying anyone is fucking obligated to buy stuff. No-one. No-one in this thread is saying that. People in this thread have called out others who attacked people for stating they didn't want to buy certain things claiming people refusing were just sexists / racist / misogynists.

No-one here is trying to say consumers can't voice their views
You accuse me of grotesque personal accusation and then keep pulling this shit?
You went right back to strawmanning. Straight back to it
I'm serious are you drunk posting here?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Okay, but isn't DoFP the exception to the rule?

Take the movies by themselves for instance. Yes, they did DoFP, but they also did The Last Stand, First Class, and Apocalypse, all of which have the implicitation that if there weren't some mutants who fought against other mutants, humanity would be screwed, because when humans go up against mutants, they're screwed.

I feel like we've gone so deep into this conversation that we've forgotten what "protagonists" are.

The reason that the x-men are the only ones who can stop the mutant threat from taking out humanity in the X-men movie is because it's the X-men movie and not the Avengers movie

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

That said, it might be a fun thread to make elsewhere finding all the revolutionary antagonists who none-the-lest are required to be baby eating evil to distract you from the fact that they are legitimately fighting their own oppressors.
Speaking of death camp survivor Magneto.

 

[Hawki]

I feel like we've gone so deep into this conversation that we've forgotten what "protagonists" are.

The reason that the x-men are the only ones who can stop the mutant threat from taking out humanity in the X-men movie is because it's the X-men movie and not the Avengers movie

Well, yes, that's the conciet, and it's a common conceit, but it does undermine the notion that humans would beat mutants as well.

 

[Silvanus]

Well if you'd been paying attention to events and done a little of your own research you would know what had been going on and would understand that's what people have been referring to and it wouldn't have had to be pointed out 22 times.

Also yes it's very clear you THINK people are on about something different to death threats because what is it now between 16 and 19 times I've said that's not what people are on about. Honestly it really doesn't matter if you think let alone what you think because people are still not on about banning criticism, that is not the reality we are in and it's quite astounding and baffling you've come to the conclusions you have about other peoples positions based on what's been said here.

Yes, you've repeatedly said that you're not referring to death threats and harassment. It doesn't really matter how many times you assert that, though, when it doesn't match your past statements or behaviour.

Because probably 17 times you have to be told that no I wasn't arguing against Valid criticism.
17 times.
including you then trying to frame it as "Oh so you get to decide what's valid or not who are you to decide" or words to that effect.
What the hell man.
Seriously what the hell.
Then you got tetchy over my suggesting you were drunk posting.
Can you not see why?
Can you not see just how unbelievable it looks that it took 17 times before you're now even starting to accept what I'm saying as my position is?
Can you really not see how it looks like conflating libel and threats with criticism by getting all haughty about how I'm somehow deciding?
Reasonable society is decided these things and did decide them long ago it's not merely my standards making the choice here.

If you say something untrue 17 times, it doesn't make it any more persuasive. I'm not just suddenly, magically going to believe it if you repeat it over and over.

You conflated the two several times. I've now pointed out specific instances of you doing just that. It doesn't just make that disappear if you again state that you didn't do it. Just like if you watch me steal a Twix, and I then state 17 times that I didn't take it, that denial doesn't become any more persuasive.

So was Stanley Kubrick not actually banned.
I stand by the position that what was done with A Clockwork Orange was still censorship.
It was forced self censorship.
It wasn't the creator having a change of heart about the work even after it was pulled he still kept saying his same position on the subject matter that got him targeted before at least in part.

I didn't deny conflating it with cancel culture it is an element of it just as a Great Dane is part of the species of animals we call dogs it is not the entire species itself.
I'm really struggling to see what you find so hard here..........

I think you might need to look up what the word "conflating" means.

Says the person who has been choosing to take everything I say as some grave insult and attack and massive affront to them while either grossly missing the point and refusing correct to a degree that's becoming comical or outright strawmaning mine and others positions then getting tetchy and pretending what you think is correct and everyone is just actually against any criticism but are lying, for what reason people would everyone lie I have no clue though perhaps you believe we are all secret members of some evil cult or something I don't know.

You've been posting with intense hostility, personal insults, and criminal accusations for pages and pages now.

Don't project that onto me.

And no-one is saying anyone is fucking obligated to buy stuff. No-one. No-one in this thread is saying that. People in this thread have called out others who attacked people for stating they didn't want to buy certain things claiming people refusing were just sexists / racist / misogynists.

No-one here is trying to say consumers can't voice their views

You're saying that people can voice "valid" criticisms.

And then you've cooked up a set of rules which exclude certain types of criticism you don't like from being "valid".

 

[ObsidianJones]

You don't need CRT to teach the history of slavery, and you don't need a metaphor to learn history.

I mean, works of literature can absolutely help in understanding history, including metaphors (cliche example, but take Animal Farm and the USSR), but I don't think a work like Animal Farm has much worth in a history course.

You don't live here, so I assume you might not be keeping up on the efforts of several states in this country, even before Trump got into office, to change the impact of Slavery in this country.

Calling the people you kidnapped, brutalized, and raped repeatedly "Workers" is the first step to downplaying what actually occurred in this country. The older generation already slags off on Blacks for high poverty, high crime, and the poor education they helped to contribute to by limiting the social growth of the older black generation to achieve more.

A common thread of those who were once conservative who turned liberal (or at least moved away from conservativism) is that they got an education and started to re-evaluate what they were taught by their family and/or community. How beneficial it would be for the continuation of conservativism if education now words the past in a manner where the past 400 years

If there are actions to lessen the true accounts of how blacks got into this country, then there should be an equal pushback to focus on the matters which got us all here in the first place. For example, if you don't know that blacks were prohibited in owning houses and building equity, it's easy to believe your parents when they say "Blacks are lazy, and they just choose to live like that" instead of someone saying the truth of "The generation that your grandparents came from wrote laws and deeds that assured the only place black were permitted to live were slum tenants that we would be ashamed to live in ourselves".

If the truth was just allowed to be presented without having to jump through hoops, if the facts were just able to be consumed without anyone's feelings of their precious America being 'tainted', then you're right. We don't need CRT. But that isn't the world we live in. We can't look at the outcome and not address how people felt the need to get here. Which is a good segue to the next point.

As for Metaphors, if people were honest with themselves, they wouldn't be needed. Sure. But people are not honest with themselves. As we touched on with people who believe the Big Lie and stuff like that. You present the metaphor, and hope the correlations stick.

Okay, but isn't DoFP the exception to the rule?

Take the movies by themselves for instance. Yes, they did DoFP, but they also did The Last Stand, First Class, and Apocalypse, all of which have the implicitation that if there weren't some mutants who fought against other mutants, humanity would be screwed, because when humans go up against mutants, they're screwed.

I also recall the 90s cartoon. Yes, season 1 did DoFP, but the premise of the season is, even then, that mutants outclass humans so much that if mutants ever acted in one group, humans would be screwed, considering that human antagonists fail miserably every time, even with Sentinels. Magneto just by himself is able to storm a missile base and launch the actual missiles. The only reason that Magneto's brotherhood doesn't accomplish their goals is because of the X-Men.

Maybe that changes in later seasons, but I do recall an episode where there's this battle between an army and mutants or something, and the mutants wipe the floor with their foes, so the implication remains clear.

You're missing the point.

You have a world where everyone is looking for the purity of the DNA. Either you're an accepted human, or you're a mutant menace that needs to be hunted down and taught a lesson, if not killed. You've known only fear, ridicule, and pain for people like you and your kind. You might not even be a powerful mutant. You might just look different and that's all. You're still hunted down. You're born into a war you really didn't want to be in, because someone else is afraid of you, and because there is more of them, they get to make it alright that they try to hurt you at every turn.

This isn't name calling on the playground, this is life and death matters. You might die because you happen to look different with no real benefit to it. The only reason Magneto's brotherhood exists is because humans have been torturing and subjugating mutants for as long as they could. Magneto was in a concentration camp, for God's sakes.

You're looking at the Outcome (The Brotherhood of Evil Mutants) and you're considering that the problem entire. But what about the cause?

Maybe if humanity wasn't such dicks, Magneto wouldn't want to create a world where mutants can exist free without fear of being who they are? Maybe if even there would be a world where humanity accepts mutants and there are still a group of people who want to do evil (as all humans have the capability of doing), the police force would have a good number of mutants that could help because they were able to join without any persecutions.

You wouldn't have to hope for a group of overly benevolent mutants to protect you from the fringe extremist mutants that the society has created via rampant hate. You could just call the police and the mutants who joined the police force could help as it was their duty to protect the populous.
ecall an episode where there's this battle between an army and mutants or something, and the mutants wipe the floor with their foes, so the implication remains clear.
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Seanchaidh]

Calling the people you kidnapped, brutalized, and raped repeatedly "Workers" is the first step to downplaying what actually occurred in this country.

On the other hand, setting chattel slaves apart from other workers could be a fine first step to downplaying what is still occurring in this country. (I don't think that's what you're intending.)

Workers for the most part are not kidnapped as much nowadays (when they are, it's generally by cops and thinly legitimated through the legal system), they are typically not brutalized as harshly and when they are there is at least theoretically some legal recourse, and it seems like they are probably not raped by their bosses as often (though it's not as if I have reliable figures in front of me to compare) and when they are, there is again theoretically an avenue of legal recourse. These are differences in conditions that are matters of frequency and degree more than they are type; capitalists have replaced the whip as a coercive tool with immiseration, the particular coercion to do a particular job with the general compulsion to do some job, exploitation by violently compelling and taking the produce of a slave in return for subsistence with exploitation by taking the produce of an employee for wages which are necessary for subsistence. There is a difference between these two systems, both in material outcomes and structure. But an economy that has one can easily accommodate the other, as our present economy tolerates-- or even celebrates-- prison slavery. The formal end of explicitly racial chattel slavery is a lot further away from 'emancipation' than many people would like to admit.

 

[Terminal Blue]

If you want me to use different pronouns, I'll use them.

Thank you. Honestly, it's more an issue that we've talked so much about trans issues in this thread, but as long as it wasn't intentional I don't really care. However, I do use they/them pronouns.

I never said I had the power to personally censor you, that's beside the point. It's the mere idea of someone thinking you should be for...what? Expressing an opinion? Ideas?

But that's also an opinion.

And this is where I don't really see the line you're trying to draw. If you were to say that I shouldn't be allowed to say or do something, or that I deserved to be removed from the site, is an opinion. It might be an uncharitable and unfair opinion, but it is still an opinion, and you're allowed to express it all you want.

Opinions can be dangerous. They can have real and harmful consequences for people. If you don't think trans and gender-variant teenagers should have access to puberty blockers, then that opinion may seem very abstract to you, but it's not abstract to anyone in the position of needing these things. If your opinion is taken up by society as a whole, then that has a direct impact on people. A lot of things that people really care about, the issues they will go out and fight for, are things that are deeply personal and which have real or imagined consequences for people.

This idea that free speech can somehow take place separately from the rest of society takes away the entire purpose of free speech, which is the expression of political needs. It's not a game where we take turns saying horrible things to prove how free we are, it's a part of political life, and it's rough and violent and full of people who are angry and who care a lot about things because those things really do matter, and that's the way it should be. Anything else is not really free.

Okay, but horrible opinions according to whom? You? The employer? The mob? There's safeguards in place to stop employers discriminating on traits such as sex and religious belief, but employers have the legal right to terminate people for expressing opinions?

Of course they are.

Again, opinions can be dangerous. Opinions can be powerful. Opinions can matter.

For someone in the public eye, or someone in a position of authority, those opinions can matter far more. They can, in fact, undermine your ability to operate in that position at all. If someone like a politician or a judge says something racist on twitter, then how are the targets of that racism supposed to trust that person's judgement or maintain trust in the institutions they represent? It undermines the credibility of what they do and makes them less able to do it. If a TV actor says something which alienates their fans, then it directly harms the value of their personal image, which is what they're being paid for.

If the opinions are made well before joining the period of employment, if the person is genuinely sorry, is there a grace period, or not?

That's kind of up to individual judgement, isn't it. Do you, the individual out there, feel that an apology is sufficient and genuine? Do you feel that the person has changed enough for you to forgive them?

Again, you seem to be completely blind to the fact that this terrible and unfair act of judging people for their behaviour is also just an opinion, an opinion held by people who have very little individual power. You can't force someone to forgive and forget just because you think it would be nicer or because you think that person deserves it. Someone else might believe differently. They are allowed to have a different opinion, and they are allowed to express a different opinion even if it results in negative consequences for the person they're talking about.

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

I see no meaningful possibility of anything better.

I think a truer interpretation of my intent here would be to say that noone has a right to trust, or respect, or to be free from judgement. If your job requires trust or respect or that you are liked by people, and you say things that undermine that, then you become less able to do the job. Sure, I don't think the decision should be made by employers, because I don't think the hierarchical relationship between employers and employees should exist, but there is always going to be a need for some kind of accountability from people who exist in the public eye or perform public facing work.

We're going to need a part 2.

 

[Hawki]

If the truth was just allowed to be presented without having to jump through hoops, if the facts were just able to be consumed without anyone's feelings of their precious America being 'tainted', then you're right. We don't need CRT. But that isn't the world we live in. We can't look at the outcome and not address how people felt the need to get here. Which is a good segue to the next point.

As for Metaphors, if people were honest with themselves, they wouldn't be needed. Sure. But people are not honest with themselves. As we touched on with people who believe the Big Lie and stuff like that. You present the metaphor, and hope the correlations stick.

I'm not disputing what you said in your post prior to what I've quoted, but none of that is, in of itself, an argument for CRT for metaphors.

"History wars" are pretty common across all countries, including the one I'm living in. CRT isn't particuarly concerned about history, CRT is a framework on how one views society. It's a bogus claim to say that opposition to CRT is opposition to teaching about slavery, or "workers," or whatever PC term some people might come up with. History's been debated since history's been a thing, long before CRT was conceptualized.

As for metaphors, yes, people do lie to themselves. I agree. But you won't have me agreeing that metaphors are a valuable way to teach history, at least outside the teacher maybe making one up on the spot. If I'm learning the history of WWI, I can study a history book or read Lord of the Rings. Similarly, if I was studying the Civil Rights Movement, I can either study it, or read X-Men comics, but I don't think the latter is going to help that much. There's no shortage of literary metaphors for historical events, that doesn't make them useful in the study of actual history.

You're missing the point.

You have a world where everyone is looking for the purity of the DNA. Either you're an accepted human, or you're a mutant menace that needs to be hunted down and taught a lesson, if not killed. You've known only fear, ridicule, and pain for people like you and your kind. You might not even be a powerful mutant. You might just look different and that's all. You're still hunted down. You're born into a war you really didn't want to be in, because someone else is afraid of you, and because there is more of them, they get to make it alright that they try to hurt you at every turn.

This isn't name calling on the playground, this is life and death matters. You might die because you happen to look different with no real benefit to it. The only reason Magneto's brotherhood exists is because humans have been torturing and subjugating mutants for as long as they could. Magneto was in a concentration camp, for God's sakes.

You're looking at the Outcome (The Brotherhood of Evil Mutants) and you're considering that the problem entire. But what about the cause?

Maybe if humanity wasn't such dicks, Magneto wouldn't want to create a world where mutants can exist free without fear of being who they are? Maybe if even there would be a world where humanity accepts mutants and there are still a group of people who want to do evil (as all humans have the capability of doing), the police force would have a good number of mutants that could help because they were able to join without any persecutions.

You wouldn't have to hope for a group of overly benevolent mutants to protect you from the fringe extremist mutants that the society has created via rampant hate. You could just call the police and the mutants who joined the police force could help as it was their duty to protect the populous.

You're kind of hemogenizing both 'groups' here - namely that every human is an anti-mutant biggot, and every mutant is a sweet, innocent child who wants to live their life in peace.

Course, this is debating the intricacies of a fictional setting, and namely a setting that's been recycled over and over. For instance, Magneto. Magneto was in a concentration camp in the films, whereas in the 90s cartoon, he definitely wasn't, his grudge against humanity being "well, humans fight each other, and therefore suck, so welp, time to wipe them out." Film!Magneto at least gets some depth to him.

I can apply this to numerous characters. Mystique gets bullied due to her appearance, Juggernaut goes out and robs banks. Some mutants end up living in the subway due to prejudice, Sabretooth gets to operate as a mercenary and terrorize innocent people in his free time. Your police force example, I mean, sure, mutants might be a boon, but at the same time, there's mutants that are criminals who the police can't deal with. The X-Men universe simultaniously wants to portray mutants as being under threat from a prejudiced humanity, while at the same time making it clear just how outclassed humanity is, and that the only thing stopping mutants from doing that are other mutants. As pulp fiction, sure, I can enjoy spandex-wearing supers duking it out, but as metaphor? Eh...

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I can apply this to numerous characters. Mystique gets bullied due to her appearance, Juggernaut goes out and robs banks. Some mutants end up living in the subway due to prejudice, Sabretooth gets to operate as a mercenary and terrorize innocent people in his free time. Your police force example, I mean, sure, mutants might be a boon, but at the same time, there's mutants that are criminals who the police can't deal with. The X-Men universe simultaniously wants to portray mutants as being under threat from a prejudiced humanity, while at the same time making it clear just how outclassed humanity is, and that the only thing stopping mutants from doing that are other mutants. As pulp fiction, sure, I can enjoy spandex-wearing supers duking it out, but as metaphor? Eh...

You're bound and determined to edge this metaphor:
Why don't the military/cops/humanity recruit mutants?
How does Captain America have a rank and a paycheck but they will not recruit any number of equivalently powered mutants, instead opting for experimentation and brainwashing?
Why do mutants, merely super-powered individuals which liter the Marvel Universe, not *count* as "humanity"?
That's the metaphor.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Yes, you've repeatedly said that you're not referring to death threats and harassment. It doesn't really matter how many times you assert that, though, when it doesn't match your past statements or behaviour.

No I said they're not the entirety of cancel culture.
I've even said in this specific case this is what can be pointed to. Well that and the people trying to get stuff related to Fnaf pulled from shelves.

Which past behaviour and statements are you on about here?
Care to actually quote me?
Otherwise I suggest this seems more to be your thinking than reality.

If you say something untrue 17 times, it doesn't make it any more persuasive. I'm not just suddenly, magically going to believe it if you repeat it over and over.

You conflated the two several times. I've now pointed out specific instances of you doing just that. It doesn't just make that disappear if you again state that you didn't do it. Just like if you watch me steal a Twix, and I then state 17 times that I didn't take it, that denial doesn't become any more persuasive.

So you're claiming to know my mind better than myself and claim that despite my consistent protestations about your strawmanning my position that I'm engaging in bad faith despite me so often given you an out or benefit of the doubt? Despite me giving potential non malicious reasons for your claims and actions as a possibility?

You can call me a liar all you like but in the end you have no actual evidence to support your case.
Now you're going to go with galighting claiming I conflated things despite not being able to provide quotes showing me doing so. I've been very clear cut on things and the only conflation going on here is yours trying to present libel and death threats as criticism.
I mean I get why you'd try because it's the only way to easily argue this if you support cancel culture and want to downplay its effects and actions.

I think you might need to look up what the word "conflating" means.

True because it's not conflating it is that.
Yet that's one of the things you took issue with. That example of Stanley Kubrick.
Why?

You've been posting with intense hostility, personal insults, and criminal accusations for pages and pages now.

Don't project that onto me.

Yeh no that's bullshit. You know that's bullshit. I know that's bullshit.
You've tried strawmanning and gaslighting me and now you're pushing for performative outrage.
You chose to twist me giving you a possible out as personal attacks.
You are now making nebulous accusations against me using rather emotive language.
You want an accusation? Fine. Your actions so far either knowingly or unknowingly have mirrored the actions I've seen first had used by manipulators and your reaction to being called out is to continue said action and escalate. I called out the action out of desire for a good faith discussion and to better understand one another not to have this descend into a tawdry contest of who could cause the bigger knee jerk reaction in others against the other. It would seem you have chosen a different path.
It is not I who has been projecting.

You're saying that people can voice "valid" criticisms.

And then you've cooked up a set of rules which exclude certain types of criticism you don't like from being "valid".

I?
I?
I've cooked up rules?
I've cooked up nothing my dear sir.
Civil society has cooked up these things and has them enshrined in law.

Criticism that has no validity is usually liable when it is aimed to harm and can be seen to have achieved said aim.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Thank you. Honestly, it's more an issue that we've talked so much about trans issues in this thread, but as long as it wasn't intentional I don't really care. However, I do use they/them pronouns.



But that's also an opinion.

And this is where I don't really see the line you're trying to draw. If you were to say that I shouldn't be allowed to say or do something, or that I deserved to be removed from the site, is an opinion. It might be an uncharitable and unfair opinion, but it is still an opinion, and you're allowed to express it all you want.

Opinions can be dangerous. They can have real and harmful consequences for people. If you don't think trans and gender-variant teenagers should have access to puberty blockers, then that opinion may seem very abstract to you, but it's not abstract to anyone in the position of needing these things. If your opinion is taken up by society as a whole, then that has a direct impact on people. A lot of things that people really care about, the issues they will go out and fight for, are things that are deeply personal and which have real or imagined consequences for people.

This idea that free speech can somehow take place separately from the rest of society takes away the entire purpose of free speech, which is the expression of political needs. It's not a game where we take turns saying horrible things to prove how free we are, it's a part of political life, and it's rough and violent and full of people who are angry and who care a lot about things because those things really do matter, and that's the way it should be. Anything else is not really free.

yet by condemning some conversation to only be had in darkness gives power to those who dwell in darkness over said conversations for it will mean the conversations happen in places "men of the light" don't dare tread.

As an example when a certain actress employed by Disney expressed concern about the coming vaccines she wasn't meant with information and people trying to belay her fears but angry people telling her to shut up and not ask about it and massive accusations of her causing harm. You know who will happily talk with some-one asking questions? An Anti-Vaxxer in a place we might not know or see or even have access to. So we cannot counter the things being said and so the Anti-Vaxxer has power over the conversation.

That's kind of up to individual judgement, isn't it. Do you, the individual out there, feel that an apology is sufficient and genuine? Do you feel that the person has changed enough for you to forgive them?

Again, you seem to be completely blind to the fact that this terrible and unfair act of judging people for their behaviour is also just an opinion, an opinion held by people who have very little individual power. You can't force someone to forgive and forget just because you think it would be nicer or because you think that person deserves it. Someone else might believe differently. They are allowed to have a different opinion, and they are allowed to express a different opinion even if it results in negative consequences for the person they're talking about.

I'd say you however are somewhat blind to peoples capacity for malice in regards to what they see as justice

 

[bluegate]

Last time I was in here the thread was at six pages, what happened that this ballooned up to 30 pages?

 

[Kwak]

Last time I was in here the thread was at six pages, what happened that this ballooned up to 30 pages?

Dwarvenhobble went from ending his posts with 'lol', to emulating an aggrieved 17th century gentleman about to challenge his opponent to a duel because his honour was insulted.

He takes this culture war stuff VERY SERIOUSLY.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Last time I was in here the thread was at six pages, what happened that this ballooned up to 30 pages?

A weird argument started up where some people starting claiming everyone objecting to what happened to Scott (The Doxxing and threats) actually just really wanted to make criticising anyone illegal and decided to keep banging that drum a lot.

Or presenting that the threat and Doxxing were just an a more lets say angry form of criticism.

 

[Hawki]

You're bound and determined to edge this metaphor:
Why don't the military/cops/humanity recruit mutants?

Um, they do. In the cartoon, Colossus is hired as a construction worker. In the films, the X-Men are used by NASA to rescue astronauts. In the comics (specifically Civil War), the X-Men worked with search and rescue.

Like, I'm sure you can cite examples where they specifically aren't hired for whatever reason, but it's kind of beside the point. I can accept that the X-Men are a metaphor for...well, any number of things (look at Wikipedia's list for instance), but I don't think they're that good of a metaphor.

How does Captain America have a rank and a paycheck but they will not recruit any number of equivalently powered mutants, instead opting for experimentation and brainwashing?

Wait, Cap is paid? That's news to me.

And yes, I know mutants have been subjected to that in some cases, but I'm not sure what that is meant to say. That's a pretty common trope.

Why do mutants, merely super-powered individuals which liter the Marvel Universe, not *count* as "humanity"?
That's the metaphor.

Well, first, mutants aren't human. That isn't me speaking, that's Marvel itself, specifying them as Homo superior. Magneto's references the very idea in his opening debut.

Second, you've actually touched on a point I've raised numerous times, namely that the X-Men really don't fit the Marvel universe, because we simultaniously have a setting where people casually accept the existence of super-powers, yet are afraid of a specific group that has superpowers. Um, sure. Okay.

Third, I doubt that's the actual metaphor. The X-Men being associated with Civil Rights came after their conception, and there's no shortage of interpretations for them representing something, if they're meant to represent something at all.

Fourth, I can buy that the X-Men are a metaphor for something, that doesn't mean I think the metaphor is necessarily good.

 

[Hades]

to emulating an aggrieved 17th century gentleman about to challenge his opponent to a duel because his honour was insulted.

Lets be reasonable about this. If someone insults then you have every right to fight to the death to restore your honour.