Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
1,977
347
88
Country
US
Come on, you can't have missed the numerous outrages over "blackwashing" over the years.
You mean the ones dismissed at fringe far-right white supremacists handwringing over nothing, as opposed to the serious problem of whitewashing, which serves to make whatever medium less inclusive, less diverse, and is nothing less than an example of white supremacy in action?

prove that mermaids couldn't have dark skin, because being so far underwater would make them have pale skin, and Jesus Christ, are we really debating the science of mermaids?
I mean, if you wanted to play that game, that depends on how mermaids get their vitamin D and if they need a similar amount to humans, doesn't it? Pale skin in humans is an adaptation to get more vitamin D from a given amount of sun. If mermaids were primarily getting D from the sun and need as much as humans, then they'd likely need to be paler than even white folks typically are to be able to get enough D from underwater (and they are virtually never depicted as *needing* to spend time near the surface, so they'd have to be adapted to get enough at depth). If not, then not so much. It would be an interesting question to consider in a vacuum, I think.

For instance, it's kind of surreal to see Jodie Turner-Smith play Anne Boelyn, since we know what the real Anne Boelyn looked like.
So, do we see people who should be taken seriously have a problem with that, or just those that are being broadly being painted as fringe far-right neo-Nazis or similar upset about nothing of import?

How many people do you think would be very upset at the idea of a white actor playing Mansa Musa, and how seriously do you think they would be taken?
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
26,689
11,191
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
For the heartless Republican party, I have a special message for you. Including those that (financially) support them for abusing minorities, people for being gay or trans, or just being plain poor.

 
Last edited:

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,906
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
Part 2.

I've said repeatedly that not all abuse is cancel culture, but I'd say what distinguishes cancel culture (as in, distinguishing it as an actual culture), is the following:
So, two things really strike me here.

The first is that this is not a description of any kind of institutional practice, it's a description of a type of person, and the traits that that person is presumed to have.

The second is that it is no longer a culture at all. You actually slip and state this directly when you talk about it existing "across time and cultures". At this point, you are talking about something which is actually quite separate from culture, because it can exist in every culture.

In short, this is not actually criticism of society any more, it is not about institutional problems or cultural trends. It is a criticism of the moral character of the individual people who make up society. They are the ones who are bad. They are the "problem" that has to be corrected, because they have this mentality that is wrong and that causes other people harm, a mentality that is untruthful and does not accord with your perspective on reality.

Now, the hypocrisy at this point should probably be obvious, because this is a battle between us and them. It's a battle between the good people, the people who think the right things and have the right mentality for public discussion, and the bad people, the people who have bad thoughts and evil opinions. The people who think in moral binaries. They are nothing like us, those horrible people. We never think in moral binaries.

But what I think is even more important here is the issue of empathy. Because what we have here is not even an honest description of a type of person, it's an insulting caricature of a person, stripped of any kind of nuance and depth and reduced to a two-dimensional villain, and it says a lot about how you see people. If a person experiences an argument as a battle between right and wrong in which no compromise is possible, well that couldn't be because it actually is a debate between mutually exclusive interests. It couldn't be because there are actually principles on the line which are incredibly important, it couldn't be because they have been mistreated and forced to defend themselves so often that they have adopted a siege mentality in order to survive. No, it just be that there's something wrong with them. They are just bad people who are bad for no reason.

And it's funny, because you seem to have so much empathy and limitless patience for everyone else. You want us to frame everyone in the best possible light and feel intense sympathy for them. You want limitless forgiveness for them when they do something wrong. You really, desperately need us all to understand how special and innocent they are and how terrible it is that their lives are being ruined. But at the same time, you can't even begin to attempt to imagine why someone who has had to fight every day to be accepted for the gender they are would be hurt by someone mocking them. You can't begin to imagine why young black kids who have had to emotionally process the fact that they live in a country where cops are allowed to kill them would react with anger to someone telling them that they think being reminded of that fact is inconvenient.

That's not real harm. That's not bullying. That's not having your life ruined. Real pain is being called a racist on twitter by someone whose name you don't know and will never think of again.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
No by all means do them but it should be a clear "Yeh this is an Elseworlds story don't expect this to be the new cinematic universe direction".
Well, it might be a new direction - the DCEU doesn't seem to have a direction, and Flashpoint is a wild card. But even then, I doubt they'd bother. Joker was aired without any disclaimed that it wasn't tied to the DCEU.

Yeh but it's working on the assumption people could join in at any episode and don't want to have to try to establish it in dialogue each episode as such.
But that's a philosophy that could be applied to almost any nugget of information. Besides, the paradigm of season 1 is fairly clear - Barry, Iris, and Eddie are in a love triangle, and Barry's spending most of his time apart from both of them. There isn't actually that much room for 'squick.'

As I said it was likely some dumb executive move trying to make sure no-one mistakenly thought Iris and Barry were brother and sister.
Well, you can think that if you want.

They're not mutually exclusive but one would probably work far better than the other. Also I say Idris Elba because he was the person being pushed by people for the role before, he also is 5 years younger than the present Bond.
Craig's at the end of his run though. You get Elba in, and you might not have long with him.

Also, my issues with Elba aren't because of his age, it's because of how I've seen him carry himself in action scenes - see my car analogy earlier.

You mean the ones dismissed at fringe far-right white supremacists handwringing over nothing, as opposed to the serious problem of whitewashing, which serves to make whatever medium less inclusive, less diverse, and is nothing less than an example of white supremacy in action?
I have no doubt that accusations of white supremacy have been thrown around at some point, but there's a lot of room between 'neutral' and 'white supremacist.'

For instance, if you (not you, personally) took to Twitter over Finn being a stormtrooper, screeching about how he's black, and stormtroopers are clones (they aren't, BTW), and how Disney is carrying out "forced diversity," then it doesn't necessarily make you a white supremacist, but it does make you a git.

I mean, if you wanted to play that game, that depends on how mermaids get their vitamin D and if they need a similar amount to humans, doesn't it? Pale skin in humans is an adaptation to get more vitamin D from a given amount of sun. If mermaids were primarily getting D from the sun and need as much as humans, then they'd likely need to be paler than even white folks typically are to be able to get enough D from underwater (and they are virtually never depicted as *needing* to spend time near the surface, so they'd have to be adapted to get enough at depth). If not, then not so much. It would be an interesting question to consider in a vacuum, I think.
Well, first, as you said, it isn't in a vacuum.

Second, mermaid science. Again, you can make up any reason as to how mermaids operate, it's going to be as convincing as any other reason.

Third, back to the vacuum thing. We've already had a darker-skinned mermaid from Disney via Esmerelda, and as far as I'm aware, no-one lost their marbles over it. But now...well, now we have the Internet where idiots get to show the world that they are indeed idiots.

So, do we see people who should be taken seriously have a problem with that, or just those that are being broadly being painted as fringe far-right neo-Nazis or similar upset about nothing of import?

How many people do you think would be very upset at the idea of a white actor playing Mansa Musa, and how seriously do you think they would be taken?
Well, it reportedly did stir something up, but it's a strawman to say that anyone who criticizes it is being criticized in turn as being far-right.

I imagine that Mansa Musra would stir up more heat, I'll grant you.

But then, these are fringe examples. If we're talking about historical figures, then yes, I'd generally expect the actors playing them to resemble them, but this gets iffy the furthrer back in history you go (see the controversy over Gal Gadot playing Cleopatra). But many of the 'washing' complaints are around fictional characters.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
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.
Not all opinions are equal though, nor are intents.

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.
Difference being that as politicized as the science is, at least in theory, there's scientific consensus on the issue that, at least in theory, isn't dictated by the masses.

My personal opinion on that particular issue is that they should, but only after extensive consultation with parents and doctors, but I'm in no position to force that opinion.

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.
Congratulations, you've made an argument against cancel culture.

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.
Well, those are two different scenarios.

If the judge said something racist on Twitter, we'd need to say what was said, how it was said, and when it was said. We'd also have to see what the judge said after. Ideally, there'd be a procedure in order. I know that judges come in for regular review (at least in NZ, I assume in other countries as well) where their ability to continue practicing law is evaluated, so that could be factored in.

If we're talking about the TV actor, just by what you've written, you've stepped into a minefield. A TV actor says something that alienates their fans...okay, which fans? How many fans? What type of fans? You think fans are the types of people who are in a position to dictate what's right and what's wrong? A small group of people on this thread haven't reached any consensus, you think hundreds of thousands of people are going to behold the same thing in the same manner?

There's a way of alleviating the issues, maybe, in that ensure the actor says nothing about anything, ever, or has free reign of say anything, or give a hyper-detailed contract dictating what they can say, and how. To anyone who wants to try that, well, good luck.

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?
My judgement as an individual is irrelevant in most cases. I'm not the one who has power over people's lives, nor am I part of a group who is.

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.
Alright, but this can be reversed. You can't force someone to not forgive, you can't force someone to think that a punishment is deserved.

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.
Well, I can imagine a lot of better things, but lookng at part 2, I think it reveals a chasm that neither of us can cross. I figure at least with employers, there should be safeguards in the same way that there's safeguards against discrimination based on sex, religion, and ethnicity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
Part 2.



So, two things really strike me here.

The first is that this is not a description of any kind of institutional practice, it's a description of a type of person, and the traits that that person is presumed to have.

The second is that it is no longer a culture at all. You actually slip and state this directly when you talk about it existing "across time and cultures". At this point, you are talking about something which is actually quite separate from culture, because it can exist in every culture.

In short, this is not actually criticism of society any more, it is not about institutional problems or cultural trends. It is a criticism of the moral character of the individual people who make up society. They are the ones who are bad. They are the "problem" that has to be corrected, because they have this mentality that is wrong and that causes other people harm, a mentality that is untruthful and does not accord with your perspective on reality.

Now, the hypocrisy at this point should probably be obvious, because this is a battle between us and them. It's a battle between the good people, the people who think the right things and have the right mentality for public discussion, and the bad people, the people who have bad thoughts and evil opinions. The people who think in moral binaries. They are nothing like us, those horrible people. We never think in moral binaries.

But what I think is even more important here is the issue of empathy. Because what we have here is not even an honest description of a type of person, it's an insulting caricature of a person, stripped of any kind of nuance and depth and reduced to a two-dimensional villain, and it says a lot about how you see people. If a person experiences an argument as a battle between right and wrong in which no compromise is possible, well that couldn't be because it actually is a debate between mutually exclusive interests. It couldn't be because there are actually principles on the line which are incredibly important, it couldn't be because they have been mistreated and forced to defend themselves so often that they have adopted a siege mentality in order to survive. No, it just be that there's something wrong with them. They are just bad people who are bad for no reason.

And it's funny, because you seem to have so much empathy and limitless patience for everyone else. You want us to frame everyone in the best possible light and feel intense sympathy for them. You want limitless forgiveness for them when they do something wrong. You really, desperately need us all to understand how special and innocent they are and how terrible it is that their lives are being ruined. But at the same time, you can't even begin to attempt to imagine why someone who has had to fight every day to be accepted for the gender they are would be hurt by someone mocking them. You can't begin to imagine why young black kids who have had to emotionally process the fact that they live in a country where cops are allowed to kill them would react with anger to someone telling them that they think being reminded of that fact is inconvenient.

That's not real harm. That's not bullying. That's not having your life ruined. Real pain is being called a racist on twitter by someone whose name you don't know and will never think of again.
I'll offer this to the conversation.
Something can still be a culture but also cross cultures.
E.G. American cultural influence.

Just because it isn't set into an institution (Which I'd argue it is because a number of corporations are all to happy to go along with this) doesn't mean it can't be seen as it's own institution. E.G. the culture of silencing and attempting to weaponise laws against people that the Church of scientology uses. Do we consider the church of scientology an institution or not because it's mostly a fringe religious cult basically?

The big problem is some people think they're saving the freaking world and still haven't realise as the saying goes "He who hunts monsters should take care lest they become the monster themselves". We saw this in the past when people were sending threats and abuse to a guy dying with cancer who was in chemo a the time because a "Game developer" (and I use that term very loosely here) decided to try and throw accusations at him.

As for "no real harm" well Sir Tim Hunt was putting funding towards a group looking into a potential cancer cure. The mob came for him and without him his research groups were dissolved so no more work on that potential line unless some-one else reforms and funds it. That's harm.

How about the game developer accused of Abuse who was part of the A Night in the Woods team? Who faced most people trying to distance from him and saying they'd refuse to work with him. He took his own life because he saw no future for himself anymore. That is harm. Especially when info came out suggesting his accuser had lied and was in fact the actual abuser. That was more than being called names on twitter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
"Flew off the rails". What did I say, exactly? The first three times you said it, I just ignored it. The fourth (?) time, I just pointed out that you'd used the same line four times, which is more indicative of drunk posting than anything else. Hardly "flying off the rails". You're projecting, after several posts of sputtering outrage.
that would be a Tuquoque.
You've been choosing so often to read malice into my responses and claim I have ulterior motives to me posting and some hidden agenda.
I used the same line because as you say it was rather clear your were ignoring it and thus ignoring quite a big point in favour of your own narrative.

"By my logic"? What logic is there in which that isn't an accusation?
The logic that means you refuse to accept my stated position as my on despite it being stated 17 times. The logic that I secretly hold some evil alternative agenda here.


In an unrelated video (nothing to do with the tweet), he said Scott Cawthon supported the Republican Party's agenda.

Which he does, financially speaking. Do you not believe that financially donating to a party is financially supporting that party?
He also presented it in the video as him being fine with and thus fine to support genocide as I already showed evidence for.





I can't find a source for that, but I'll take your word for it.

So if it was in response to criminal threats, how does this reflect badly on people who weren't making criminal threats?
No they were idiots and I'd say it would reflect badly on them if they were then celebrating the removal that only happened due to the threats. It would suggest they don't care how their intended goals were achieved.



Essentially: it's fine when you do it, but not fine when someone else does it.
I presented options. I never claimed absolute certainty. I gave you other options, other ways out

When you accuse me of malice five or six times, and accuse me of condoning criminal actions, then yes, it's very difficult to keep giving you the benefit of the doubt. You did all of that first. And those accusations themselves indicate that you're acting in bad faith.
And yet you still refuse to offer any alternative explanations for the positions you seemingly took. Still refuse to clarify your actual position on said things. Refused to take the outs I offered as possible reasons.

The "No bad tactics only bad targets" position is one that some people do very much hold.

So far you've been very unwilling to state an actual position and been trying seemingly to dismiss threats or try to present present criticism as what people are objecting to.

If you went to be and said "You wrote something about Mark Ruffalo and didn't mention how he eats babies, you should mention that" and I think it's complete bullshit and call it out as such that wasn't criticism of me it was trying to get me to join in spreading claims and helping try to shame or demonise Mark Ruffalo for something that there's no evidence for. Hence when claiming that Uncle Bob is harmful and saying some-one should add warnings is equally bullshit.




The law does not allow actions against statements such as the mild criticism on Factorio's subreddit.

If the law allowed actions against that statement, then almost all the posts on The Escapist would be landing us in legal trouble. Because that criticism was absolutely nothing serious whatsoever.
No it does allow the developer to respond and call it bullshit as the developer chose to.
For more context see my analogy above about Mark Ruffalo.


This is a set of events you've entirely hallucinated.
Turn off the Gaslight it won't work here.

GLBatArt.jpg






One person made a polite and mild criticism, and did not even make any requests for anything to be taken down. Kovarex then personally insulted him, breaking the rules of the subreddit.
He called out the bullshit that Uncle Bob apparently is somehow harmful. That wasn't mild criticism but an attempt to get Kovarex to join in on the accusations against Uncle Bob.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,203
1,706
118
Country
4
  1. The Extension (Dana's Law)
  2. The Homonymy
  3. Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements
  4. Conceal Your Game
  5. False Propositions
  6. Postulate What Has to Be Proved
  7. Yield Admissions Through Questions
  8. Make Your Opponent Angry
  9. Questions in Detouring Order
  10. Take Advantage of the Nay-Sayer
  11. Generalize Admissions of Specific Cases
  12. Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition
  13. Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition
  14. Claim Victory Despite Defeat
  15. Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions
  16. Arguments Ad Hominem
  17. Defense Through Subtle Distinction
  18. Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute
  19. Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it
  20. Draw Conclusions Yourself
  21. Meet Him With a Counter-Argument as Bad as His
  22. Petitio principii
  23. Make Him Exaggerate His Statement
  24. State a False Syllogism
  25. Find One Instance to the Contrary
  26. Turn the Tables
  27. Anger Indicates a Weak Point
  28. Persuade the Audience, Not the Opponent
  29. Diversion
  30. Appeal to Authority Rather Than Reason
  31. This Is Beyond Me
  32. Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category
  33. It Applies in Theory, but Not in Practice
  34. Don't Let Him Off the Hook
  35. Will Is More Effective Than Insight
  36. Bewilder Your opponent by Mere Bombast
  37. A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position
  38. Become Personal, Insulting, Rude (argumentum ad personam)

 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
So, two things really strike me here.
You conveniently cut out what I said, and I don't have time to find the post, so I'm going to deal with what you said here:

The first is that this is not a description of any kind of institutional practice, it's a description of a type of person, and the traits that that person is presumed to have.
Well, first, there are absolutely issues on an institutional level (see the employer stuff earlier), but if a bunch of people hold the same beliefs and values, and act in concert, it can absolutely be described as a culture.

The second is that it is no longer a culture at all. You actually slip and state this directly when you talk about it existing "across time and cultures". At this point, you are talking about something which is actually quite separate from culture, because it can exist in every culture.
That's a fallacy though. If you're arguing that a trait exists across numerous cultures, it's not longer culture, then...no. Just no.

Every society on Earth has adopted belief in the supernatural, via gods, or spirits, or whatever. Are you going to say that religion and spirituality aren't cultural?

In short, this is not actually criticism of society any more, it is not about institutional problems or cultural trends. It is a criticism of the moral character of the individual people who make up society. They are the ones who are bad. They are the "problem" that has to be corrected, because they have this mentality that is wrong and that causes other people harm, a mentality that is untruthful and does not accord with your perspective on reality.
Oh, it's very much about cultural trends. It's trends that have gone into overdrive over the last half decade.

Now, the hypocrisy at this point should probably be obvious, because this is a battle between us and them. It's a battle between the good people, the people who think the right things and have the right mentality for public discussion, and the bad people, the people who have bad thoughts and evil opinions. The people who think in moral binaries. They are nothing like us, those horrible people. We never think in moral binaries.
I'd like to remind you that in this very thread you said that there could be no negotiation with the right or conservatives until certain conditions were met, making allusion to a 'war' that's been fought, so I don't think you're as above the idea of moral binaries as you might think.

But what I think is even more important here is the issue of empathy. Because what we have here is not even an honest description of a type of person, it's an insulting caricature of a person, stripped of any kind of nuance and depth and reduced to a two-dimensional villain, and it says a lot about how you see people.
Right, you say I'm using a caricature, and present your evidence of this by...using caricature.

If a person experiences an argument as a battle between right and wrong in which no compromise is possible, well that couldn't be because it actually is a debate between mutually exclusive interests.
A lot of the examples on this thread aren't actual arguments. Plenty of arguments and debates are conducted with mutually exclusive interests. This thread has barely been concerned with actual debates.

It couldn't be because there are actually principles on the line which are incredibly important, it couldn't be because they have been mistreated and forced to defend themselves so often that they have adopted a siege mentality in order to survive. No, it just be that there's something wrong with them. They are just bad people who are bad for no reason.
I've already given my take earlier in the thread as to why I believe cancel culture exploded the way it did, and why it was in the US of all places. Clearly you think differently. However, in response to that:

1: I'm aware of the notion of cruelty begetting cruelty - if you're treated poorly, then chances are you're going to treat other people poorly. We certainly see this in domestic violence for instance. However, that doesn't excuse the poor behaviour in of itself.

2: Who exactly has been forced to defend themselves in the examples here? Who are the poor, defenceless people who mobbed Lindsay Ellis? Who are the "oppressed" students who hounded Weinstein, who were so oppressed that they could attend one of the most expensive colleges in the world? What exactly were the ills of the people who went digging for James Gunn's tweets? Who, exactly, was hurt when Amelie Zhao wrote Blood Heir, the mere back-of-book description sending people into a frenzy?

It's the bully pretending to be the victim.

And it's funny, because you seem to have so much empathy and limitless patience for everyone else. You want us to frame everyone in the best possible light and feel intense sympathy for them. You want limitless forgiveness for them when they do something wrong. You really, desperately need us all to understand how special and innocent they are and how terrible it is that their lives are being ruined.
...sorry, had to wait a bit. Mr. Straw knocked, and oh man, had he put on weight.

I'd like you to cite the post where I said we should have limitless forgiveness and patience. Clearly there's crimes committed in the world that warrant justice rather than mercy. Crimes worse than anything discussed here. But the irony of your post is that you're doing the same thing. You want me to feel sympathy for the people doing the cancelling, and what me to see how special and innocent they are. You want me to sympathize more with the bully than the victim.

Like, if you believe every person on this thread got what was coming to them, at least say it.

But at the same time, you can't even begin to attempt to imagine why someone who has had to fight every day to be accepted for the gender they are would be hurt by someone mocking them.
First, how many of the examples on this thread have actually dealt with that?

Second, I absolutely can imagine it, because while maybe not in those specific terms, I can absolutely sympathize with being bullied, and mocked, and harassed, and everything else. If anything, you're the one who appears to have trouble sympathizing.

You can't begin to imagine why young black kids who have had to emotionally process the fact that they live in a country where cops are allowed to kill them would react with anger to someone telling them that they think being reminded of that fact is inconvenient.
Again, where has police brutality factored into any of these examples on this thread? You're plucking issues out of thin air as part of some attempt to either shift the discussion, or reframe it well beyond its bounds.

That's not real harm. That's not bullying. That's not having your life ruined.
Where did I say that?

I know what tactic you're using, by the way, and it's a tired, dishonest one. It's the tactic of "why are you talking about problem X, when problem Y is bigger?"

In case you're wondering, absolutely police brutality is a bigger problem than cancel culture, but then I can pick out a bigger problem than police brutality, and you can pick out a bigger problem than that, and so on, and so forth, until we're discussing how to survive the universe's heat death. But this isn't a thread dealing with any of those things.

Real pain is being called a racist on twitter by someone whose name you don't know and will never think of again.
Yep, you got me. I confess. I believe that being called mean things is worse than physical harm, that cancel culture is the biggest problem, and nothing else matters.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
If we're talking about the TV actor, just by what you've written, you've stepped into a minefield. A TV actor says something that alienates their fans...okay, which fans? How many fans? What type of fans? You think fans are the types of people who are in a position to dictate what's right and what's wrong? A small group of people on this thread haven't reached any consensus, you think hundreds of thousands of people are going to behold the same thing in the same manner?
Damn, sounds like cancel culture is undefinable then. Kinda makes it useless
My judgement as an individual is irrelevant in most cases. I'm not the one who has power over people's lives, nor am I part of a group who is.
A group of people on social media also do not have that power
Well, I can imagine a lot of better things, but lookng at part 2, I think it reveals a chasm that neither of us can cross. I figure at least with employers, there should be safeguards in the same way that there's safeguards against discrimination based on sex, religion, and ethnicity.
I'm not sure how a "do not fire people for making lots of other people mad" law is gonna look, but equating that to racial/gender/religious discrimination is not a great look.
2: Who exactly has been forced to defend themselves in the examples here? Who are the poor, defenceless people who mobbed Lindsay Ellis? Who are the "oppressed" students who hounded Weinstein, who were so oppressed that they could attend one of the most expensive colleges in the world? What exactly were the ills of the people who went digging for James Gunn's tweets? Who, exactly, was hurt when Amelie Zhao wrote Blood Heir, the mere back-of-book description sending people into a frenzy?
So, four completely different situations with four completely different outcomes, three of which involve people that do not consider what happened "cancel culture" is cancel culture?
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Damn, sounds like cancel culture is undefinable then. Kinda makes it useless
If you want to claim that, at least try to quote a post that backs up your claim rather than demonstrates the opposite.

A group of people on social media also do not have that power
They absolutely do. One person by themselves can dig up dirt. An entire group of people acting in concert can drive people off a platform through continued harassment.

I'm not sure how a "do not fire people for making lots of other people mad" law is gonna look,
You're always going to make some people mad, that's not the point. Nice strawman.

but equating that to racial/gender/religious discrimination is not a great look.
It's not a great look to defend harassment either.

So, four completely different situations with four completely different outcomes, three of which involve people that do not consider what happened "cancel culture" is cancel culture?
Three? I know Lindsay Ellis engaged in a semantics game with "the beast," but who are the other two?

Also, there absolutely is a set of commonalities here, namely:

-Moral Outrage & Puritanism ("this person said/wrote this thing, get them out of here")

-Source of the Outrage (Ellis, Zhao, and Weinstein each wrote something "racist," which set off the mob, or in Gunn's case, sexist tweets that were a decade old at that point)

-Moral Binary Thinking ("no chance for context, or 'redemption,' or shades of grey, it's all or nothing)

-Success (in each case, the protestors accomplished their goals, at least in the short term)

Gunn's actually a bit of an odd one out, I'll grant you that, but the others absolutely fall into the circle of:

Step 1: X says/writes something.

Step 2: The mob descends on them.

Step 3: The person apologizes/explains/contextualizes, but no-one wants to hear it.

Step 4: The mob gets its way after the target acquiesces to their demands.

At least in these cases, there was a step 5 of sorts, in that Weinstein found new work, and Zhao got Blood Heir published eventually. Not sure about Ellis. But then, if someone attacks you, and you recover from the attack, that doesn't mitigate the attack in of itself.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
Damn, sounds like cancel culture is undefinable then. Kinda makes it useless
No you want an easy definition?
Cancel culture is people wanting to make sure a persons stamp on the world is erased, damaged or not allowed to be completed due to them personally disagreeing with aid person and acting to force said individual to choose between legacy and personal values to either silence the person erase, damage or prevent completion of their mark on the world.
A group of people on social media also do not have that power

Do not fool yourself into thinking the mob doesn't have power. The mob has always had power. It's only due to our systems and society that and structures in place and the adherence of the people to them that the mob doesn't often grow large enough to overwhelm. Power acts to preserve itself so often and will placate the mob to remain in power if needed.

I'm not sure how a "do not fire people for making lots of other people mad" law is gonna look, but equating that to racial/gender/religious discrimination is not a great look.
I'd say it looks good when you point out the damage such dismissals of ideas has done in the past towards true progress. The UK already has such laws against political discrimination. It hasn't fallen to anarchy
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,906
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
Difference being that as politicized as the science is, at least in theory, there's scientific consensus on the issue that, at least in theory, isn't dictated by the masses.
But it is, to a large extent, dictated by the masses.

Puberty blockers were effectively banned in the UK after the high court ruled, against every recommendation by the medical profession, that children under 16 could not give informed consent for their use. The case was brought by a single detransitioned woman on behalf of a anti-trans "concerned parent" group, there is really no explanation for that ruling save for the incredibly transphobic climate in the UK at the time, it is deeply inconsistent with every other legal ruling regarding the ability of children to given informed consent to medical procedures. It proved to be so shitty and unworkable that it has already been partially overturned by a family court ruling, and is now in the court of appeal, .

I think you have absolutely no concept of how precarious the lives of many people are, or what the stakes are of allowing bigots to control or dictate the public discussion of minority issues without visible pushback.

Congratulations, you've made an argument against cancel culture.
Not really, I've made an argument in favour of a robust public discussion. Arguing against cancel culture is arguing that public discussion needs to be restricted and limited, that it needs to obey certain rules to ensure it is safe and that those who participate are protected. You're arguing for a form of public discussion in which no one is ever allowed to definitively win or lose, and in which the organic process of curation by public opinion is replaced by the authoritarian moderation of those with influence. Arguing against cancel culture, at least under the definition you've proposed, is arguing for a form of public discussion which may be safer, but which is definitively less free.

If the judge said something racist on Twitter, we'd need to say what was said, how it was said, and when it was said. We'd also have to see what the judge said after. Ideally, there'd be a procedure in order. I know that judges come in for regular review (at least in NZ, I assume in other countries as well) where their ability to continue practicing law is evaluated, so that could be factored in.
No, we don't "need" to do anything. That's part of being free to form opinions on your own. You're allowed to think as much or as little as you want, to treat as relevant whatever you think is relevant. You're allowed to form an opinion for yourself instead of simply deferring to authority. This isn't an issue of institutional suitability, it's an issue of public trust.

A small group of people on this thread haven't reached any consensus, you think hundreds of thousands of people are going to behold the same thing in the same manner?
The point of public discourse is not to establish consensus. It is not possible to establish consensus between groups whose interests are diametrically opposed. The point is to decide whose interests should win out. There is going to be a winner, and there is going to be a loser, and the result will be determined not just by raw numbers, but by the degree to which people care. You can not like that, but that is how it works. If you aren't invested enough to have a strong opinion, and if you aren't invested enough to endure the risk of exposing yourself to the public eye, then you probably shouldn't involve yourself in public discourse. A lot of people with horrible opinions, and even people who have done actually abhorrent things, manage to skate by because they keep their mouths shut and don't say stupid things like how being typed angrily at at on the internet is the same as being a victim of the holocaust.

There's a way of alleviating the issues, maybe, in that ensure the actor says nothing about anything, ever, or has free reign of say anything, or give a hyper-detailed contract dictating what they can say, and how. To anyone who wants to try that, well, good luck.
Or, you expect them to behave like the grown-ass-adult they are and exercise basic judgement, because they're in a public facing role and managing their public image is literally the job.

My judgement as an individual is irrelevant in most cases.
It's literally not.

You know that it is not, because your entire argument hinges on the fact that calling for someone to be fired on the internet is an immoral act because they might actually be fired.

None of us has any real power to influence the political system or society as a whole, but we have the power to criticize freely, without moderation, without some self-appointed nanny sitting on the sidelines clucking about how we are being too mean and judgemental.
 
Last edited:

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
They absolutely do. One person by themselves can dig up dirt. An entire group of people acting in concert can drive people off a platform through continued harassment.
My judgement as an individual is irrelevant in most cases. I'm not the one who has power over people's lives, nor am I part of a group who is.
Argue with yourself
It's not a great look to defend harassment either.
Already got a word for harassment. It's "harassment". What we're arguing about is Cancel Culture and how it's different, or if it even exists

Three? I know Lindsay Ellis engaged in a semantics game with "the beast," but who are the other two?
Also, there absolutely is a set of commonalities here, namely:
-Source of the Outrage (Ellis, Zhao, and Weinstein each wrote something "racist," which set off the mob, or in Gunn's case, sexist tweets that were a decade old at that point)
Fishing for feedback and commentary is why you out advance copies for review (Zhao). Ironically, this is the closest to a "culture" you're gonna find here, and it's just how the YA community rolls.
-Moral Outrage & Puritanism ("this person said/wrote this thing, get them out of here")
-Moral Binary Thinking ("no chance for context, or 'redemption,' or shades of grey, it's all or nothing)
So, back when Gunn was announced for the first Guardian movie, "SJW" types brought up those then far more recent tweets as a "you know you hired the Tromeo and Juliet guy for your child friendly superhero movie, right?"
And then they were the ones defending him when Mike "pleaded rape down to aggravated battery" Cernovich dredged them up years later, because your whole argument lies with a false premise
Gunn's actually a bit of an odd one out, I'll grant you that, but the others absolutely fall into the circle of:

Step 1: X says/writes something.

Step 2: The mob descends on them.

Step 3: The person apologizes/explains/contextualizes, but no-one wants to hear it.

Step 4: The mob gets its way after the target acquiesces to their demands.

At least in these cases, there was a step 5 of sorts, in that Weinstein found new work, and Zhao got Blood Heir published eventually. Not sure about Ellis. But then, if someone attacks you, and you recover from the attack, that doesn't mitigate the attack in of itself.
So 25% of your go-to examples doesn't fit, 75% of your go-to examples disagree with your assessment, and 75% of your go-to examples are still working in their chosen fields with their original publishers and on their original platforms. Hell one of the "demands" that was acquiesced to was a rewrite on potentially racist bits in a kids book. And it was published a year and a half ago to absolutely zero controversy

Otherwise known as "how YA publishing works". Did this get a bit out of hand? Probably. Is that "Cancel Culture"? No, it's just social media being shitty. Baring the peanut gallery, that's just how things work. You know, like how Gamers™️ have attitudes and cultures that non-gamers find really weird.
 
Last edited:

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
Not really, I've made an argument in favour of a robust public discussion. Arguing against cancel culture is arguing that public discussion needs to be restricted and limited, that it needs to obey certain rules to ensure it is safe and that those who participate are protected. You're arguing for a form of public discussion in which no one is ever allowed to definitively win or lose, and in which the organic process of curation by public opinion is replaced by the authoritarian moderation of those with influence. Arguing against cancel culture, at least under the definition you've proposed, is arguing for a form of public discussion which may be safer, but which is definitively less free.
So rules like the general laws of society are fair game to be broken to win out in a public discussion?

The point of public discourse is not to establish consensus. It is not possible to establish consensus between groups whose interests are diametrically opposed. The point is to decide whose interests should win out. There is going to be a winner, and there is going to be a loser, and the result will be determined not just by raw numbers, but by the degree to which people care. You can not like that, but that is how it works. If you aren't invested enough to have a strong opinion, and if you aren't invested enough to endure the risk of exposing yourself to the public eye, then you probably shouldn't involve yourself in public discourse. A lot of people with horrible opinions, and even people who have done actually abhorrent things, manage to skate by because they keep their mouths shut and don't say stupid things like how being typed angrily at at on the internet is the same as being a victim of the holocaust.
Sounds like a great way for the most psychopathic "passionate" people to very easily dominate and control discourse.


You know that it is not, because your entire argument hinges on the fact that calling for someone to be fired on the internet is an immoral act because they might actually be fired.
You know it's funny because the Yakuza when they have a beef with a person they don't go after the person. They go after their friends, their family their associates, their places of work etc etc.

Funny but I don't think criminal organisation tactics are really a good idea for society to adopt.

It's been seen as an immoral act for years even in the early days of the more wild west internet if you went after a person job or IRL over an internet debate they not only were allowed to retaliate in kind but the internet would generally join in and help that person. You think the twitter mobs these days are big, it's nothing compared to when the internet as a whole used to get pissed off.

It's intellectual cowardice to call for a person to be fired when you just can't counter their arguments.

None of us has any real power to influence the political system or society as a whole, but we have the power to criticize freely, without moderation, without some self-appointed nanny sitting on the sidelines clucking about how we are being too mean and judgemental.
So we're saying ok to the full range of internet evils that can be used against a person?

Because without moderation it's all go again.
Without moderation and the self imposed honour rules of the internet then there is all manner of nasty underhanded tactics than can be used and they're really not nice. I'm talking the old impersonator technique to frame people for saying awful things. I'm talking swatting happening and and mass pizza orders. All kinds of chaos people can do using the internet. Hell one of the old popular ones was photoshopping people into porn and sending it to people they know. Imagine what nasty stuff deep fake A.I.s could do? Is that really how you wish things to go?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
Argue with yourself

Already got a word for harassment. It's "harassment". What we're arguing about is Cancel Culture and how it's different, or if it even exists


Fishing for feedback and commentary is why you out advance copies for review (Zhao). Ironically, this is the closest to a "culture" you're gonna find here, and it's just how the YA community rolls.
So, back when Gunn was announced for the first Guardian movie, "SJW" types brought up those then far more recent tweets as a "you know you hired the Tromeo and Juliet guy for your child friendly superhero movie, right?"
And then they were the ones defending him when Mike "pleaded rape down to aggravated battery" Cernovich dredged them up years later, because your whole argument lies with a false premise
So 25% of your go-to examples doesn't fit, 75% of your go-to examples disagree with your assessment, and 75% of your go-to examples are still working in their chosen fields with their original publishers and on their original platforms. Hell one of the "demands" that was acquiesced to was a rewrite on potentially racist bits in a kids book. And it was published a year and a half ago to absolutely zero controversy

Otherwise known as "how YA publishing works". Did this get a bit out of hand? Probably. Is that "Cancel Culture"? No, it's just social media being shitty. Baring the peanut gallery, that's just how things work. You know, like how Gamers™️ have attitudes and cultures that non-gamers find really weird.

I'll just refer you to Penn and Teller

 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Not really, I've made an argument in favour of a robust public discussion.
You did. Cancel culture is the antithesis of that.

Arguing against cancel culture is arguing that public discussion needs to be restricted and limited, that it needs to obey certain rules to ensure it is safe and that those who participate are protected.
Um, no. Arguing against cancel culture is arguing for the very opposite.

You're arguing for a form of public discussion in which no one is ever allowed to definitively win or lose, and in which the organic process of curation by public opinion is replaced by the authoritarian moderation of those with influence.
If I was arguing for that, I'd be arguing for cancel culture.

I mean, okay, I wouldn't technically, because arguing for an authoratarian model isn't necessarily cancel culture (there's no shortage of authoratarian regimes in the world), but you're somehow making the argument that cancel culture makes things more free?

Arguing against cancel culture, at least under the definition you've proposed, is arguing for a form of public discussion which may be safer, but which is definitively less free.
I don't see how.

Cancel culture, by definition, ensures that speech is regulated, is less safe (see the numerous instances of threats of physical violence against speakers), and is, yes, less free by extension.

You somehow have an idea that the heckler's veto (among other things) is somehow making things safer, and...freer. I mean, okay, you want to argue that people have the freedom to shut down other people's freedom, in which case, we're in a giant free for all.

No, we don't "need" to do anything. That's part of being free to form opinions on your own. You're allowed to think as much or as little as you want, to treat as relevant whatever you think is relevant. You're allowed to form an opinion for yourself instead of simply deferring to authority. This isn't an issue of institutional suitability, it's an issue of public trust.
My opinion is pretty irrelevant to the case you described. If there's reason to suspect that a judge is biased, and that calls for an investigation, then I'm not in a position to pass judgement. I mean, I can, but my judgement is irrelevant. I can try and make it be relevant, but I'm starting out from a position that's inherently less informed than the people trained to investigate such matters.

The point of public discourse is not to establish consensus. It is not possible to establish consensus between groups whose interests are diametrically opposed. The point is to decide whose interests should win out. There is going to be a winner, and there is going to be a loser, and the result will be determined not just by raw numbers, but by the degree to which people care.
Um, no, consensus is reached plenty of times. There's a reason why various motions in various levels of government and society don't pass via strict majority. One side may gain more than the other, but discussion isn't simply about winners and losers. It can be, such as various debates where there's a clear winner, but that's not how every form of discourse works.

You can not like that, but that is how it works. If you aren't invested enough to have a strong opinion, and if you aren't invested enough to endure the risk of exposing yourself to the public eye, then you probably shouldn't involve yourself in public discourse.
Well, there's more than those reasons to not involve oneself in public discourse. Intellectual humility for starters.

A lot of people with horrible opinions, and even people who have done actually abhorrent things, manage to skate by because they keep their mouths shut and don't say stupid things like how being typed angrily at at on the internet is the same as being a victim of the holocaust.
I'm sorry, who's typed that?

And yes, a lot of people with terrible opinions skate through life with their mouths shut. And a lot of people with not-terrible opinions open their mouths and get punished for it.

Or, you expect them to behave like the grown-ass-adult they are and exercise basic judgement, because they're in a public facing role and managing their public image is literally the job.
And do the mobs have to behave like adults, or do they get a pass?

It's literally not.

You know that it is not, because your entire argument hinges on the fact that calling for someone to be fired on the internet is an immoral act because they might actually be fired.
You mean the argument where I distinguished between "TB has bad opinions" and "remove TB from the site?"

Yes, there's a distinction, because the latter is an immoral act. The chances of it succeeding don't make it less moral.

Undoubtedly there are people who commit immoral acts, who should be fired, but those aren't the things that belong in the court of public opinion.

None of us has any real power to influence the political system or society as a whole, but we have the power to criticize freely, without moderation, without some self-appointed nanny sitting on the sidelines clucking about how we are being too mean and judgemental.
[/QUOTE]

It's so weird, you're going back and forth with your arguments.

Your first post was a case of one person apparently overturning UK law, but your last post is the statement that no one person has such power.

I agree that we should be able to criticize (not cancel) freely, but the "self-appointed nannies" are the ones most likely to side with the cancellers. The types of people who go, "Oh, I'm not offended, but I'm offended on behalf of someone else." Like, even from personal experience, it's bizzare people telling me that I should be offended by something, and if I'm not, then they're offended on my behalf.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
If I was arguing for that, I'd be arguing for cancel culture.

I mean, okay, I wouldn't technically, because arguing for an authoratarian model isn't necessarily cancel culture (there's no shortage of authoratarian regimes in the world), but you're somehow making the argument that cancel culture makes things more free?



I don't see how.

Cancel culture, by definition, ensures that speech is regulated, is less safe (see the numerous instances of threats of physical violence against speakers), and is, yes, less free by extension.

You somehow have an idea that the heckler's veto (among other things) is somehow making things safer, and...freer. I mean, okay, you want to argue that people have the freedom to shut down other people's freedom, in which case, we're in a giant free for all.
Cool. How do you fix "people talking"? Because outside of the harassment portion, which we can define by using the word "harassment", the rest of Cancel Culture is just people talking and maybe somebody listens.

How do you fix that without Cancel Culturing other people's speech?
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Argue with yourself
...how am I arguing against myself with those two phrases?

"One person can dig up dirt on another person" (true)

"A group of people working together can make life hell for that person" (also true - one asshole is a chore, one-hundred is a nightmare)

"My judgement as an individual is irrelevant in most cases" (again, true, because what I think about people is pretty academic)

"I'm not the one who has power over people's lives, nor am I part of a group who is." (also true - I don't hold any authority over people's status, nor am I part of any group that does, or attempts to."

You seem to be conflating opinion with action. There's plenty of people I may judge as being terrible, that's not the same thing as trying to ruin them.

First, Gunn isn't responding to the incident that got him fired. He only does that later in the tweet stream, where he acknowledges that people did try to cancel him, and that they had a right to do that.

Second, I actually agree with Gunn there. Not everything is cancel culture. Being offended by something isn't cancel culture.

That's behind a paywall, so where did she explicitly say it wasn't cancel culture?

Fishing for feedback and commentary is why you out advance copies for review (Zhao). Ironically, this is the closest to a "culture" you're gonna find here, and it's just how the YA community rolls.
That isn't what happened. It wasn't sending out advance copies for review, it was a Twitter mob and "YA influencers."


Also, "just how the YA community rolls." Yeah, it's how it rolls, and it's terrible.


I've done creative writing courses, worked with a book group, worked with an indie publisher, and continue to post and review stuff on FFN. Somehow I managed to do all of that without trying to torpedo people's careers.

So, back when Gunn was announced for the first Guardian movie, "SJW" types brought up those then far more recent tweets as a "you know you hired the Tromeo and Juliet guy for your child friendly superhero movie, right?"
And then they were the ones defending him when Mike "pleaded rape down to aggravated battery" Cernovich dredged them up years later, because your whole argument lies with a false premise
What false premise? You demonstrated that a group of people are hypocrites. Yes, and?

So 25% of your go-to examples doesn't fit, 75% of your go-to examples disagree with your assessment, and 75% of your go-to examples are still working in their chosen fields with their original publishers and on their original platforms. Hell one of the "demands" that was acquiesced to was a rewrite on potentially racist bits in a kids book. And it was published a year and a half ago to absolutely zero controversy

Otherwise known as "how YA publishing works". Did this get a bit out of hand? Probably. Is that "Cancel Culture"? No, it's just social media being shitty. Baring the peanut gallery, that's just how things work. You know, like how Gamers™️ have attitudes and cultures that non-gamers find really weird.
Well first, I don't agree with your percentages, and second, I'm well aware that lots of people end up in new jobs. It doesn't excuse the original firing. Blood Heir was eventually published, but the Twitter pile-on is something that should have never happened in the first place, like a lot of the examples on this thread. A thread that has a lot of examples, in case you haven't noticed.

Also, "just how things work." I mean, sure, okay, it's not like the world is lacking in terrible people, I'm not sure that shrugging one's shoulders is the best course of action because not only have things gotten worse, but keeping your head down doesn't always guarantee safety. And "Gamers." Yeah...remember Gamergate? The thing that made me ensure that I would never call myself a gamer, because I didn't want to be associated with the scum who surfaced in that period? Yeah...it's not like I didn't have forewarning as to what I'd see happening outside the Internet.

Even if you don't want to call it cancel culture, it's still a culture, and it's terrible, and it's getting worse. Me personally, I do, and have, distinguish between harassment and cancel culture (you can harass someone without trying to cancel them), it doesn't make the harassment any less terrible.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Cool. How do you fix "people talking"? Because outside of the harassment portion, which we can define by using the word "harassment", the rest of Cancel Culture is just people talking and maybe somebody listens.

How do you fix that without Cancel Culturing other people's speech?
Oh come on. Even by your own admission with the Blood Heir stuff, and the Gunn links, this is well beyond "just people talking."

Right now, we're just talking. We might even meet in real life and "just be talking." If you, or me, or anyone else goes out to ruin someone's life, we're well beyond just talking.

As to what to do about it, well, there's a top-down and bottom-up approach, and neither are mutually exclusive. There's the question of protection from cancelling, and the attempt at cancelling.

The former is easy enough to sort out - make institutions less cowardly, strengthen employee rights, expand discrimination laws, or alternatively, introduce iron-clad contracts as to what can and can't be done/said. For instance, if an employer doesn't want you to express views, make that crystal clear, and set clear boundaries.

As for the bottom-up approach, that's more difficult, because there's always going to be shits out there. Ultimately, I'd say it lies in education - expose people to a variety of views as possible early on, simulate debates and have them argue for positions that they might not necessarily agree with, expand historical literacy (the Blood Heir/slavery thing is a clear case of education going very wrong, and I've encountered similar sentiments first-hand), and improve social mobility/security - if people feel less helpless, they're less likely to strike out against easy targets. As I described earlier in this thread, there's a reason (IMO) why cancel culture took off the way it did, and when it did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble