Some ppl can't help but proudly say the quiet part loud
Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled
- Thread starter Johnny Novgorod
- Start date
Welcome to the inevitable scorched earth response.
I think it's dumb of Texas to ban the I have a dream speech but I'm not shocked.
Some idiots in teaching were seeing CRT as licence to teach basically activism in classrooms. That's how they interpreted it.
It would be like if I taught how to make hard drugs and explosives in Chemistry lessons. I doubt many people would expect no pushback and guess what you've given them a nice big name for the thing they're pushing their stuff under. So in my case yeh I'd probably expect harsh restrictions upon what I could and couldn't teach in chemistry (harder than the already pretty hard restrictions which some exist due to safety concerns and others concerns about the kids replicating it at home so they can't know the actual stuff being used)
"inevitable"
no
"response"
no
this is just warmed-over "liberal academics" rhetoric engaged to get our schools to stop teaching history that embarrasses white racists.
Last edited:
And, again, the people who started the controversy are right.
Some People Think 2+2=5, and They’re Right
A statistician explains how abstract math can have real-world limitations.
www.popularmechanics.com
If a liberal's brain and a conservative's brain have developed differently do to their upbringing, then if another highly segregated group is brought up in a largely homogeneous culture, then it makes sense that they think in different ways.
That said segregated group is based on ethnicity is correlated by the US's history of racism and segregation, not a genetic proclivity. It would be convenient if everybody learned the same way, but that's just not the case and schooling should reflect that.
Why are you bringing up a hoax to begin with?
Lots of other hoaxes in much more important fields existed for much longer, killing thousands.
If somebody was deflecting lightning though unknown means and attributed that to magic, I figure we'd have a lot to debate about.
Merit's all well and good, it's the idea that a poor B student working a job has less merit than the tutored A+ student. The "Meritocracy" is fictional. After all, what the fuck is "merit" to begin with? Grades, media savvy, being a good person? What is it to be a meritorious human being?
And then you have the snowball effect
Meritocracy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Not. These are rough approximations of what our best guess at reality is
The gravity of the earth also influences the Sun, relativity is a *****
A moon is a subjective descriptor of an orbiting body, and our Moon is unlike most other moons
The Earth is an oblate spheroid.
Other people's advances and knowledge have a habit of being paved over by conquest, specially of the European variety
There is a middle ground between "there is one objective truth that holds true 100% of the time" and "all ideas are absolutely equal in value"
But they didn't. Don't ever trust twitter to summarize a law. If you want to know what a bill does, read it yourself.
Did they cross those things out of a section of required reading? Yes. Because they struck out the entire section. Notice the twitter person feels like spreading that MLK and Susan B Anthony are struck through, but doesn't mention they also took out George Washington. Not because those people are banned, they just aren't explicitly listed for inclusion. Martin Luther King isn't leaving Texas schools, the bill still mandates the following are taught:
(E)AA the history and importance of:
(i)AAthe federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000a et seq.);
(ii)AAthe Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
(iii)AAthe complexity of the historic relationship between Texas and Mexico; and
(iv)AAthe diversity of the Hispanic population in Texas;
It's actually possible to teach all of that without mentioning Brown v. Board, Rev. MLK Jr., SNCC, SCLC, freedom rides, Montgomery Bus Boycott, lunch counter sit-ins, Selma, etc.
That's not to say it'll be a good education (naturally), but it can be done.
None of that makes any sense.
You're basically stating that treating people as individuals and not being prejudiced is somehow a bad thing.
This isn't a question of public policy, which wouldn't be well served by a colour-blind approach, but on the individual level of day-to-day interaction, how the hell can you justify treating people differently?
I didn't point that out.
On the societal-level, you wouldn't be well served by not factoring in ethnicity, but on the day to day interaction level, treating people as individuals is a good thing. I seriously don't understand how anyone could argue against that.
Changing the meaning of words and controlling speech, in order to control society?
We're hardly at the World State yet, but...
UK man details run-in with Britain's thought-police: "No crime has been committed, but I need to check your thinking..." · Caldron Pool
A former police officer in the UK has had his thoughts “checked” by police claiming to represent the LGBTQ community. Humberside Police tracked Harry Miller to his place of work, after acquiring 30 tweets, including a number of limericks that he had “Liked” from his personal account. According...
caldronpool.com
Yeah.
1, 2, 3, 4.
The article you're citing isn't a question of counting, it's a question of using objects for special circumstances.
I assure you, if I was in kindergarten maths, and I said 2+2=5 because "I was counting differently," the teacher wouldn't put up with such nonsense.
The article makes no mention of upbringing. More like you're born with a brain that's more inclined to go for one of those two schools of thought.
Segregation can't explain it though.
The same pattern is repeated in the UK - Black British, on average, do worse than White British, who on average, do worse than Asians (we can break this down even further, but that's the general gist), so this isn't just an American phenomenon.
Second, as far as 'core' American culture goes, who do you think has more in common with it? African Americans, or Asian Americans?
Lack of wealth, I'd argue, is the more relevant factor. Wealth correlates perfectly with the situation at hand, with Latinos doing worse than whites, and blacks doing worse than Latinos, but Asians doing better than whites. That hierarchy I just described corresponds with per capita income of each of those groups (I'm amalgamating - if you break people down by country of origin, it goes all over the place). The same thing happens in the UK - as far as schooling goes, wealth (or class) explains the disparities much better than race, with the latest reports showing that the white working class is at the bottom of the school pecking order, second only to Black Caribbean, while every other group is doing better. Or on the level of adults, if we take the per capita income of people by origin, Indian British are above the average, while Bengali British are below the average. Do you think the average racist is going to distinguish between those two groups?
You and I will probably have different ideas as what it is to be meritorious as a human being, but I can assure you, if I applied for a job today, and used "I'm a good person," they'd probably tell me to piss off.
As I've already stated, not everyone is going to start off in the same place in life, but what's the alternative to meritocracy bar stuff like cronyism and/or lowering of standards? To use your student example, yes, it sucks for the student in poverty, and the student who's tutored has an advantage, but when it comes to evaluating their grades, are you saying that they should be raised and lowered to accomodate for that?
Which doesn't change the fact that Earth revolves around the sun.
Not a refution of the point that a moon orbits around the Earth.
Semantics, my sworn enemy!
True. And? How is that related to the scientific method?
I agree, but the strain of thought I'm describing veers far closer to the latter.
That's true, but that's not what's going to happen. Kids will be taught some or all of those things, it's just not an explicit reading list. There is an obvious flip side to striking through that reading list in that the schools and teachers have more flexibility to use other events in their curriculum. I'm sure you don't believe "this is your reading list, here's a half dozen things about civil rights, the end" has lead to well informed students over the years. Nothing against Rosa Parks and MLK, but explicitly teaching about the same 20 line items in every civics or American history course through a 12 year education isn't really that great.
Mitch Fowler and the brain-bending world of 'speedrunning'
An old video game, a lot of practice and one hour, nine minutes and 58 seconds of perfection
The underlying assumption being that the British aren't racist? Huge if true.
Cool
Weird how wealth correlate so strongly with race
Then it's not a meritocracy, or if it is it's a piss-poor example of one.
Fuck's sake, I want there to be a meritocracy. We don't have that right now and if we lie to ourselves about it we'll never get one going.
I mean, yeah? You keep confusing best case theories with objective truths.
There are other valid ways of learning that should not be dismissed out of hand.
Yes? And? Therefore?
Sorry, but that "debunking video" compared postmodernism to the 9/11 attack, describes feminism as bullshit, and then is just...wrong? In the story he brings up?
Like "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west" *wasn't true* to sailors from China. To them, the sun rose in the west and set in the east. Truth is subjective.
Seriously, all you did was call me an intellectual terrorist. That's not an argument. I'm in awe at how bad that video is at "debunking" anything. Seriously, I could steelman a stronger criticism of postmodernism based on a cursory reading of Wikipedia.
Brains change based on how they're used.Mitch Fowler and the brain-bending world of 'speedrunning'
An old video game, a lot of practice and one hour, nine minutes and 58 seconds of perfectionwww.macleans.ca
5 Distinct Ways The Brain of An Empath Is Wired Differently Than Others (Backed by Science)
The phenomenon of empathy is fascinating.
www.peacequarters.com
And there's also differences at birth. We see it particuarly between males and females.
If racism = different outcomes for different groups, then every society on Earth is racist.
I mean, okay, that's technically true, but it's a technical truth that's a non sequitur.
I just gave you an example of wealth not corrrelating with race.
Your view of meritocracy is apparently where everyone has the same opportunities in life. I agree that's a laudable goal, but it's a goal that's impossible to be reached, and if it was reached, impossible to maintain.
And you didn't answer the question. If Student X gets a B, but Student Y gets an A, but Student X is poorer than Student Y, then what role should that play, if any, play in assessing their merit? This isn't an argument against help for Student X, but when it comes to the finish line, how should that be evaluated?
Then what's the alternative theory?
Again, this is semantics. Fine. TECHNICALLY it's possible that our understanding of astronomy is completely wrong. TECHNICALLY it's possible that Darwinian evolution is wrong. TECHNICALLY it's possible that gravity doesn't exist, and that the Earth is flat, and the reason why gravity appears to exist is because the Earth is moving upwards at 10m per second, but you do realize that you're basically straying into the "it's just a theory" argument?
I saw this from the intelligent design crowd, I never thought I'd see it here.
Certainly there's various ways of learning, but do you believe that groups are inherently suited for those ways of learning?
Certainly individuals learn in different ways, but groups?
I'm sorry, what?
I'll need a source on that China thing. I'm not talking about different names for east and west, I'm talking about the fact that Earth has an easterly rotation, which is true of every planet in our star system bar Venus. If we can't agree on that basic fact, if the direction of the planet's rotation is "subjective truth," then...
I'm not calling you an intellectual terrorist, but...I'm sorry, I don't know what you're doing. The fact that you can watch that video and not be disturbed by the story is, well, disturbing.
Again, does the sun rise in the east or the west? You can call the east north, and west south, you can play whatever game you want and call them whatever you want, but can we at least agree on the bare bones?
Yes? And if those differences are roughly predictable it would be a good idea to teach in a way that plays to those strengths instead of trying to shove a square peg in a round hole.5 Distinct Ways The Brain of An Empath Is Wired Differently Than Others (Backed by Science)
The phenomenon of empathy is fascinating.
And there's also differences at birth. We see it particuarly between males and females.
I mean the regular boring kind of racism. Had a thing with football recently that's a good example
Which makes a practical meritocracy intrinsically a sham, yeah. Again, snowball effect
Dunno, pretty sure this isn't a thing that boils neatly down into numbers.
Our understanding of Astronomy *is* wrong. Darwinian Evolution has already been proven wrong. And we cannot prove Gravity exists in a concrete way.
Hopefully, we are less wrong these days than when our initial theories about these things were first written down, but there's no way to know. To call what we know "objective truth" is pure hubris. (EDIT: due to your extremely binary thinking, I feel like I should point out that I feel our basic astronomy skills are pretty good, evolution is definitely a thing, that we probably have a good grasp on gravity's basic mechanics, and that the earth is an oblate spheroid.)
I mean, you're strawmaning most of it.
If said group is homogeneous enough, sure. You've noticed I'm arguing that we need to teach in more ways than we do now, right? Status quo assumes that everybody in the US learns the same way.
I mean, I'm disturbed by the story. Maybe not how you think though. Mostly disturbed that you saw a cranky old man being cranky about kids these days for four minutes and thought he debunked anything. I mean, seriously. The cranky transphobic anti-feminist? In this thread of all places?
According to your video, no and I'm part of the intellectual Al-Qaeda
Last edited:
Except those differences aren't predicated on ethnicity.
That's what the argument is about, remember. That different groups are inherently suited to different styles of teaching.
There's a difference between saying there are racists in a society and that a society is racist.
Absolutely there are racists in British society, and yes, the "football thing" is a regrettable demonstration of that. But you're conflating the group with the individual.
It's weird that you state I have binary thinking when you're demonstrating binary thinking here. Or more specific, all or nothing.
Then how else would you evaluate it?
Student A finishes a course with a 93% mark. Student B finishes the same course with a 83% mark. Student A has benefitted from tuition, Student B has had to work a job. Should Student B get extra marks to accomodate for their disadvantage? If they do, and their mark is raised to 95%, then is it fair to say that Student A is at a disadvantage? After all, the misfortune of Student B has nothing to do with Student A. And that's not counting everything from Students C to Z, all of whom are going to have a different life experience.
We can't really quantify those experiences, but we can quantify academic rigor. The conditions of the students may not be identical, but the criteria for evaluating their performance is.
Except the entire argument rests on the idea that groups ARE hemogenous.
I'm not opposed to students having different needs. That's a well documented fact. The argument that's arisen recently is that there's a racial component. That there's something inherent in certain groups that makes them inherently suited to different styles. Basically, to borrow a phrase, "racialization of knowledge." I thought that was agreed to be a bad idea, but it's popped up its ugly head.
None of that video says anything in regards to what I posted. It doesn't mention Chinese sailors believing the sun rose in the west, nor does it deal with the planet's rotation.
In case you're wondering, I'm well aware of the Mercator map and its issues, which is why alternatives have been used, even if those alternatives have their own issues (e.g. you wouldn't use the Peters map for navigation, which is what the Mercator was designed for). You're not going to get a completely accurate map of the Earth outside using a globe. But we can still agree, I presume, on stuff like the size of the Earth, and that it has an easterly rotation.
So, you're disturbed, I'm disturbed, you're disturbed that I'm not disturbed, I'm not disturbed that you're not disturbed, and this is all very disturbing.
So we can't agree on the basic facts. Wonderful.
Also, "your" video was a complete non sequitur about the questions I asked, so you get off your high horse.
More the idea that he was warning us against socialism and a champion of capitalism.
"There's no way anyone can be a socialist and write those books!"
Actual quote that people have thrown at me.
Correlated due to segregation. And yes, different groups are suited to different teaching methods. You're only taking issue with this particular one because said group, due to segregation, is predominately a specific ethnicity.
And the difference between "racists" not representing a group and "a handful of teachers that lost the plot" is what, exactly?
And if somebody can pull a B working a full time job when somebody else can pull an A with ample free time and tutelage, who's smarter? Who has more merit?
Only because you constantly pull back from specifics and strip context and nuance from the discussion. You listened in on some educators talking about a specific group of people they're teaching, noting that that would probably be better off being taught in a different way. You then decided that that is a problem because that group is predominantly composed of a specific ethnicity of people. The same ethnicity as the educators making the suggestion, in fact.
If this were a batch of poor Appalachian white kids that some white educators were looking to teach differently, would that be a problem?
Nope. Westerly rotation, depending on the subjective way you count. And before you say "but that doesn't matter", clearly it does.
The sun doesn't necessarily rise in the east. Sorry for being an intellectual terrorist.
I'm generally on the side of feminism too. Sorry
Here's the funny thing. For certain people, the difference is actually negligible.
I'll take a real life example. I visited family in Georgia just a few weeks ago. I drove because Florida is nearby.
My family gave me detailed instructions on where to stop in Georgia to get gas. These were the instructions.
"Do not stop in Georgia to get gas until you hit Atlanta."
Georgia has a deeply engrained problem with Racism. Because Atlanta exists, does that erase the Racisms outside the city limits? Do the throngs of people who will vote and ask for voter suppression, to limit the voices of those who dare to think America should belong to Americans, not just the cis-white 'Christian' populous not count for Society for the non cis-white 'Christian' population?
If you don't leave the state of Georgia, why should it matter to you that New York is a bastion of Liberal thinking and ideals and why should that count to say America isn't racist because New York Exists? When you're in Georgia and you're getting threatened to be less important in your home state because your need for equality upsets the majority of people who wish you sat away from their eyes quietly?
Or hell, let's move away from Georgia. Let's just go national.
Education, Black Students get less
How school funding can help repair the legacy of segregation
America’s schools spend less money on Black students. Closing the gap is key to equality.
Health Care, Black patients receive less
Implicit Bias and Racial Disparities in Health Care
Health care providers’ implicit biases may help explain racial disparities in health. We ought to take this possibility seriously, and we should not lose sight of structural causes of poor health care outcomes for racial minorities.
Housing, Black people are still subjected to Redlining
Redlining's legacy: Maps are gone, but the problem hasn't disappeared
Mike Bloomberg claims the practice ultimately triggered the 2008 housing crash — but where does the term come from?
www.cbsnews.com
Jobs, Minorities will get less jobs even with same level of education
White workers are more likely than black or Latino Americans to have a good job — even with the same level of education
A report from Georgetown University and JPMorgan Chase says people of color face ‘discrimination, racism and other injustices.’
www.marketwatch.com
Voting Rights, they are already calling it the New Jim Crow
'The New Jim Crow': Republicans and Democrats at odds over voting rights
Democrats and Republicans clashed Tuesday over how to reform voting.
abcnews.go.com
And we put up enough threads about Policing that we understand how Police treat minorities.
To me, Education, jobs, homes, my health, and my ability to speak out for myself? That's society right there. And we're seeing a pointed effort (by political figures themselves) to affect the lives and voices of people who look like me for their own gain.
The question becomes thus: What matters more? The fact that I feel I'm oppressed because of all of these things, or that one thinks that I shouldn't feel oppressed despite of all of these things?
Well, playing devil's advocate, I can sort of see the train of logic there, but it's an incredibly blinkered reading of 1984 or Animal Farm and conclude that the theme is "socialism is bad, m'kay?"
Even then, it would go against Orwell's own statements.
Actually, I'd generally take issue with any group under the proviso of "this group is inherently different" (in terms of intelligence).
I don't see that as being a good comparison, but to address it, we agree that racism is bad, and that racists are twats. Teachers of CRT don't inherently invalidate CRT itself - I've stated plenty of times that while I disagree with the thesis of CRT, I wouldn't ask for it to be banned.
I guess the difference is that CRT being applied, and CRT being studied, are different ballgames.
We might not be completely sure, but if you have a way of quantifying that difference, I'm happy to hear it.
Like, do you agree that it's impossible to have a perfect merit? That there's all sorts of advantages and disadvantages? Because I can imagine this scenario where B gets extra marks for their circumstances, and beats A by virtue of those extra marks, so then A stops taking tutoring so their penalty is reduced, or claims poverty. And that isn't too far from cases of claiming identity to rig affirmative action systems (this isn't just an American thing, we see similar examples in India, where people claim to be in a caste that they're not).
The scenarios of Student A and Student B may not be neutral, but the means of evaluating them are. It's very reasonable to have special support for someone in poverty, but in regards to actual assessment? Again, how can you quantify that?
Actually, it would be kind of disturbing no matter who made the argument. Heck, if it was a different ethnicity, it would probably be more disturbing, though less surprising. The idea of different groups having inherent traits is something that's usually used to demonize groups.
Short answer? Yes.
Long answer? Quite likely yes, because taking your scenario as writ, you're using an inherent trait (white) to describe their scenario, so you're therefore assuming that there's something inherent about them that requires a different approach. If you're arguing that these kids (or any kids) need a different type of schooling because of their poverty, then that's getting into more sensible territory, because poverty isn't an inherent trait, and we know that poverty makes schooling harder.
When the Earth reverses its rotation, I'll get back to you.
Well, based on all those things, the former is more important. I mean, even if you didn't feel oppressed, everything you listed above would still be issues, especially the voter suppression.
Also, I know you weren't trying to make this argument, but bear with me - the legacy of segregation, and redlining, and among other things...doesn't that do a better job of explaining why African Americans underperform in academia compared to other groups? Surely that's a better explanation than the idea of inherent traits? Your first link highlights the underfunding of schools, so surely an increase in funding would go a long way to help solve those issues?
That does not remotely hold up.
Let me give you an example: As I've seen more of his work, I've cultivated an increasingly negative opinion of JJ Abrams's abilities. In some ways, I have similar criticisms of his directorial style as I do that of M. Night Shyamalan, as I feel they're better at shot composition than directing and that their projects tend to suffer from sacrificing good storytelling in favor of spectacle and 'cool twists' that they never actually bother to think out or meaningfully develop. Heck, in a very limited respect, I might actually have a bit more respect for Shyamalan, if only because he puts his bullshit in for the sake of emotional beats and thematic resonance (eg. 'everything happens for a reason' in Signs). It's still bullshit he doesn't give nearly enough thought to, but I can respect that he tries to use that bullshit as a vehicle to convey something. Conversely, Abrams seems to do it simply for the sake of shallow spectacle (eg, Khan warping to the Klingon homeworld) with no greater purpose.
In both cases, however, I regard them as hacks who exemplify the failings of the recent generation of directors (particularly lack of forethought, seeming lack of familiarity with the fundamentals of the craft, and confusing "twists" for compelling writing) with distressing thoroughness. They're both still a few steps up from the utterly talentless hacks that were Friedberg and Seltzer, but that's not exactly a high hurdle.
And with that as preamble, here's the first question: In so saying, am I criticizing the works or the people? The correct answer is that - despite the framing of the question - it's not mutually exclusive. In the above, I'm making criticisms of the directors (specifically their skill, or lack thereof in that role) and presenting an unflattering view of them that is derived from my criticisms of their body of work. It's not one or the other, it's both. But let's keep going down this rabbit hole.
Do I think they should keep getting work as directors? No. I think they've shown themselves to be ill-suited to that role and are better fits for other careers (eg, cinematographer and special effects supervisor). Am I going to patronize their future work? Second verse is same as the first. I am not obliged to watch something I have good reason to believe I will not enjoy. Am I going to try to get others to do as I do? Only in the sense that I'm unabashed in my opinions and more than happy to explain why I like/dislike a given work and what insights a portfolio of works gives me about the skill of the people involved. Anyone who's seen my contributions to the "what you watched/read" threads can attest that I am often an enthusiastic and long-winded critic.
And to circle back to the subject at hand: Does any of this (or all of it combined) mean that I'm harassing any of the people I've mentioned? Not remotely. There's no reasonable definition of the term wherein "shares that he has a negative opinion about them" or "criticizes them directly" would qualify as harassment. Hell, for that matter, there's no realistic expectation that they'll ever so much as hear my criticisms. At most, I can hope that other movie-goers will read what I wrote and think "huh, you know what? He has a point", which is nothing more than me hoping that people find my position to be well-reasoned and well-argued.
That said, even if my arguments were pure ad-hominem, like "they're self-important asshats and a blight on the industry" (...ye gads, that hyperbole is painful to write), that would not in itself constitute harassment. Regardless of how unpleasant I am or how much you dislike what I say, the determinant factor of harassment is not whether I'm criticizing the work or the person, but whether or not I'm making repeated uninvited contact for the sake of tormenting my target in a way that a reasonable third party would find socially and/or morally unreasonable.
But all the same, I can guarantee you that I would be accused of "cancel culture" for the above critique (the actual critique, not the ad-hom) because I have received such accusations for similar and even milder critiques. Hell, I've been accused of it for explaining the factors that contributed to the then-increasingly poor reception of an amateur serial (Long story short? The entire series was a year-long uninterrupted fight between two characters with almost every installment being a variation of "the antagonist tried something, but it's completely ineffective against the protagonist" with no appreciable character interaction or character/plot development to spice it up). Let me reemphasize that: I was accused of trying to cancel an author because I provided a critical analysis of why the fanbase had gotten frustrated with the serial...as part of a conversation on that very topic.
In my experience, cries of 'cancel culture' are little more than a rallying cry of the pretentious and self-righteous who don't give the matter appreciably more thought than whether or not it's criticism (particularly widespread criticism) that they think is "wrong" or comes from people they believe themselves to be ideologically opposed to. If either of these are true, then it's 'cancel culture'. If neither is, it's not cancel culture. Generously speaking, the only justification ever needed to accuse me of such in the above is that my words might inspire others to hold a similar (wrong in the accuser's view) position, thereby "artificially" drying up the demand and popularity of the product and thus 'canceling' the people behind it. Hence 'cancel culture' in their minds.
When pushed, they frequently make pretenses about things like harassment, doxxing and similar illegal actions being the determinant factor, but in practice the accusation tends to be invoked when none of those things are present unless we use such a broad definition that "a good number of people said they didn't like it" would be interpreted as a harassment campaign. What we so often see with those crowing about cancel culture basically amounts to a motte-and-bailey tactic. When their practical position is challenged as overly broad and controversial, they retreat to narrower and more defensible position...only to then immediately return to the former position. What they claim about the position is very different from the position they employ in practice.
Heck, the typical scope of the accusation was exemplified in the invocation earlier in this thread of Factorio's kovarex on Reddit. To recap: user expressed concerns about kovarex promoting Uncle Bob. No action taken, just expressed misgivings and suggested a disclaimer be added to the post. Kovarex responded that the user should "take the cancel culture mentality and shove it up [their] ass", with subsequent posts further indicating that the user sharing that they had a negative opinion of Bob constituted cancel culture because that opinion was based on things that kovarex felt were irrelevant. So too was it invoked here as exemplifying cancel culture. How was it that Dwarven put it? "That was still cancel culture, it was trying to pull the Factorio Dev in to use his platform to help cancel Uncle Bob?" For suggesting that kovarex might want to add a disclaimer to a Reddit post. You might notice, that fits the aforementioned pattern and rationalization.
I cannot stress enough that from what I've seen, that is the rule rather than the exception. When on the offensive and making the accusations of 'cancel culture', the phrase includes things as benign as constructive criticism they don't like and as bog-standard as boycotting or even pulling supply due to lack of demand if they feel in any way aligned with the perceived aggrieved party. Eg, we saw the term invoked when Nordstrom pulled Ivanka Trump's line because it wasn't selling. This is why the crowing about cancel culture is often so utterly ridiculous. It's not based in a methodology or consistent definition so much as it's based in raw, tribalistic emotion that something undesirable happening to someone on 'their side' (even if only in a circular 'enemy of my enemy' sense by virtue of their assumptions about the situation) must by necessity be morally wrong.
But when called out that the use of such a definition is not only untenable but also usually very hypocritical in practice? It's suddenly only about doxxing, harassment, and similar inexcusable things...which they otherwise never limit their definition to (sometimes not even while they're making this very defense). Hence motte-and-bailey. They have a definition they use, and one they fall back to when criticized. And even more annoying is that they're so often oblivious to that fact that they're doing it.
Never mind that when you peel back the paint, it's easily recognizable as the same bullshit we've seen for decades now. They give it a different name every few years to keep it fresh, but at the end of the day it's just a repackaging of "liberal hysteria", "SJWs", "snowflakes", "political correctness gone mad", and whatever other term they've been using to try and argue that "liberals are irrational nutjobs who can't tolerate disagreement!" It's the same arguments about "invalid" criticism, same assumptions about political affiliation/motivation, same allegations of hysteria, and the same ideologues trying to make it catch on for the sake of "owning the libs" by claiming that the criticisms and consumer actions they don't like are necessarily tied to some grandiose liberal counter-cultural movement.
Last edited: