Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled

[Terminal Blue]

You did. Cancel culture is the antithesis of that.

No. Cancel culture does not exist. Cancel culture is a word people like you have appropriated to demonize forms of speech you don't like, because you can't admit that you, like everyone else on this planet, have deeply held opinions on what you think people should be able to say and express in public. The difference is that instead of admitting that you just don't want people to be mean to people you care about or sympathize with because it offends your delicate sensibilities, you have to invent a special category of speech that is somehow special and exceptional in the degree of harm it causes, and the definition of which is so vague and meaningless that it can conveniently expand to cover literally any form of expression you personally don't like.

We are all past buying it. We see what you are doing, even if you won't admit it to yourself. Even putting everything else aside, the fact that you think people getting mad at Richard Dawkins for saying weird, borderline racist things on Twitter is some kind of offence against free speech really says everything we need to know about how warped your definition of free speech is.

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.

And now the definition magically contracts again. Cancel culture includes threats of violence now (something which never occurs in speech otherwise) and therefore it is entirely reasonable to treat all actions that you deem to be part of cancel culture as threats of violence. It's magic, isn't it. Normally, we wouldn't think that telling an old man on twitter that he's being kind of racist, or even calling for someone to be fired, was a threat of violence, but because we've magically put all these things into the category of "cancel culture", suddenly they can all be linked to violence. Wow, this doesn't have implications for free expression at all.

Do you know how often I've been threatened with violence just for being in public space? It's a lot more times than I've been physically attacked just for being in public space, and I've been physically attacked several times. The idea that violence and threats are not a part of public space, that it has to be some outside phenomenon which is in no way tied in with the kinds of attitudes and beliefs people tend to get "cancelled" for expressing, is patently untrue to a lot of people. Those people might well ask why it is that they suddenly have to worry about the threatening implications of things they say, or whether the beliefs they hold might be loosely associated with violence, when that's literally what already happens.

This has been a recurring theme for me throughout this discussion. I feel like you are only just now seeing the world that many people have always lived in, and apparently it terrifies you so much that you have to make up some special category of super bad things to put it in. It's not though. This is life as many people have always experienced it. If it horrifies you then good, maybe that should be a call to action.

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.

We always were in a giant free for all. You just never noticed until now.

My opinion is pretty irrelevant to the case you described.

But your opinion is so, deeply relevant to so many other cases which you've felt compelled to tell me about. Where are all those grandiose assumptions about the inner mentality of random people on the internet, and guilt or innocence of those involved. What's the difference here? Is the issue that you, on some level, think it's immoral to challenge authority figures, because that increasingly seems like the deciding factor in a lot of your views on things.

I'm sorry, who's typed that?

That was the tweet that actually got Gina Carano fired from the Mandalorian.

And do the mobs have to behave like adults, or do they get a pass?

I mean, you've spent literally dozens of posts laying into them and trying to explain how universally and singularly evil they are, so no. Clearly they don't.

However, people commenting online generally aren't public figures and thus have no built-in responsibility to the public that has put them in a position of visibility and trust. That's kind of how celebrity works, for better or for worse. Being in the public eye means that people care about you, it means you become an important part of the lives of people you've never met, and that can be a double edged sword. It means sometimes you have to be the person they need you to be rather than the person you actually are, because that's the bargain you made when they let you into their lives, and if you break it they will be hurt.

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

It seems that way because you've deluded yourself into thinking you're arguing for a different position to the one you're actually arguing for.

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.

No. That's really not what I said.

I think you need to read more closely. The reason I stated that one person brought the case is firstly because that's kind of how tort law works, someone needs to be able to claim that they have suffered harm which requires redress and in this case it was one person, albeit a person who, as I pointed out, was funded and very clearly set up by a political pressure group. The second point was to emphasise how weak the case itself actually was, because normally no one person would be able to secure a judgement like that. The point I was actually making was that public discourse in the UK is so completely messed up that such a terrible result, a result that has caused enormous harm and probably very literally lead to preventable deaths, is really not surprising. The judges in that case had no particular expertise or knowledge of the issue they were being called on to judge, and thus it's reasonable to suspect that their perspective on the case was influenced by the wider discussion going on around them. Authority figures are not automatically reasonable, they do not automatically have greater knowledge or understanding because they are big important people. They are as vulnerable to rhetoric as the rest of us, and they are capable of doing far more harm if the wrong rhetoric is allowed to dictate their opinions.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

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.

Nobody set out to "ruin Amélie Wen Zhao's life", for starters. It was some book reviews that briefly got a little out of hand because social media is like that.
James Gunn was a deliberate partisan political attack.
Conflating the two as the same thing just muddies the waters and is worse than useless.

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.

lol, and that's the easy one. James Gunn would never have been hired under that scheme. Protecting free speech by not letting certain people say anything unapproved.

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),

You don't have an advance copy of the book. I doubt you've read a *current* copy of the book. I certainly didn't read either version.
But sure, Mr "The X-men aren't a metaphor for anything and I don't care how many people disagree", tell me more about how the people who actually read the material are obviously wrong.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No. Cancel culture does not exist. Cancel culture is a word people like you have appropriated to demonize forms of speech you don't like, because you can't admit that you, like everyone else on this planet, have deeply held opinions on what you think people should be able to say and express in public. The difference is that instead of admitting that you just don't want people to be mean to people you care about or sympathize with because it offends your delicate sensibilities, you have to invent a special category of speech that is somehow special and exceptional in the degree of harm it causes, and the definition of which is so vague and meaningless that it can conveniently expand to cover literally any form of expression you personally don't like.

The phrase is "I may not agree with what you have to say but I'd die to defend your right to say it"
OR "I may not agree with what you have to say but I'd die to defend your right to make a total tithead of yourself infront of as many people as possible saying it"
NOT "I don't agree with what you say but I'd happily die / kill to make sure you stay silent"

People do have deep held beliefs and opinions. Most people though aren't so unwilling to allow others to speak and are willing to practice some critical thought which says they may be wrong.

As for "Don't want people to be mean"
Libel and criminal threats. There's literal legal precedent for action to be taken against certain speech.

We are all past buying it. We see what you are doing, even if you won't admit it to yourself. Even putting everything else aside, the fact that you think people getting mad at Richard Dawkins for saying weird, borderline racist things on Twitter is some kind of offence against free speech really says everything we need to know about how warped your definition of free speech is.

It's amazing watching people accuse people in this thread of being part of some nefarious group of ne'er-do-well. What are you expecting here? Really? Me and Hawki and others to just confess all and post out totally real membership cards for the SUPREME LEAGUE OF EVIL?
It's funny to see people ascribing malice to some-one who gave his opinion that Church bells sound better than the call to prayer. Are people obliged to like everything equally? OR are you saying certain things just shouldn't be allowed to be said and there should be special protected classes not allowed to be spoken about?

And now the definition magically contracts again. Cancel culture includes threats of violence now (something which never occurs in speech otherwise) and therefore it is entirely reasonable to treat all actions that you deem to be part of cancel culture as threats of violence. It's magic, isn't it. Normally, we wouldn't think that telling an old man on twitter that he's being kind of racist, or even calling for someone to be fired, was a threat of violence, but because we've magically put all these things into the category of "cancel culture", suddenly they can all be linked to violence. Wow, this doesn't have implications for free expression at all.

Do you know how often I've been threatened with violence just for being in public space? It's a lot more times than I've been physically attacked just for being in public space, and I've been physically attacked several times. The idea that violence and threats are not a part of public space, that it has to be some outside phenomenon which is in no way tied in with the kinds of attitudes and beliefs people tend to get "cancelled" for expressing, is patently untrue to a lot of people. Those people might well ask why it is that they suddenly have to worry about the threatening implications of things they say, or whether the beliefs they hold might be loosely associated with violence, when that's literally what already happens.

So we're going with threats should be fine now?
I've mentioned before there are very much different levels of threats some very much more severe than others and while all are contemptible in my view it's particularly vile when they become specific and detailed to intimidate containing private info. E.G. The kind that happened to Stanley Kubrick / His family.

This has been a recurring theme for me throughout this discussion. I feel like you are only just now seeing the world that many people have always lived in, and apparently it terrifies you so much that you have to make up some special category of super bad things to put it in. It's not though. This is life as many people have always experienced it. If it horrifies you then good, maybe that should be a call to action.

I'm seeing a world of people who think they can win and dominate because they're angry they feel they lost before and want to punish people they lost to.

How Hatred Came To Dominate American Politics

To anyone following American politics, it’s not exactly news that Democrats and Republicans don’t like each other. Take what happened in the presidential debate…

fivethirtyeight.com

It terrifies me I'll readily admit it because I know my history and where this road can go, none of the places good.

We always were in a giant free for all. You just never noticed until now.

No we really haven't. People held back. People restrained themselves from full guns because they want to win on their points. People only went full on in response to others going full on first normally because it was understood only despicable individuals decided to use "No bad tactics only bad targets" as a mentality.

But your opinion is so, deeply relevant to so many other cases which you've felt compelled to tell me about. Where are all those grandiose assumptions about the inner mentality of random people on the internet, and guilt or innocence of those involved. What's the difference here? Is the issue that you, on some level, think it's immoral to challenge authority figures, because that increasingly seems like the deciding factor in a lot of your views on things.

yet aren't you making a grandiose assumption about Hawki?

That was the tweet that actually got Gina Carano fired from the Mandalorian.

Actually no she didn't she tweeted the equivalent of

It's important to remember that the Holocaust actually did not start from gas chambers. This hatred gradually developed from words, stereotypes & prejudice through legal exclusion, dehumanisation & escalating violence.

So do you object to that message and find it so inappropriate to be allowed to say?

I mean, you've spent literally dozens of posts laying into them and trying to explain how universally and singularly evil they are, so no. Clearly they don't.

However, people commenting online generally aren't public figures and thus have no built-in responsibility to the public that has put them in a position of visibility and trust. That's kind of how celebrity works, for better or for worse. Being in the public eye means that people care about you, it means you become an important part of the lives of people you've never met, and that can be a double edged sword. It means sometimes you have to be the person they need you to be rather than the person you actually are, because that's the bargain you made when they let you into their lives, and if you break it they will be hurt.

Points to libel laws.

No. That's really not what I said.

I think you need to read more closely. The reason I stated that one person brought the case is firstly because that's kind of how tort law works, someone needs to be able to claim that they have suffered harm which requires redress and in this case it was one person, albeit a person who, as I pointed out, was funded and very clearly set up by a political pressure group. The second point was to emphasise how weak the case itself actually was, because normally no one person would be able to secure a judgement like that. The point I was actually making was that public discourse in the UK is so completely messed up that such a terrible result, a result that has caused enormous harm and probably very literally lead to preventable deaths, is really not surprising. The judges in that case had no particular expertise or knowledge of the issue they were being called on to judge, and thus it's reasonable to suspect that their perspective on the case was influenced by the wider discussion going on around them. Authority figures are not automatically reasonable, they do not automatically have greater knowledge or understanding because they are big important people. They are as vulnerable to rhetoric as the rest of us, and they are capable of doing far more harm if the wrong rhetoric is allowed to dictate their opinions.

You get Judges often have not special knowledge on things they judge on and are reliant on expert information being provided to make their judgements.

 

[Trunkage]

As to cancel culture existing... it like that Jessica Yaviz situation. Yep, there sure are some bad transpeople. It doesn't mean you ban them from bathrooms and spas, doesnt mean you ban any books fiction or otherwise, doesnt mean you ban any medication related to it. Because that would be worse than cancel culture

If there is cancel culture, criticise it. Also understand that just because you don't agree with the criticism, doesn't mean they are cancelling you. Lastly, if you are trying to bully someone or some demographic off social media or society in general, you don't get my sympathy. Eg. If JK Rowling doesn't want cancelling happening to her, maybe stop cancelling others first

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

As to cancel culture existing... it like that Jessica Yaviz situation. Yep, there sure are some bad transpeople. It doesn't mean you ban them from bathrooms and spas, doesnt mean you ban any books fiction or otherwise, doesnt mean you ban any medication related to it. Because that would be worse than cancel culture

If there is cancel culture, criticise it. Also understand that just because you don't agree with the criticism, doesn't mean they are cancelling you. Lastly, if you are trying to bully someone or some demographic off social media or society in general, you don't get my sympathy. Eg. If JK Rowling doesn't want cancelling happening to her, maybe stop cancelling others first

Except common sense suggests you try to create laws to avoid leaving them massively open to abuse. Making sure people like Yaniv can't abuse laws should be see as a good thing as even if it takes a bit longer it will be a better more robust law.

As for J.K. Rowling




Who was she trying to cancel again?

 

[Terminal Blue]

Who was she trying to cancel again?

This is kind of like if you took a series of statements by someone which all began with the phrase "I'm not a racist but.." cut out the sections that followed, then used them as evidence that that person had said nothing objectionable.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

This is kind of like if you took a series of statements by someone which all began with the phrase "I'm not a racist but.." cut out the sections that followed, then used them as evidence that that person had said nothing objectionable.

You know it's funny I've spent post after post calling out this idea people keep coming up with that there's some huge conspiracy going on and everyone secretly believes something entirely different to what they're actually saying.

Does J.K. Rowling?
I don't know but so far indications show not really.

I've also pointed out how people were more than happy to make up bullshit lies to try and push certain narratives and positions to cancel people they see as opposition. What do we see from J.K. Rowling? Her calling out some-one spreading round fake tweets.

So was J.K Rowling trying to cancel anyone?
Or did some-one want people to believe she was?

 

[Hawki]

No. Cancel culture does not exist.

Keep telling yourself that.

Cancel culture is a word people like you

Care to be more specific?

have appropriated to demonize forms of speech you don't like,

Yes, because the heckler's veto, summary firing, censorship, and everything else, are "speech."

Saying "I disagree with you and here's why" is speech. Making every effort in my power to ruin your life, to prevent you from talking, to getting you fired, is hardly "spech." Not in the same way.

because you can't admit that you, like everyone else on this planet, have deeply held opinions on what you think people should be able to say and express in public.

I do, you do, everyone does, which is why mob rule isn't a good method of determining what is and isn't said, and what are and aren't the barriers.

The difference is that instead of admitting that you just don't want people to be mean to people you care about or sympathize with because it offends your delicate sensibilities,

First, cancel culture is well beyond "just being mean."

Second, at least I have sensibilities.

you have to invent a special category of speech that is somehow special and exceptional in the degree of harm it causes,

First, I didn't invent the term, nor the practice.

Second, there's already a category of speech that causes harm, and that's hate speech. We can disagree on what constitutes that, I wouldn't call it cancelling. I can easily try to cancel someone without engaging in hate speech.

and the definition of which is so vague and meaningless that it can conveniently expand to cover literally any form of expression you personally don't like.

What we're dealing with isn't expression though, it's anti-expression.

There's no shortage of expressions, written and spoken in the world, that I don't like. That doesn't mean I go out and try and suppress it.

We are all past buying it.

Who's "we?"

We see what you are doing, even if you won't admit it to yourself.

I certainly see what you're doing.

Even putting everything else aside, the fact that you think people getting mad at Richard Dawkins for saying weird, borderline racist things on Twitter is some kind of offence against free speech really says everything we need to know about how warped your definition of free speech is.

The fact that you can take that tweet and cosntrue it as racist says everything I need to know about how warped your definition of racism is.

And again, who's "we?" Who are you speaking for?

And now the definition magically contracts again. Cancel culture includes threats of violence now (something which never occurs in speech otherwise)

Again, we have a word for speech that has threats of violence - hate speech.

and therefore it is entirely reasonable to treat all actions that you deem to be part of cancel culture as threats of violence.

You're trying to equivocate that all cancel culture is violence.

Violence is violence. Sometimes it can slip into violence (again, see campus protests, threats of physical harm, death threats), sometimes not.

It's magic, isn't it. Normally, we wouldn't think that telling an old man on twitter that he's being kind of racist, or even calling for someone to be fired, was a threat of violence, but because we've magically put all these things into the category of "cancel culture", suddenly they can all be linked to violence. Wow, this doesn't have implications for free expression at all.

You're implications for free expression are clear, because you're apparently content for a free for all, no holds barred approach. And as satisfying as it is to see cancellers be cancelled (see Alexi McCammond for instance), it isn't an experience I'd wish on anyone. Yes, even you, believe it or not.

Also, people can call Dawkins racist all they want, that wasn't the issue. The issue was the sheer hypocrisy involved. Dawkins has been criticizing Islam and Christianity for years, but THAT is what set people off? We're at the point where preferring one form of music to another is a form of racism, which would mean everyone everywhere is racist by the same criteria. To answer the question Dawkins asked, yes, that he likes church bells more than the adhan is probably due to cultural upbringing.

Dawkins wasn't cancelled for the tweet, true (he had his Humanist Award rescinded over Dolzeal), and criticism of the tweet isn't cancelling, but I, or "we," since you insist on using that, can smell hypocrisy from a mile away. It's "all religions can be criticized, but some can be criticized more than others."

But racist. Sure. Y'know, there's at least a train of logic you could follow to Islamophobia, if you were completely ignorant of Dawkins' record on religion up to that point, but that's about it.

Do you know how often I've been threatened with violence just for being in public space? It's a lot more times than I've been physically attacked just for being in public space, and I've been physically attacked several times. The idea that violence and threats are not a part of public space, that it has to be some outside phenomenon which is in no way tied in with the kinds of attitudes and beliefs people tend to get "cancelled" for expressing, is patently untrue to a lot of people. Those people might well ask why it is that they suddenly have to worry about the threatening implications of things they say, or whether the beliefs they hold might be loosely associated with violence, when that's literally what already happens.

You don't need to tell me about violence. I've seen violence. I've helped people threatened with violence. I've helped people stay clear of violence. None of that was "cancelling."

Ive said it once and I'll say it again, cancel culture isn't violence ipso facto. It can absolutely involve violence, but not necessarily. And so we're clear, violence is worse than any cancelling, but that's not what this thread is (or was) about.

This has been a recurring theme for me throughout this discussion. I feel like you are only just now seeing the world that many people have always lived in, and apparently it terrifies you so much that you have to make up some special category of super bad things to put it in. It's not though. This is life as many people have always experienced it. If it horrifies you then good, maybe that should be a call to action.

Except it isn't the world we've always lived in. There's always been threats of violence. Certain people are at risk of violence more than others. The phenomena we have now isn't a new practice per se, but it's a phenomena that went into overdrive recently, exacerbated by a conflagation of factors that made things explode when it did, and how it did.

We always were in a giant free for all. You just never noticed until now.

No, we weren't.

This isn't an argument against there being violence (which there is), or homophobia/transphobia (which there is), or racism (which there is). Of course those things existed, and still exist. But when it came to debate, and expression of ideas, there were generally accepted norms and principles, and when it came to debate, it's rarely been a free for all, but rather an aligning of sides and ideas. On this very thread, we can draw a line between two 'sides,' and most can fall under it.

But it's arguable that we're in a free for all now, and that isn't good for anyone. Because if there's no rules, or no-one knows the rules, then we can either try to agree on some rules, or simply shrug our shoulders and make it a free for all, where anyone can resort to any tactic.

But your opinion is so, deeply relevant to so many other cases which you've felt compelled to tell me about. Where are all those grandiose assumptions about the inner mentality of random people on the internet, and guilt or innocence of those involved. What's the difference here? Is the issue that you, on some level, think it's immoral to challenge authority figures, because that increasingly seems like the deciding factor in a lot of your views on things.

Lots of people discussed here aren't authority figures. If anything, the less authority you have, the more vulnerable you are.

As for assumptions about inner mentality, well, of course I don't know the intricacies of one's mind, but I first saw it via Gamergate, and then saw it spread to the real world. But I'd argue that there absolutely has been a shift of mentality. In the 1960s for instance, students protested against bans against speakers coming to campus (basically arguing against McCarthyism). Nowadays, students argue FOR bans.

That was the tweet that actually got Gina Carano fired from the Mandalorian.

You mean the tweet where she commented that the Holocaust didn't begin with gas chambers, but rather demonization? Commenting that the shift in US political discourse had become toxic and polarized?

Y'know, I may as well address the Carano thing now, because while I wouldn't jump to the Holocaust as a point of comparison, I don't see what the issue with that tweet is. The US is dangerously polarized, with mass demonization on both sides of the political asile. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it, so, what, when you throw in a Holocaust analogy, that's the breaking point? If Carano was going to be fired for anything, it should have been anti-vax tweets (not saying she should have been), but instead, we get the 'lesser evil' tweet being the breaking point.

Also, many people don't get as many chances. Tweets from years prior can be dredged up, and nup, you're out. It sucked for Gunn, it sucked for Robinson, it even sucks for Alexi McCammond, despite her earlier cancelling attempts. People can call it "accountability culture," but I've never seen accountability as being that cruel and vindictive.

I mean, you've spent literally dozens of posts laying into them and trying to explain how universally and singularly evil they are, so no. Clearly they don't.

However, people commenting online generally aren't public figures and thus have no built-in responsibility to the public that has put them in a position of visibility and trust. That's kind of how celebrity works, for better or for worse. Being in the public eye means that people care about you, it means you become an important part of the lives of people you've never met, and that can be a double edged sword. It means sometimes you have to be the person they need you to be rather than the person you actually are, because that's the bargain you made when they let you into their lives, and if you break it they will be hurt.

I actually agree that celebrities are held to higher standards, that doesn't excuse a lack of standards elsewhere.

It seems that way because you've deluded yourself into thinking you're arguing for a different position to the one you're actually arguing for.

Even if that's true, you don't seem to have a position beyond "free for all, let everyone go for it, let's not worry about this."

You really want to employ that position? You work at a university after all.

 

[Hawki]

Nobody set out to "ruin Amélie Wen Zhao's life", for starters. It was some book reviews that briefly got a little out of hand because social media is like that.
James Gunn was a deliberate partisan political attack.

You metion conflating in your post. You're the one who's conflating book reviews that "got a little out of hand" with mass harassment. They also weren't even really reviews, because the mere back-of-book description was enough to trigger some people.

I know about reviews. I've reviewed stuff, between friends, and on the net. There's even reviews I've given that have pissed off the authors. I've never gone so far as to attack them directly, or to drive them off their platform.

As for Gunn, partisan attack, sure, but there's the firing itself. What binds them is this zero-tolerance, moral puritanism approach. The Blood Heir description had people think she was racist, ergo, racist - drive her off/away. Gunn said things years ago? Out he goes.

Bullying, I can understand, but when you combine bullying with moral puritanism, this idea that you're either pure, and untouched, and blameless, or you're scum...well, that's certainly on the way to cancelling someone. It explains the all or nothing approach we've seen in various areas.

lol, and that's the easy one. James Gunn would never have been hired under that scheme. Protecting free speech by not letting certain people say anything unapproved.

Gunn didn't make the tweets while employed by Disney though.

Again, this is partly why I think we need to expland workplace rights. Because if I (or you) tweet something years ago, then join an employer, then they find out what we said/did, should that be fireable cause? And if it is, you have to explain the double standards. Gunn got fired for one tweet, Carano got fired after various tweets, Jeong didn't get fired at all (for the record, the NYT made the right call, even if I don't agree with their reasoning). And now we have that US athlete (the one who didn't stand for the anthem or something) being raked over the coals for tweets she made in the 2000s, because people don't like the flag being disrespected. So if she's fired for that, then we have a standards problem, and if she isn't fired, then we also have a standards problem, because there's no consistency.

Again, see the minefield analogy. There's no consensus as to what you can say or can't, and no consensus as to what punishment should be. And that would be bad enough if not for people actively encouraging it.

You don't have an advance copy of the book. I doubt you've read a *current* copy of the book. I certainly didn't read either version.

Most of the people didn't read the book, period. They either heard what others said, or saw the description and concluded "racist!"

It's also academic. If I have an advance copy of a book, that's in confidentiality - I've been given an advanced copy of a book before, I reviewed it on Amazon, I disclaimed that I'd been given an advanced copy, and I gave my honest thoughts. I didn't disclose it to anyone. And that aside, if I dislike a book, if I absolutely despise it, that isn't licence to attack the author. I've maintained consistency on this for years - "attack the product, not the person." What happened with Blood Heir went well, WELL beyond attacking the product, and it was attacks made by people who hadn't even read the damn thing.

But sure, Mr "The X-men aren't a metaphor for anything and I don't care how many people disagree", tell me more about how the people who actually read the material are obviously wrong.

First, I said that the X-Men weren't intended as a metaphor when they were concieved. If you disagree, argue against the Marvel writers who've said so.

Second, I've acknowledged that the X-Men can be a metaphor for minorities, I've just said here, as I have for ages, that I don't think they're a good one (though can be a good metaphor in other areas).

Third, I've never tried to ruin the career of anyone who's worked on the X-Men based on my thoughts on the work, or attacked them directly. That isn't something that gives me brownie points (if anything, it's the bare minimum of what I'd expect of a person), but hey, guess we can't even have that now.

Fourth, again, a lot of people piling on Zhao (and lots of other YA authors) DIDN'T READ THE WORK. People were willing to try and ruin these authors' careers based on something they'd never even sampled. Even after The Continent was released, I saw on Goodreads that people have left one star reviews with the sentiment of "I actually haven't read this book, but I know it's terrible." Now, that's not cancel culture per se, but if you're going to try and ruin someone for something they wrote/said, at least read/hear what they wrote/said.

If you're reading this, I want to reiterate that, again, criticism isn't cancel culture, nor is harassment. Not inherently. But there absolutely has been a surge of 'moral purity' in these areas that's a weird mirror of the type of people who would have railed against Dungeons and Dragons or violent movies. It's this weird secular version that's appropriated original sin, but without the promise of redemption. We saw it in Gamergate (again, see the tirades against Sarkeesian and the attempt to shut her up), and we're seeing it now elsewhere. And, yeah, I think it's a problem. Not the biggest problem in the world, but still, a problem.

 

[Terminal Blue]

So was J.K Rowling trying to cancel anyone?
Or did some-one want people to believe she was?

This is going to entirely depend on what you mean by "cancelling" someone. In the original AAVE sense of the word, she "cancelled" Steven King by publicly distancing herself from him because he said she was wrong about trans women, for example. However, since cancelling in the context of this thread merely means saying things about someone that has negative consequences for them, then yes. JK Rowling hasn't just "cancelled" people, she seems to have devoted much of her life to doing so.

For example, in June 2020, JK Rowling publicly went off on an article published in a relatively unknown development newsletter because it used the phrase "people who menstruate" instead of "women". In essence, she took an article no one outside of a small community of people who work in or around international development would ever see and decided to use her public status to attack it because it used a phrase she didn't like, even though that phrase is technically more correct and is standard among the small community the article was written for.

The third tweet you quoted is actually a response she wrote to criticism she received over that particular outburst, which kind of changes the meaning a little. The point is to convince us that there's no problem with JK Rowling policing language, even the language of a community she's in no way a part of, and enforcing her personal belief that only women menstruate because she apparently knows and loves trans people. It's literally just a variation on the "I have a black friend" line, and it's not even the most blatant time she's used that defence.

My advice, if you think JK Rowling actually, sincerely loves trans people and that the people who question this are somehow indulging in conspiracy theory, spend a moment looking up the people she quotes, the people she references, the people whom she cites as authorities on trans issues and from whom she's clearly getting her sense of the world. Those people don't love trans people, those people hate trans people. Those people , ideally, don't want trans people to exist, and they certainly don't want trans people to feel in any way accepted or affirmed or allowed to describe themselves in their own terms. Those people will interview transphobic parents and come up with imaginary medical conditions to explain why trans people are mentally ill. Those people will openly argue that trans people being publicly visible and talking about their experiences is a threat to children that needs to be suppressed, or that trans women should be barred from feminist discourse because by existing they take attention away from the "real" women.

JK Rowling will quote these people, she will repeat their arguments wholesale and use terminology they've specifically invented to demonize, pathologize and exclude trans people from society, from public life, from the care and medical treatment that they need, and then deny she's transphobic by claiming that she actually loves trans people. Her entire worldview (although admittedly, this could apply to basically anyone who cribs their opinions from TERFs) is a system of contradictions. She rails about the medicalization of trans youth, but then opposes legislation aimed at demedicalizing the process. She will make a big deal about standing with trans women as fellow victims of male violence, while also seeking to deny trans women access to the relevant services. She claims to want to protect trans youth from being pressured while endorsing the use of conversion therapy.

I'm not sure how much of this qualifies as cancelling to you because noone's been able to offer a definition of cancelling that seems to make any sense, but JK Rowling has concretely and definitively made life worse for trans people, and openly supports people who want to see trans people removed from society. She must, in some sense, believe in what she is doing because she's managed to sacrifice much of her own career and legacy to it, but noone is compelled to stand idly by and let her do it.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Care to be more specific?

I'm guessing they Terminal means you're now one of us in the League of:
Equality
Vice
Independence
and
Logic
now, you don't join as such you get thrown in the pit with the rest of us.

In case I need to be clear before anyone takes this as actual evidence that me and other members are in some secret order working against people here as a group effort, this was a Joke the League Acronym would be EVIL. I will be making another such joke up next.

Who's "we?"

I certainly see what you're doing.



The fact that you can take that tweet and cosntrue it as racist says everything I need to know about how warped your definition of racism is.

And again, who's "we?" Who are you speaking for?

I'm guessing TB means the members of the
Grand
Order
of
Oppressed
Defenders
Impaling
Evil
Scum
sect.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

This is going to entirely depend on what you mean by "cancelling" someone. In the original ABVE sense of the word, she "cancelled" Steven King by publicly distancing herself from him because he said she was wrong about trans women, for example. However, since cancelling in the context of this thread merely means saying things about someone that has negative consequences for them, then yes. JK Rowling hasn't just "cancelled" people, she seems to have devoted much of her life to doing so.

Ok how did she cancel Stephen King again? Because you complain about people making the term cancel culture meaningless but use it to define one person distancing themselves from another (Which apparently you got all that from her un-liking a single tweet of his). Seems you're helping push the term cancel culture to be meaningless more than others here lol. Also the tweet Stephen King put out was "Trans rights are human rights" after one of J.K. Rowling's rather dedicated haters tweeted at him to do so.

So again who has J.K. Rowling cancelled?

For example, in June 2020, JK Rowling publicly went off on an article published in a relatively unknown development newsletter because it used the phrase "people who menstruate" instead of "women". In essence, she took an article no one outside of a small community of people who work in or around international development would ever see and decided to use her public status to attack it because it used a phrase she didn't like, even though that phrase is technically more correct and is standard among the small community the article was written for.

Because it shows how far things have become distorted that a small group feels the need to adopt such language lest they get backlash or face accusations against them. She had a point, women, use women, it's true for so much of the majority of people that if we did it for everything or made similar changes to other areas we'd be living in one hell of a silly world.

The third tweet you quoted is actually a response she wrote to criticism she received over that particular outburst, which kind of changes the meaning a little. The point is to convince us that there's no problem with JK Rowling policing language, even the language of a community she's in no way a part of, and enforcing her personal belief that only women menstruate because she apparently knows and loves trans people. It's literally just a variation on the "I have a black friend" line, and it's not even the most blatant time she's used that defence.

Except she's objecting to policing of language already for fear that some-one will be offended because the phrase women is deemed not inclusive enough.

My advice, if you think JK Rowling actually, sincerely loves trans people and that the people who question this are somehow indulging in conspiracy theory, spend a moment looking up the people she quotes, the people she references, the people whom she cites as authorities on trans issues and from whom she's clearly getting her sense of the world. Those people don't love trans people, those people hate trans people. Those people , ideally, don't want trans people to exist, and they certainly don't want trans people to feel in any way accepted or affirmed or allowed to describe themselves in their own terms. Those people will interview transphobic parents and come up with imaginary medical conditions to explain why trans people are mentally ill. Those people will openly argue that trans people being publicly visible and talking about their experiences is a threat to children that needs to be suppressed, or that trans women should be barred from feminist discourse because by existing they take attention away from the "real" women.

Oh so guilt by association now?
Are you sure this isn't McCarthyism 2.0?
Is J.K. Rowling not allowed her own views and must absolutely share the 100% views of people she speaks with or quotes?
Are people either all good or all evil thus nothing they've ever said can have merit on it's own?

JK Rowling will quote these people, she will repeat their arguments wholesale and use terminology they've specifically invented to demonize, pathologize and exclude trans people from society, from public life, from the care and medical treatment that they need, and then deny she's transphobic by claiming that she actually loves trans people. Her entire worldview (although admittedly, this could apply to basically anyone who cribs their opinions from TERFs) is a system of contradictions. She rails about the medicalization of trans youth, but then opposes legislation aimed at demedicalizing the process. She will make a big deal about standing with trans women as fellow victims of male violence, while also seeking to deny trans women access to the relevant services. She claims to want to protect trans youth from being pressured while endorsing the use of conversion therapy.

Sounds all very conspiratorial the idea they've invented special language designed to cause harm and that language is what men and women? Language that has existed for likely millennia in one form or another

I'm not sure how much of this qualifies as cancelling to you because noone's been able to offer a definition of cancelling that seems to make any sense, but JK Rowling has concretely and definitively made life worse for trans people, and openly supports people who want to see trans people removed from society. She must, in some sense, believe in what she is doing because she's managed to sacrifice much of her own career and legacy to it, but noone is compelled to stand idly by and let her do it.

Actually I did give a definition of cancelling a few posts back.

What has she sacrificed and not seen people just try to take?
Other than her sense of safety of course

JK Rowling installs security gates at Edinburgh home after disputes

JK Rowling is installing security gates at her £2 million home in Edinburgh as part of a revamp of her Scottish estates.The author also had plans approved to erect a pair of 1.2 metre high gates outside Killiechassie estate near Aberfeldy. Rowling, 54, became the target of transgender activists

www.thetimes.co.uk

Harry Potter and the ring of steel

Harry Potter and the ring of steel

www.thescottishsun.co.uk

 

[Hawki]

As to cancel culture existing... it like that Jessica Yaviz situation. Yep, there sure are some bad transpeople. It doesn't mean you ban them from bathrooms and spas, doesnt mean you ban any books fiction or otherwise, doesnt mean you ban any medication related to it. Because that would be worse than cancel culture

If there is cancel culture, criticise it. Also understand that just because you don't agree with the criticism, doesn't mean they are cancelling you. Lastly, if you are trying to bully someone or some demographic off social media or society in general, you don't get my sympathy. Eg. If JK Rowling doesn't want cancelling happening to her, maybe stop cancelling others first

Sorry, Jessica Who? I did a web search, couldn't find anything.

As for the rest of what you said...well, weird thing is, I actually agree with you. Except for Rowling, I'm not sure who she tried to cancel per se. If anything, the only real attempt to cancel her that I know of was when people tried to stop The Ickabog from being published.

It's amazing watching people accuse people in this thread of being part of some nefarious group of ne'er-do-well. What are you expecting here? Really? Me and Hawki and others to just confess all and post out totally real membership cards for the SUPREME LEAGUE OF EVIL?

Psst...dwarf...

Can you send me another membership card? I lost mine.

SLOE 4EVER.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Ok how did she cancel Stephen King again? Because you complain about people making the term cancel culture meaningless but use it to define one person distancing themselves from another (Which apparently you got all that from her un-liking a single tweet of his).

The term "cancelling" originated in the black community in the US to refer, literally, to the act of distancing yourself from a person who you no longer want to interact with. Cancelling someone, in this sense, means cutting them out of your life. Like many black vernacular terms, the word was later incorporated into online activism, with broadly the same implications. If you cancel a celebrity, it means you've made a personal decision to cut that person out of your life.

Cancel culture does not exist. It's the invention of right wing provocateurs and celebrities who pretend they love free speech but also don't like people publicly voicing criticism of them.

So again who has J.K. Rowling cancelled?

JK Rowling doesn't need to cancel anyone. The people she goes after, the "trans activists" she seems to blame for all societal ills, were kind of already pre-cancelled by virtue of already existing on the margins of public discourse. The trans kids she fought so hard to deny medical care to don't have a voice, they can't question her weird and bizarre antipathy towards them. JK Rowling doesn't have to cut anyone out of her life, she certainly doesn't need to cut anyone out of public discussion, she merely wants to keep people who already don't have the influence or political agency that she has from ever gaining a voice that can contradict her.

If you want to pretend that cancel culture is real, then fine, we can all play pretend, but if you want to pretend that cancel culture is real and yet doesn't include what JK Rowling does, then you're essentially saying that, in the context of public space, might makes right, and that we only owe sympathy to people who already have the influence and the public visibility to tell us how hard done by they are. But then, that's kind of what I've suspected was happening all along..

Because it shows how far things have become distorted that a small group feels the need to adopt such language lest they get backlash or face accusations against them.

What the fuck.

Firstly, is it genuinely that difficult to believe that a group of people who work in the third sector and who are concerned with making the world a better and more equal place might simply adopt inclusive language because it is a good gesture, or, failing that, because it is technically correct. A lot of the people I went to university with ended up in international development, we're talking about highly educated people who often have backgrounds in gender and sexuality studies because these are directly relevant to the work they do. They may be dealing with regions or situations where getting access to sanitary products is particularly difficult or unsafe for trans men and other gender variant and intersexed people, so it's directly relevant to their work.

And they did face backlash and accusations. They faced backlash and accusations because JK Rowling (or, let's be real, her TERF friends on mumsnet) decided to go trawling the internet for some article in a professional journal for people working in development because that was apparently the only place she could go to get angry about people not affirming her view that only women menstruate.

Do you not even see the irony in saying "oh, well this proves how people are shamed and coerced over their use of language" when the people you're defending literally tried to shame and coerce this random article because it didn't use the exact words they wanted, even though they are technically wrong and the readers of that journal would probably have known why.

Is J.K. Rowling not allowed her own views and must absolutely share the 100% views of people she speaks with or quotes?

She has made her own views, and the degree to which they accord with those of her general circuit, quite clear. Even if we assume she agrees with absolutely nothing else, it's still entirely deserving of harsh criticism.

Sounds all very conspiratorial the idea they've invented special language designed to cause harm and that language is what men and women?

Sadly, it goes a bit beyond that.

For example, "rapid onset gender dysphoria" is a phrase that should set off alarm bells every time you hear it. There's a deliberate, intentional malice to the way ROGD was manufactured, and I say manufactured because they used exactly the same technique as the Andrew Wakefield used to manufacture the claim that the MMR vaccine causes autism.

There are people out there, quite a lot of people actually, who are so invested in their hatred of trans people that they don't actually care whether or not their hatred is justified. They don't even need to be convinced, instead they will invent whatever excuse and whatever evidence they need in order to eliminate sympathy and promote antipathy towards trans people. I don't think JK Rowling is one of those people, but despite her claims at having researched this issue and despite her alleged sympathy, she's being played. The problem is, it doesn't really matter if she still repeats the same things and still perpetuates an incredibly hateful worldview.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

If you're reading this, I want to reiterate that, again, criticism isn't cancel culture, nor is harassment. Not inherently. But there absolutely has been a surge of 'moral purity' in these areas that's a weird mirror of the type of people who would have railed against Dungeons and Dragons or violent movies. It's this weird secular version that's appropriated original sin, but without the promise of redemption. We saw it in Gamergate (again, see the tirades against Sarkeesian and the attempt to shut her up), and we're seeing it now elsewhere. And, yeah, I think it's a problem. Not the biggest problem in the world, but still, a problem.

Man, you keep saying variations of "without redemption" or "no change is ever enough" and then you keep posting examples where...people changed and aren't still being attacked. Blood Heir got a small rewrite and released without controversy. The attack on Gunn was almost instantly recognized as the partisan and blatantly hypocritical political attack it was. The commentary of the old tweets from the Olympian simmered down as soon as people remembered they were talking about a literal child.

Most of the examples you bring up are the exact opposite of "not allowing redemption". It's also not anything close to Original Sin, the idea that literally everybody is sinful and in need of outside redemption and I genuinely do not understand the connection.

Hell, you keep trying to say that this is some new damaging thing while bringing up past examples of moral panics that caused far more damage. The Satanic Panic ended thousands of careers and resulted in a not-insignificant number of daycare providers landing in prison based on bullshit. Partisan political hacks have been drumming up fears and directing hate since long before I was born.

Shit dude, most of your examples involve you getting offended on other people's behalf when those people do not believe in Cancel Culture.

 

[Hawki]

Man, you keep saying variations of "without redemption" or "no change is ever enough" and then you keep posting examples where...people changed and aren't still being attacked. Blood Heir got a small rewrite and released without controversy. The attack on Gunn was almost instantly recognized as the partisan and blatantly hypocritical political attack it was. The commentary of the old tweets from the Olympian simmered down as soon as people remembered they were talking about a literal child.

...alright, I'm not trying to engage in hyperbole, but it seems that we have fundamentally different views of reality.

I mean, first, I've posted examples of people who haven't been 'redeemed,' so to speak - some people were let back in the fold, but others weren't. Daniel Elder, Hartley Sawyer, April Powers (whose troubles began for NOT saying something, which is a first for me). There's multiple examples where people haven't really recovered. That's not even covering the mental health effects. Like, take Kelly Marie Tran. Yes, she's back in acting to some extent, but you really don't think these kinds of activities don't take a mental toll on you?

Second, let's look at the specific context you're referring to. You say "people changed, and aren't being attacked." That kind of raises the implication that they DID need to change, that they DID deserve what happened. So, according to you, Zhao DID deserve to be put through her baptism of fire. Gunn DID deserve to be fired. Only I don't see them as being different people. When Gunn made those tweets for instance, do you think he was the same person he was when he made them? Was any number of people who said or wrote something bad years ago? You mention that the attack on Gunn was a partisan attack (which it was), but seem fine with Disney firing him, and then rehiring him after he 'redeemed' himself. Only I'm not sure how, because Gunn seems to be fundamentally the same person he was before he was fired, and while I can't speak for Zhao as a person, you seem perfectly fine with the notion of social media pile-ons as long as it gets a just result.

When I say lack of forgiveness, it's usually in reference to the people doing the cancelling and/or harassment. The mere description of Blood Heir sent people into a rage. The existence of the tweets in of themselves was enough to get Gunn fired, and those like him. If that's the standard by which people are judged, where anything written, in any context, is enough to get you harassed and/or fired...well, is that the world you want to live in?

Most of the examples you bring up are the exact opposite of "not allowing redemption". It's also not anything close to Original Sin, the idea that literally everybody is sinful and in need of outside redemption and I genuinely do not understand the connection.

When I say original sin, I'm referring to the idea that you do something, and you're forever tainted by it, no matter how hard you might seek forgiveness, or apologize, or anything like that. But again, when you write "the exact opposite of not allowing redemption," in my mind, they're the exact example of not allowing redemption. Or at least, you seem to be operating under the premise that people like Zhao and Gunn needed to change, while I'm operating under the premise that people like the mob and Disney were the ones at fault.

Again, you mentioned earlier that what happened to Zhao was feedback "getting out of hand." Again, I've given feedback, received feedback, and had heated arguments over the course of such feedback. That is way, WAY beyond what I'd call "getting out of hand."

Like, it's a simple question. Did they deserve it, or not?

Hell, you keep trying to say that this is some new damaging thing while bringing up past examples of moral panics that caused far more damage. The Satanic Panic ended thousands of careers and resulted in a not-insignificant number of daycare providers landing in prison based on bullshit. Partisan political hacks have been drumming up fears and directing hate since long before I was born.

I've specifically said that cancel culture isn't new, but exploded recently due to a conflagration of factors that I laid out earlier in this thread. Whether the Satanic Panic did more damage or not is fairly academic. Let's say it did less damage. Okay, and? Let's run with that logic. There isn't a conflict in the world going on today that's doing as much damage as WWII, does that mean it isn't worth worrying about it?

Shit dude, most of your examples involve you getting offended on other people's behalf when those people do not believe in Cancel Culture.

First, you've cited one example of a person saying they don't believe in cancel culture, namely Lindsay Ellis. I followed your Gunn and Zhao links (I used a work computer, got past the paywall), I didn't see any example of them saying that. Gunn stated that not everything is cancel culture, and that criticism isn't cancel culture ipso facto, which are statements I fully agree with. Second, we're dealing with stuff that goes beyond mere offence. You think if Lindsay Ellis (the one person who's said it wasn't cancel culture) wasn't affected, that she'd make a 1 hour video? I've commented elsewhere that the video didn't need to be that long, and frankly, Ellis got off easier than a lot of people, but even so, you seriously don't think this kind of stuff affects you?

Anyway, I'm going to entertain a notion. Let's say that cancel culture doesn't exist. Okay, fine. Then what would you call it? Because here's something that a lot of what I call cancel culture has in common:

Step 1: Someone says something/writes something

Step 2: People hear/see the thing, and interpret it in the worst possible light

Step 3: The person apologizes and/or contextualizes

Step 4: The mob and/or the powers that be refuses to accept such explanations and keeps pushing

Step 5: The person either resigns, or is fired, and things quieten down...eventually

This isn't going to apply to every scenario - I mean, what counts as offensive or not will differ, to the point that we can't agree on it (see me and TB with Dawkins for instance) - and we're not always going to get those steps. But take any number of the examples above, and they'll usually fit. Zhao wrote Blood Heir, and people interpreted it as racist. Ellis commented that Raya was similar to Avatar, people interpreted it as racist. People like Gunn and Sawyer wrote something years ago that they were embarassed by and apologized for, but nup, not good enough. There's plenty of stuff that we cna probably say was written/said in bad taste, but do you (and I mean you, personally) believe that there's indefinite culpability for that. Like, say I wrote what any of these people said, and my employer found out today, should my employer fire me, and should they have the authority to? Me personally, I'd say no, and I'd say "no" for almost anyone, because I accept that people aren't perfect, that people can change, and that we've all written and said something, at some point, in some context, that we regret.

I guess why I'd call it a culture is that it's this strain of thought that rejects the notions of complexity, of human development, of benefit of the doubt, and either intentional or not, has a mindset that views things in the worst possible light. Again, see the Zhao and Ellis examples (heck, I'd add Dawkins and Weinstein, plus the Yale Halloween stuff but maybe that's too controversial). You've seen what they wrote. A number of people treated it as being racist. Which leaves us the following options:

1: The people are intentionally misconstruing statements in order to give them just cause to harass someone.

2: The people see that as genuinely being problematic. As in, in their own perspective, they truly believe it to be heinous.

I'll grant that there's a third option and that I'm wrong. That what they said/wrote was racist/sexist/whatever, and I'm wrong. Okay. But even then, we have to ask if the crime warrants the punishment. Whether we believe in a system of justice that doesn't account for intent or context or time passed. Like, as part of the 'culture argument,' I've seen for quite awhile this idea of "intent doesn't matter, impact does," and while I'll usually agree that impact matters more than intent, you'll never convince me that things like context and intent don't matter.

So, if it isn't cancel culture, then what is the culture? Because there's definitely been a shift in the culture in the past decade or so, at least in the US and UK. I wouldn't lump this all under cancel culture, but when you read stuff about students reporting other students for "microaggressions," when teachers are afraid of their own students lest they do or say something by accident, when you have books and articles espousing the idea that intent doesn't matter, and all that matters is impact, well, it strikes me that there's been a shift that encourages people to see the worst in people around them, rather than the benefit of the doubt. Obviously there's no shortage of terrible people in the world, but I've believed, and still believe, that people are generally decent, if imperfect. I mean, as I've said, Gamergate was an alarm bell that's proven to be prophetic, but even so...

Like, maybe I'm wrong. But I'm not sure. But harkening back to what dwarf said, there's clear historic precedent for a culture of assuming the worst and reporting to authorities and whatnot. History also tells us how bad things could get.

Edit: In addition to the shaming angle, there's also the question of deplatforming and heckler's veto.

 

[BrawlMan]

Man, you keep saying variations of "without redemption" or "no change is ever enough" and then you keep posting examples where...people changed and aren't still being attacked. Blood Heir got a small rewrite and released without controversy. The attack on Gunn was almost instantly recognized as the partisan and blatantly hypocritical political attack it was. The commentary of the old tweets from the Olympian simmered down as soon as people remembered they were talking about a literal child.

Most of the examples you bring up are the exact opposite of "not allowing redemption". It's also not anything close to Original Sin, the idea that literally everybody is sinful and in need of outside redemption and I genuinely do not understand the connection.

Hell, you keep trying to say that this is some new damaging thing while bringing up past examples of moral panics that caused far more damage. The Satanic Panic ended thousands of careers and resulted in a not-insignificant number of daycare providers landing in prison based on bullshit. Partisan political hacks have been drumming up fears and directing hate since long before I was born.

Shit dude, most of your examples involve you getting offended on other people's behalf when those people do not believe in Cancel Culture.

The problem is that Hawki and certain others looovvveeee moving and extending, dat thicc goal post!

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Second, let's look at the specific context you're referring to. You say "people changed, and aren't being attacked." That kind of raises the implication that they DID need to change, that they DID deserve what happened. So, according to you, Zhao DID deserve to be put through her baptism of fire. Gunn DID deserve to be fired. Only I don't see them as being different people. When Gunn made those tweets for instance, do you think he was the same person he was when he made them?

*****, at what point ever did I say that harassment was okay?
Zhao wrote a thing that some people thought had racist connotations. Those people said so. Zhao says it was unintentional but pulls the book to rewrite the bits. Some people on social media pile on for a bit because social media sucks like that. As crappy as it is, it's entirely organic.

James Gunn makes some edgy pedophilia jokes on Twitter in his Troma Studio days. Years later, Gunn gets hired by family friendly image obsessed Disney to make films for its billion dollar superhero movie franchise. There is some murmurings about his old material, but it's fine, because the idea that he's "irredeemable" is bullshit. Gunn is fine. Years after that, Gunn says some disparaging things about Donald Trump and a batch of culture warriors led by a guy who doesn't believe date rape exists get mad at him for saying The Bad Words and get his old tweets trending. Family friendly image obsessed Disney sees that their high-profile children's movie director is trending on major news networks for accusations of pedophillia and doesn't want to risk billion dollar franchise movie sales, so they fire Gunn just long enough for the heat to die down. Date rape guy celebrates his OP succeeding. That attack is deliberate and calculated, not even based on a misunderstanding but purely based on bad faith.

That you think these two things are the same is bullshit. Regardless of whether or not it's deserved, these things are Not The Same.

That has been my entire argument in this thread.

 

[Hawki]

*****, at what point ever did I say that harassment was okay?

You literally said "people changed and aren't still being attacked."

Who changed? How did they change? Your entire post contains the implication that they deserved it.

That you think these two things are the same is bullshit. Regardless of whether or not it's deserved, these things are Not The Same.

That has been my entire argument in this thread.

You know, I started responding to your above post pointing out that you use the term "culture warriors" only for those who attacked Gunn and not Zhao, but I figure, why bother?

Fine. That's your argument. I completely disagree with it.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

You literally said "people changed and aren't still being attacked."

Who changed? How did they change? Your entire post contains the implication that they deserved it.

I was pushing back on your idea that "Cancel Culture" makes people irredeemable. If you get heckled and boycotted online for being a jackass, and people stop heckling and boycotting you after you stop being a jackass, that's hardly "irredeemable" now is it?
Because we're talking about more than harassment, right?

You know, I started responding to your above post pointing out that you use the term "culture warriors" only for those who attacked Gunn and not Zhao, but I figure, why bother?

Fine. That's your argument. I completely disagree with it.

Yes, I consider people with a bad take on books and fandoms to be fundamentally different than grifting political operatives fighting for partisan political objectives