Depends if the person hearing it is willing to engage or how open they are to persuasion techniques
Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled
- Thread starter Johnny Novgorod
- Start date
That's more specifically relating to violent protests or protests seeking to cause damage / harm to the best of my knowledge.
E.G. Extinction rebellion spraying places with fake blood while claiming their act is totally legitimate protest or idiots supergluing themselves to trains
Isn't that due to the concern over teachers actually teaching certain things that have been deemed actually not things you teach kids due to the potential to influence them?
I'm going with the UK rules etc here as that's what I know but in the UK as a teacher you're very much not meant to express political beliefs or even say who you're voting for due to the potential to unduly influence students. Even down to political events in the news you're meant to try to be neutral on them or as neutral as possible or refuse to offer positions.
Cameras in schools? Arguably going a bit far though as some-one who has taught it would be great to show parents just what their little shits get up to in lessons.
However in terms of free speech arguments teaching is very much an area where free speech is restricted by rules of the job and while a persons freedom to speak overall isn't restricted (you can still have social media accounts, under different names mostly and can still speak all you like on them or outside of school) inside schools up until college level there is very much restricted speech for a reason.
I mean you wouldn't advocate for a Neo-Nazi teacher to be allowed to spread their ideology unopposed to kids when they were just meant to be teaching the kids maths.
I'd probably need more context on what's been said but yeh you don't get free reign to say what you want as a teacher while in school. You save all that stuff to argue with in the staff room about lol.
Except as you admitted you didn't ignore it, you focussed on it. Oh no I repeated the same line to offer you the same possible out when you seemed not willing to take it initially. How evil of me offering that line as maybe 5%or less of a post.
Considering the number of questions I've asked that you've chosen to dodge or in the case of the drunk posting one not answering but choosing to get outraged over I find it rather funny here. You got an answer. It's just not one you're happy with and doesn't give a nice clear binary answer.
Under your logic? yes
Under my logic? No you're perfectly fine to refute it.
I merely showed the problem by pointing out how I've refuted your claims 18 times and stated my position and you've chosen to ignore that previously yet your present argument relies on applying that same position you hold onto what I'm saying.
The big contextual difference comes down to the question mark vs the exclamation mark you've chosen to use. One shows questioning the other accusation.
Yeh no I haven't.
Just because you believe or seem to believe libel is fair criticism doesn't mean others do and that's why said laws exist.
You must admit there is a difference between
"Scott Cawthon is a poopy head"
and
"Scott Cawthon is a convicted criminal who killed babies [insert vague fake evidence here]"
Which Jim accused Scott of supporting or being in favour of.
What did I saw about it not being a good luck to celebrate things as a victory when said victory was won by nefarious means?
Pretty sure I said it shows people willing to happily accept the position of "No bad tactics only bad targets"
Did Scott really "deserve" all that happened?
So where again did I saw Cancel Culture is only when specific laws get broken and not a larger thing?
Hell Uncle Bob if he wanted could potentially push for such a case on the claims of how he has done harm and how much or little the court accepts people hearing other viewpoints as harm. It would be a edge case that would be difficult but could happen.
Uncle Bob donated to such things?
Cause I've heard almost nothing about actual donations done by Uncle Bob.
You sure you're not mixing him up with Orson Scott Card as that sound more like one of his kind of moves.
Y'know, the weird thing is, is that I pretty much agree with everything you said. I guess the only points of disagreement is that what Trump did went beyond 'cancelling' (Trump's a criminal - I don't mean that as hyperbole, I mean that as far as I'm concerned, he's literally a criminal, which is way worse than a lot of what's been discussed here), and that I can't really say I'm on a 'crusade' against cancel culture (of all the problems in the world, it's not going to rank that high).
So under the proviso that I agree with what you said...um...yay?
Look, maybe people did read some reviews, but it was definitely the back-of-book description that pissed people off. I saw the outrage with my own eyes.
Y'know, I figure, why bother at this point?
This is kind of beside the point, but even if something is harmless, that doesn't make it above critique.
But fine, cancel culture doesn't exist. Sure. I can't be bothered to argue with you anymore.
-Even casting incidents of cancel culture/harassment/whatever aside, that gen z and late gen y aren't in a good state mentally compared to other generations in the US is fact. You can look at the depression rates and incidents of self-harm. I laid out in the thread as to why I suspected that was the case (it wasn't all cultural - I laid out the economic issues as well), but the trends are there, even if we apparently disagree as to why.
-Y'know, not that I made the comparison myself, but from an outsider's perspective, I've always found the deification of the Founding Fathers (even the namesake connotates veneration) kind of bizzare. I mean, speaking personally, of course they're not perfect human beings, and historical re-appraisal shouldn't be ruled out.
As I've said (or at least alluded to), it's not like there isn't right wing PC culture. Anyone who says that Washington and co. are above critique, and trying to shut down critique, is kind of indulging in it.
Calling me a drunk is not "giving me an out", it's a lazy, childish insult. It's slightly pathetic to try to recast it as a noble gesture to sling shit around.
But if you're happy to stop repeating the same insult over and over again, then I'm happy to stop replying. Deal? Deal! Let this be the last mention.
Under your logic it's not an accusation?
Right, so you weren't saying that other posters were okay with harassment etc when you said that?
One wonders why you asked it, then. If it wasn't an accusation that they did support it, then it's just a complete non-sequitur.
Yes, there's a difference, in that the second one has no relation whatsoever to the post we're talking about.
The post we're talking about contained no libellous factual claims. You're just conflating libel with criticism, yet again. And denying it for the 19th time won't change that fact.
He accused him of generally financially supporting their policy agenda.
Which is true. Political donations support a policy agenda.
I assume you mean "not a good look".
This is all extrapolation on your part. Someone can be glad something happened without being happy about all the tactics employed by other people to bring it about. Peaceful Irish Republicans, for instance, would celebrate independence, but not endorse Irish separatist violence.
This is all just you simplifying peoples' motivations and projecting malice onto them.
You didn't. But you also (wrongly) claimed the law was in place to deal with situations such as the criticism on the Factorio blog.
You know, essentially espousing government censorship of online discussion.
Asking you if you are would allow you an easy explanation for your seeming inability to grasp what's being said.
It gives people the chance to clarify their position.
Funny how a few people have been choosing not to clarify lol.
So how is claiming Uncle Bob has harmed people and is dangerous actually truthful?
So we agree Jim did say Scott was either in support of or fine with genocide. Thank you for finally admitting what was said was actually said.
Generally efforts are made to make the separation clear.
No I didn't claim the law was in place for that. Hell the law could arguably be used due to the accusations of Uncle Bob having done harm to people. Also it would operate on the court system but likely be done via a private prosecution filed by Uncle Bob not a governmentally enforced one. So no it's not government censorship of online discussion because it's up to the individual to approach the courts as such. It's a case of you're still free to do it, just not free from consequences lol
Since this thread is still going here is an article.
kotaku.com
Mat Pat has made a shitload of videos on the Five Nights games, and he makes some great points in the article. My favorite thing is at the end:
“Life just isn’t a game of absolutes,” MatPat says as he winds up the episode. “It’s all about trying to do the greatest good with the hand that you’ve been dealt. And the good that has spawned out of Freddy and his friends for creators, for fans, for gaming as a whole—it’s incalculable.”
And that's a great statement because it applies to all of this social outrage, which I'm convinced is just bullshit complaining for a power trip more than any actual offense, that things and people don't exist in vacuums.
Look at Walt Disney, homie was incredibly racist against blacks and jewish people and if we was around today he would be burnt at the stake and nobody would buy anything of Disney ever. Or so they say.
According to Forbes magazine, J.K. Rowling made 60 million dollars off the continued sales of the Harry potter books and Wizarding World alone. Because people will yell and complain on the internet and twitter all they want. But when your kid wants a Mickey Mouse toy or a Harry Potter wand, you just get the kid a toy. Hell even outspoken people on video games don't stop anyone from buying billions in lootboxes and ultimate teams.
The point is that creators, writers, actors, are people that exist outside of their body of work. And at some point you can't hold art hostage because of some ever changing social viewpoint. I'm sure Edgar Allen Poe, Willian Shakespere, Bethovan, Bach, Picaso, all great artists and minds likely did normal activities in their time that would be horrible things today.
Hell you don't even have to go back that far, look at movies from the 60's. John Wayne was an Adulterer, and as a conservative he actively pushed the "black list" in hollywood to deny progressives jobs and undermined people's careers who had views he didn't agree with.......hmm....actually that's sounding pretty familiar.
One Of The Biggest FNAF YouTubers Finally Responds To Scott Cawthon's Retirement
Here's what MatPat has to say about Five Nights creator's political donation controversy
kotaku.com
Mat Pat has made a shitload of videos on the Five Nights games, and he makes some great points in the article. My favorite thing is at the end:
“Life just isn’t a game of absolutes,” MatPat says as he winds up the episode. “It’s all about trying to do the greatest good with the hand that you’ve been dealt. And the good that has spawned out of Freddy and his friends for creators, for fans, for gaming as a whole—it’s incalculable.”
And that's a great statement because it applies to all of this social outrage, which I'm convinced is just bullshit complaining for a power trip more than any actual offense, that things and people don't exist in vacuums.
Look at Walt Disney, homie was incredibly racist against blacks and jewish people and if we was around today he would be burnt at the stake and nobody would buy anything of Disney ever. Or so they say.
According to Forbes magazine, J.K. Rowling made 60 million dollars off the continued sales of the Harry potter books and Wizarding World alone. Because people will yell and complain on the internet and twitter all they want. But when your kid wants a Mickey Mouse toy or a Harry Potter wand, you just get the kid a toy. Hell even outspoken people on video games don't stop anyone from buying billions in lootboxes and ultimate teams.
The point is that creators, writers, actors, are people that exist outside of their body of work. And at some point you can't hold art hostage because of some ever changing social viewpoint. I'm sure Edgar Allen Poe, Willian Shakespere, Bethovan, Bach, Picaso, all great artists and minds likely did normal activities in their time that would be horrible things today.
Hell you don't even have to go back that far, look at movies from the 60's. John Wayne was an Adulterer, and as a conservative he actively pushed the "black list" in hollywood to deny progressives jobs and undermined people's careers who had views he didn't agree with.......hmm....actually that's sounding pretty familiar.
No offense to MatPat, and while he has some points, his videos fucking sucks. Their less theories, and just bullshit he pulls out of his ass 24/7. The only video of his I like is the FMA episode. That's the best one. I do find it funny that a guy who's been making his money off FNaF "theories" for a decade is saying this. While that is all good and true, and like he said, people have the right buy or not buy/support whoever they want. As long as it's an understandtable and valid reason. The people that still want to support or play Five Nights have that right, but I don't want to hear shit about them saying how "they didn't have a choice" nor ignore those that have legit reasons.Since this thread is still going here is an article.
One Of The Biggest FNAF YouTubers Finally Responds To Scott Cawthon's Retirement
Here's what MatPat has to say about Five Nights creator's political donation controversy
Mat Pat has made a shitload of videos on the Five Nights games, and he makes some great points in the article. My favorite thing is at the end:
“Life just isn’t a game of absolutes,” MatPat says as he winds up the episode. “It’s all about trying to do the greatest good with the hand that you’ve been dealt. And the good that has spawned out of Freddy and his friends for creators, for fans, for gaming as a whole—it’s incalculable.”
And that's a great statement because it applies to all of this social outrage, which I'm convinced is just bullshit complaining for a power trip more than any actual offense, that things and people don't exist in vacuums.
Look at Walt Disney, homie was incredibly racist against blacks and jewish people and if we was around today he would be burnt at the stake and nobody would buy anything of Disney ever. Or so they say.
According to Forbes magazine, J.K. Rowling made 60 million dollars off the continued sales of the Harry potter books and Wizarding World alone. Because people will yell and complain on the internet and twitter all they want. But when your kid wants a Mickey Mouse toy or a Harry Potter wand, you just get the kid a toy. Hell even outspoken people on video games don't stop anyone from buying billions in lootboxes and ultimate teams.
The point is that creators, writers, actors, are people that exist outside of their body of work. And at some point you can't hold art hostage because of some ever changing social viewpoint. I'm sure Edgar Allen Poe, Willian Shakespere, Bethovan, Bach, Picaso, all great artists and minds likely did normal activities in their time that would be horrible things today.
Hell you don't even have to go back that far, look at movies from the 60's. John Wayne was an Adulterer, and as a conservative he actively pushed the "black list" in hollywood to deny progressives jobs and undermined people's careers who had views he didn't agree with.......hmm....actually that's sounding pretty familiar.
Second, fuck John Wayne! Fuck him all the way to the 9th circle of hell. I never cared for many of his films.
Third:
How's a protest legitimate or not?
The supergluing to trains thing was idiocy, I agree, but protest isn't exactly convenient, no matter what it's about.
Well, fun fact, after Rowling's trans statements came out, I recall reading about how parents refused to buy HP books, and would instead buy Percy Jackson books as a "progressive alternative" (their words, not mine).
Which is fine, parents obviously have the right to determine what books their children read, but it's kind of surreal to see how quickly the perception on HP shifted across the last two decades.
Always enjoyed the Deadlock episodes myself, though they seem to have stopped doing them.
It's more about the potential harm being done really / damage being done.
As an example Extinction rebellion did a protest before where they stopped traffic but after 5 minutes they'd let a load of cars through and they'd not let a massive queue build up. A small delay for most people but it raised awareness.
Counter that with the train protest which was protesting against pollution by targeting public transport particularly electric trains, which are one of the greener forms of public transport, and it begins to look far more like attention seeking. Not to mention the damage to themselves or the trains by attempting to superglue themselves to it.
Or extinction rebellion I think it was who decided to try and vandalise historic sites to try and promote their group.
The easy way is if the protest is just being used as a cover for violence or just to try and advertise a certain organisation in an attention seeking way that damages people or property.
Again, I'm not defending the train thing. You're absolutely right, trains are one of the greenest form of transport there is. But the rest of Extinction Rebellion enters a grey area.
I'm speaking as someone who considers myself a greenie as well. We're absolutely in the midst of a climate emergency, but has Extinction Rebellion done more harm or more good? I don't know. Of course protest isn't exactly convenient, but XR has often undertook actions that feel like it's shooting itself in the foot. Not just the train thing, but various other actions, such as the vandalism. I imagine that's going to turn a lot of people off its cause.
It does but I think the new law is meant to prevent cases of bad actors hiding behind protests or people pretending to be protesters to prevent people getting to criminals causing trouble behind them
I'm some-one whose degree is partly environmental science and while I have some sympathy with extinction rebellion (I mentioned the short delay road blocking thing they did. which everyone was fine with) It's when it becomes a bigger issue like the train thing where it's trying to cause massive long term disruption especially without warning of the protest happening. XR lost a lot of good will when it was found some of those in the London protest including celebs had flown in. Hell one of the celebs had flown in first class to join the protest it really undermined the point.
Got a degree in env. management myself. Only could never got a job in the field, hence why I retrained for librarianship.
Anyway, I fully agree with the celeb stuff. I mean, FFS, read the room!
Depends on what you mean by ‘influence.’ Even with the UK rules, I wouldn’t doubt that politics bleed through. I.e. school is partially MEANT to assimilate children into the UK culture. It’s MEANT to have that sort of influence. And I don’t think many people would disagree that’s this is not a good thing (generally.) eg. Things like rule of law and fairness would be taught in school and are influencing children.
As to CRT…..depends. Most of the hype is around it ‘blaming white people’. They don’t want to be blamed for it and will call minorities racist for pointing it out. But pretending things like segregation or slavery wasn’t done by white ancestors is nonsense. If you feel guilty about what your ancestors did….. it would be weird if you didn’t.
That being said, if a law hurts poor people, just say it hurts poor people. Just because African Americans are proportionally more poor, doesn’t mean you get to call the law racist because it hurts them more proportionally. Conversely, finding out that Fergusson PD sent dogs after suspects about 150 times in a year is VERY interesting when 100% of those suspects were African American. Pointing out when something is racist is useful but there can be too ,ice zealousness calling something racist
Well I'm white but some of my ancestors can be shown to be black and so the story goes the connection is a pirate captain who used to rob from the English lol. It's entirely possible and likely some of my ancestors were slaves. It's also worth pointing out generally only the higher classes owned slaves and the other side of my family were at best farm labourers. Should I feel guilty my ancestors on one side was a pirate who attacked and pillaged? My ancestors are not me and this whole "Sins of the father" thing is silly.
Part of the issue with CRT is it almost asserts as an absolute that one group is oppressed and others oppressors and that somehow no-one can succeed unless you're a specific race.
That’s up to you. If you don’t want to feel guilty based on your identity politics. No one is going to stop you.
But it doesn’t have to be your direct ancestors. It can be your countries ancestors. My family ran away from religious persecution in Prussia, Wales and England. So I understand this not being an oppressor, actually being oppressed thing you were talking about. That doesn’t stop me from looking at Germany and saying ‘let’s not persecute people based on race and religion.’. That happened almost a century after my various lineages left. Nor does it make me look at England and say ‘Colonialism did a good job civilising those savages.’ Because it didn’t. Just because I, or my direct ancestors, didn’t directly persecute Aborigines, doesn’t stop me from feeling guilty that we had to hold a referendum for where they were humans only 50 years ago.
But, then, is this really about oppressed/oppressor? Because, when it comes to this stiff, there is one word that some people get hung up on is - guilt. I see it as a way to help my country not make the same mistakes as it did in the past. I’m not going to denegrate Aboriginals based on stereotypes or say one religion is evil and must be purged, like countries where I came from or now live. Guilt is not a scary word
If you want to talk about CRT and being too into the oppressor dynamic. That’s fine. I’ve already given an example of such a case. But, at least give an example of people not actually being oppressed. Also, CRT generalises way too much, but then your example does too. Eg. Just because you had certain descendants, doesn’t mean they were persecuted personally. Living as an African American in the north of the US is way different from the South