He's saying you're not very good at arguing your point. Probably because you're not. You rely on vagaries and platitudes and that's not convincing anybody except the yo-yos who were already inclined to agree with you.
Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled
- Thread starter Johnny Novgorod
- Start date
So the argument shouldn't be about the dry facts but just persuading others?
That's easily done via manipulation it doesn't mean it should be done that way though.
You want a hyperbolic argument?
Alan Turing and many others at Bletchley Park under the social conventions at the time would have been cancelled. Without them World War II may have ended very differently. Plenty of great minds would be barely considered functional in regular society and by modern standards that lack of regular societal functionality would be enough for them to be cancelled.
I mean come on Dr Matt Taylor had people calling for him to be fired because of his choice of shirt at one point.
It does not. What it does is show how the situations are different and should not be conflated together. Drunken brawls outside of bars are bad. Organized militia attacks on political targets are bad. They are not the same, even if they happen to be brawls outside of the same bar
Stop with this. All I'm doing is pointing out that in at least half of the examples you've decided to champion, the victims do not believe they were subject to Cancel Culture or don't even believe Cancel Culture exists. I'm not actually having a morals or ethics argument with you. You say Scott Cawthon wasn't cancelled. If Scott Cawthon was an employee and not a sole creator, would this have been an attempt at canceling and if so what's the difference?
Every time somebody has asked a variant of this question in this thread the answer has been "harassment bad".
You asked about If it didn't cause harm. I answered if it didn't cause harm. Don't try and conflate that with actions that cause harm after the fact, that's bad faith.
Last edited:
That's kind of naive though. Where there's intimidation and bullying involved, victims can be reluctant to speak out as they fear further repercussions.
It's like witnessing some thugs burning down a shop, but then a couple of days later the terrified shop-owner with his arm in a cast tells you that it was all just an accident and DON'T ASK ANY MORE QUESTIONS OK?
If Gunn and Ellis haven't been very consistent in the aftermath, that might make sense. Neither of them deny being attacked. They just don't ascribe their attacks to Cancel Culture. Ellis goes into detail about how she thinks social media pile-ons happen and it's significantly more nuanced than any theory about Cancel Culture advanced in this thread. I'd recommend it
I agree with that statement as writ, but I don't agree with the analogy.
A better one is that, you can keep the militia, but the people who instigate the brawl all share the same ideology, one of them starts a brawl based on that ideology, and everyone else joins in to attack the target based on that ideology.
Really? There's likely dozens of people who'v been mentioned in this thread by now, you're saying that at least half of them have said that they weren't subject to cancel culture? Even in the four that you've focused on, the only one that hasn't said that they weren't was Ellis.
Cawthon, to my knowledge, resigned before anyone tried to cancel him. Clearly people have attacked him after he left, but that's it, as far as I'm aware.
If people made active attempts to have him ruined before he resigned, then there's a case to be made for him being cancelled.
For instance, there was someone who worked in the airline industry (forget his name) who resigned when something he'd written thirty years ago came to light (something about women not being able to fly). Now, personally, I don't think someone should be cancelled for something written thirty years ago, especially if their views have changed since then, but was he cancelled? Not really, because to my knowledge, there was no concentrated effort to have him removed.
And the second part of that question? Should I be fired based on something I wrote years ago, before I was with my current employer?
Y'know, you can say yes. My answer would be no, and that applies to practically everyone, but I could at least get a sense of where you stand.
Alright, but how can you argue that it didn't cause harm? Even if you're saying it wasn't cancel culture, you're saying that there's no harm involved in the incidents you've focused on. Really?
Well, first, I only agree with you on Ellis. The Gunn tweets you cite dont' deal with what happened to him, it only calls for nuance. Calls I agree with, because clearly not everything is cancel culture. I can harass someone without trying to cancel them.
As for Ellis, yes, I've watched the video, and I agree with a lot of it, but even if she doesn't call it cancel culture, she does call it "the beast," and does explain why people may be tempted to go after 'soft targets' when the 'hard targets' appear impregnable.
I'd also reccommed The Coddling of the American Mind by Jonathan Haidt, which, while it doesn't really deal with cancel culture per se, does a good job of explaining a number of factors that led to its exploding the way it did, and why they did in the US of all places.
Rowling? The person who is against trans and wants them gone from certain areas of society? Or maybe the better way of saying this is that they HAVE to act like Rowling wants them to? Who has advocated for laws that dramatically negatively effect people? Some of those laws have now been passed?
Here. DH found some for you...
Thanks DH for collating some of her tweets that shows us some of the ideas that lead to new UK laws that damage people lives. Rowling has done more damage than all cancellers combined.
(Did you even read these DH? Let me sum up the last tweet here - TRANS PEOPLE EXISTING ERASES WOMEN SO WE MUST BAN IT. Thanks for making it easy for me.)
What new UK laws.
In fact the new UK law WASN'T passed which is why there was yelling about how Transphobic the UK is because turns out another law being suggested on the basis of people wanting to feel they were doing good wasn't fully thought out. The bill would have allowed anyone to change their gender at will in all official documents without any kind of checks and make it illegal to challenge anyone so lets take a very nasty example of how this could be abused. A wife runs from an abusive Husband to a womans shelter, the Husband then changes his gender and fakes some injuries to go to the same shelter claiming to have been abused, the shelter can't reject him legally because he now identifies as a woman and they can't be charged with investigating all stories so they let him in and then he attacks his wife again for running away. Super easy abuse of the law and blocking anyone being able to take action to stop it.
It would be like going "Because blind people exist all films should be audio only no visuals" That's the level of dumb the inclusive language ideas are getting to.
Based on taking something they overheard and potentially misunderstood. They didn't go to that bar looking for a target.
That's the analogy. A random bar brawl vs a deliberate attack on a bar patron. These are not the same and using the same terms to describe them and the same ideas to counter them is counterproductive.
So now preemptively resigning or pulling material to avoid controversy isn't cancel culture?
Sounds like you made a declarative statement you're trying to justify. Zhao voluntarily pulled her own book for a rewrite before the publisher put any pressure on her.
Has the bar for Cancel Culture been boiled down to "somebody said you should be fired before you quit"?
Depends on context. If it's neo-nazi shit you still stand by, then definitely. If it's a hot take on gay people you had when you were a literal child and don't hold the same beliefs for, then probably not.
I've literally never argued that. You asked me a hypothetical question about a factually wrong but harmless belief and I answered that. You are strawmaning the response.
I can't take anybody who argues against content warnings seriously.
Well again, I disagree.
People saw the back-of-book description, concluded the book was racist, and went on the attack.
Say I dislike...I dunno, gay people. I dislike them so much that as I'm walking down the street, I pass a gay bar, and get so enraged I go in and assault the bar patron. How "random" is it when I've got a set ideology that drives it?
It can be, depending on circumstance. As far as I'm aware, the mere act of Cawthon's secret getting out caused him to quit before anyone really reacted.
Zhao withdrew her book AFTER the pressure came from the mob.
I wouldn't reduce it to that. There's the whole idea of censorship and heckler's veto for instance.
Well, fortunately neither of those scenarios apply to me, but you kind of let slip when you said "you still stand by." Lots of people have said silly things that have come to light a decade later, of far less severity than Nazi ideology, but haven't been given grace.
Okay, let's steelman your response then. "Harm is done, but it's harassment, not cancel culture." We seem to at least agree that harassment is bad, but I'll put it this way:
If cancel culture does exist, does it do harm?
If cancel culture does exist, but doesn't do harm, does it make it beyond reproach?
Like, I get that a main contention is whether cancel culture exists or not, but entertaining the notion that it does, how would you answer those questions? Me personally, it would be "yes," and "no."
Ah yes, because that's all the book is about.
Also, if you're referring to trigger warnings (as distinct from content warnings), there's plenty of evidence that they do more harm than good. That's probably a separate topic, but you read about students who were triggered about the lack of trigger warnings (among other things), maybe we want to rethink this? Maybe Haidt as a point in his thesis as to how treating students as fragile (among other things) has made them less resilient to emotional stress?
Are you talking about the drug one? Because it sounds like you talking about something else
I just wanna point out that a fuck ton of children are on the drugs that were being banned. Most are not trying to be Trans. Ever. Its a medical prescription that also happens to benefit (apart from a bunch of other people) transpeople. Making those drugs illegal would have ACTUALLY HURT CHILDREN, most not trans. ALL because people made some made up nonsense about what the drug does.
Now, I dont know the definition of transphobia. I do know the definition of an overreaction. And propaganda.
I just wanna point out that this week we had senators calling for 5000 teacher from one state to be fired because they used some naughty words. Also, they need to do a pledge of allegiance (not the US one. A more patriotic one) so they dont say those naughty words.
Also, Tucker and Walsh, in front of millions, were talking about putting video cameras in schools to make sure the teacher weren't using any naughty words. I'm pretty sure I read a book that warns us about this behaviour. I JUST cant remember the name... I think it had some numbers in it...
But sure. Internet drama is THE most important cancelling to worry about.
Also, Tucker and Walsh, in front of millions, were talking about putting video cameras in schools to make sure the teacher weren't using any naughty words. I'm pretty sure I read a book that warns us about this behaviour. I JUST cant remember the name... I think it had some numbers in it...
But sure. Internet drama is THE most important cancelling to worry about.
What's that? People calling for people to be fired based on something they said?
Oh my God, that's horrible. We need a word to describe this behaviour. If only we had some kind of word, or phrase, or concept, to describe the idea of ruining people's lives based on something they said or wrote, rather than engaging in the merit of the argument...
...
...
...okay, snark aside, I've pointed out in this thread already that cancel culture isn't the biggest issue in the world, and what you're describing goes beyond cancel culture, it's easily worse, because it's not only cancel culture, it's not only political correctness, but it's borderline totalitarian, especially with the cameras. Yes, I was aware of it, and it's kind of terrifying that Carlson is either too ignorant to understand the implications of what he's asking for, or he understands full well, and wants it done anyway.
But on the flipside of this, we get to the principle of it, or 'ground level,' so to speak. We seem to both agree that at least in this particular instance, these things are wrong, so why not condemn the practice when it's done elsewhere? Even if you're taking a purely partisan approach, maybe don't 'cancel' people on your own 'side?', so to speak?
Very amusing. If I ignore one of your petty insults, you accuse me of ignoring a "major point", as if there was anything mature about it. And if I don't ignore it, you'll accuse me of being too focused on it... after you've banged on and on about it and repeated the line four or five times.
Y'just can't win!
By "rework the question", you mean... "didn't answer".
Getting you to answer the simplest question is like drawing blood from a stone.
You said to somebody, "Oh, so you're in favour of harassment and bullying and etc etc??". That was an accusation that they supported those things. In fact, the only thing they'd spoken in defence of was criticism.
If you acknowledged that "Oh, so you're in favour of X!" is an accusation, you'd be acknowledging that you conflated criticism and harassment. So instead, you've just refused to answer the question over and over again, and ranted about me a bit more.
Denial =/= refutation.
You've denied it over and over and over again. And then you've gone right back to conflating criticism and harassment, as soon as it's convenient as a line of attack. Your denial is entirely inconsistent with your actual observable behaviour.
"Genocide" referred solely to the legislative agenda of the Republican Party. Anything else is a distortion and exaggeration.
So, only one that actually refers to death threats & doxxing, etc. I still fail to see how this reflects on people who had nothing to do with it, and just criticised the guy.
Glad you agree that your claim about the law was bunkum.
He's contributed large amounts of money to an organisation which is attempting to withdraw and legally deny lifesaving health coverage to trans people.
I'm sure he has other, unrelated reasons for doing so. He might not even have been aware of that. But nonetheless, yeah, his money helped it happen.
Last edited:
Sometimes the way that an argument is not persuasive is indicative of something about the "dry" facts. For example, an argument that relies on platitudes is unlikely to be worth much at all for persuasion or description of reality.
I, as I’ve said on many occasions, have said that cancel culture is bad.
Ive also pointed out, on many occasions, that it doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It happened because a president was doing cancel culture and worse to them for 6 years now. And then he complained about being called a totalitarian for clear totalitarian tendency. Like, Tucker Carlson knows exactly what he’s doing. But he can just say cancel culture or politically correct and all criticism is nullified. And I definitely don’t want to leave out the Clinton’s for their online dog piles during Obama’s reign, clear precursor to Trump. The only difference is that they were quiet about it. Far too many people used the internet and social media as a Bludgeoning tool.
TBH, the cat is out of the bag and run into the next state. It’s been there for years. IDK if there is anything to be done. You going on a crusade against it is fine in my books, as long as you realise that the people using the term cancel culture have, generally, some cancelling first and are now trying to use that term to cancel others. I’d call it ironic if this was not the same tactic used for over a century now
Epstein attorney and associate, plagiarist and apartheid apologist Alan Dershowitz managed to get Norman Finkelstein "cancelled" through asinine accusations of antisemitism. But for whatever reason people deem Twitter dogpiles more important than making a professor who did nothing wrong unemployable for many years.
No, people read reviews saying it had some probably unintentional racism and did a stupid internet thing,
That is a random, non-premeditated attack, and not cancel culture.
It is also not grouping up together to swap fight tips before going to a bar specifically to get into fights with the patrons due to their political beliefs.
Conflating both action as "cancel culture" is not useful
False premise, Cancel Culture does not exist, it's impact is unknowable. You're basically asking me "hey, if ghosts were real, would that be bad?" And like, I dunno?
If it's harmless, who gives a shit? Like, I might be ready and willing to go 40 pages on why The Last Jedi did the best it could with the plot threads is got from The Force Awakens and how Rise of Skywalker is the most cowardly movie I've ever seen, but I'm not gonna pretend it matters in any capacity. It's a movie, who gives a shit?
No.
You won't be able to convince me that your average college student or gen z kid is any more mentally fragile than the folks currently having a massive meltdown over "maybe the founding fathers weren't paragons of virtue"
What are the other uses of them?
In terms of long term side effects etc little is known because they've not been fully studied, realistically I'm surprised looking into it that NICE actually cleared them to be allowed to be prescribed.
In UK law at present Puberty blockers may still be prescribed with parental consent to under 16s or without to over 16s
NHS commissioning » Update following recent court rulings on hormone blockers
Health and high quality care for all, <br />now and for future generations
www.england.nhs.uk
NHS GID can still use the court system to apply for best interest order to over-ride parental consent laws.
In all this brings it all more or less in line with any other treatments and in this case with Puberty Blockers under review it's what's considered an experimental treatment.