Hogwarts Legacy Will Allow For Transgender Characters

[TheMysteriousGX]

I see we've reached "people saying anything I don't like about media is Cancel Culture, so people should only criticize things in ways I agree with"


For the love of god, every time I hear "I guess we just can't make jokes anymore" I lose more of my swiftly dwindling number of brain cells. I've been hearing that bullshit for over two decades and it's never been true. Cancel Culture is just the new Political Correctness Gone Wild, pushed by the same shitheads that need outrage to stay relevant.

 

[Silvanus]

Well first of all there's a difference between "woke" and progress.

Woke: We added women into the game by changing real life stories of the action of men to be women.

Progress: We actually told stories about the real women in that period in history.

Woke: We made 007 a lesbian now

Progress: We made a different character whose also a badass secret agent who is a lesbian.

Woke: Plastic pollution is bad but feel free to keep taking long haul flights.

Progress: Hey have you maybe considered the Ozone layer recently?

It's funny really because a lot of the culture war comes down to corporations not wishing to take risks or expend extra effort in the end and trying to do the bare minimum to try to market their program as socially conscious to try and make people more willing to support it thinking they're helping something.

This is just a list of examples you personally like, called "progress", and a list of examples you don't personally like and have described in silly ways, called "woke".

As for "Deeply inflammatory" it's a similar sentiment to what the Auschwitz museum shared previously. The only inflammatory stuff about what she actually said would be what people read into it.

It's an employers call but I can still call bullshit.

I called bullshit on removing James Gunn even if I could see Disney's reasoning based on the tweets I also could see the context of him being linked to Troma Entertainment at the time.

I called bullshit on Wallmart trying to fire employees who were using birth control or fought against Walmart denying them coverage on their medical insurance for birth control.

I call bullshit now.

It was absolutely nothing like anything shared by the Auschwitz Museum; that's completely ridiculous. She likened a little bit of social stigma attached to some conservatives in the US, who're under no credible threat of violence and who were at the time in control of the Executive Branch of government, to the largest wholesale genocide in global history.

That's going to be absolutely abysmal for PR. It would've been grounds for dismissal decades ago, before the term "woke" was even a thing. The only reason defenders are crawling out of the woodwork now is because the free-speech argument has been co-opted by a right-wing culture-war crowd.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

That's precisely my point. Dwarvenhobble seems to be claiming that you can't criticise games/movies/shows that have progressive stuff in them at all, even if the criticism is nothing to do with that. Which is nonsense.

People went after an Irish film critic in the past because he said Black Panther wasn't anything exceptional just another Superhero film mostly with a different Aesthetic draped over it.

People on twitter were trying to frame it as Racism to dare say that when the dude had a history on saying cape films weren't anything that exceptional in his view.

Storytelling & plot are valid grounds for criticism, and the political stances a game takes are a part of that. It's perfectly valid to criticise the plot of a game if it makes a crass/ shitty political argument (4 Days in Fallujah is a good current example).

My point is that the mere presence of characters from minority groups is not some great "political point", but status-quo warriors seem to think it is. Christ, I'm sick of people talking about the mere presence of somebody like me existing in a game is an objectionable political statement.

I think it was Dickens or Wilde or in their essays on the nature of criticism said words to the effect of "Don't judge a work based on if you agree or disagree with it's politics as politics is forever changing and the pressing issues of today will be forgotten by future generations or entirely irrelevant them for the most part. Criticism should be based on how well the story is executed and how well literary devices and other elements are used to portray the theme and say about the politics of the piece. A piece about some hot button political issue may have some critics wanting to celebrate it for echoing the view they think are good at the time but ultimately it will be pieces that tell us something more about innate qualities both good and ill of humanity that will endure and be seen to have worth for far longer."

It could be argued that the presence of minority characters is a political point and not a good one when they're not fleshed out as it's going "Here have these crumbs rather than a property more specifically aimed at you". Thing is it's not or at least companies don't think it's profitable to actually make stuff for said groups alone.

Sure. I thought the 2016 Ghostbusters film was a pretty forgettable rehash. Criticise the lack of imagination or the writing, and we're golden. Criticise the fact they're women, and we're not golden. And disguise a gripe about the latter as a gripe about the former, and we're not golden either.

yet the claim is seemingly any gripe was automatically claimed to be being used to disguise a gripe about women.
Despite the fact most of the people going "You just hate the idea of Women being Ghostbusters" apparently had 0 clue about Kylie Griffin being rather well liked in Ghostbusters fandoms and having been a part of the more extended Lore for the property for years.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

This is just a list of examples you personally like, called "progress", and a list of examples you don't personally like and have described in silly ways, called "woke".

No it's showing the corporate hollowness & or Hypocrisy on show of some of the moves.

Atomic Blonde was struggling at he box office while people on about how we needed female characters were instead saying it was time to make Bond a woman, rather than support the film about a sexy lesbian woman spy that had actually been made and released.

Doctor Who was shouting it's support for part of environmentalism while totally ignoring another when in the past something relating to environmentalism was merely brought up as more of a reference to things going on not presented as some core message while coming off as hypocritical by happily ignoring the impact of long haul flights.

It was absolutely nothing like anything shared by the Auschwitz Museum; that's completely ridiculous. She likened a little bit of social stigma attached to some conservatives in the US, who're under no credible threat of violence and who were at the time in control of the Executive Branch of government, to the largest wholesale genocide in global history.

No she never mentioned conservatives. She mentioned a general Trend

That's going to be absolutely abysmal for PR. It would've been grounds for dismissal decades ago, before the term "woke" was even a thing. The only reason defenders are crawling out of the woodwork now is because the free-speech argument has been co-opted by a right-wing culture-war crowd.

Yet Pedro Pascal made a similar sentiment but was more explicit in choosing sites framing Trump et al as the Nazi side.

No the reason people are "crawling out of the woodwork" now is because they're seeing a distinct growing hypocrisy emerging and people who think the answer to speech they don't like is more than merely speech in return but far further responses and recognise this will just lead to escalations eventually if this becomes the established rhetoric and deemed acceptable.

 

[Silvanus]

People went after an Irish film critic in the past because he said Black Panther wasn't anything exceptional just another Superhero film mostly with a different Aesthetic draped over it.

People on twitter were trying to frame it as Racism to dare say that when the dude had a history on saying cape films weren't anything that exceptional in his view.

OK. I'd need to see that to actually judge it as an individual example. But so what? Black Panther got perfectly valid criticism; the image you paint of certain products being impossible to criticise just isn't reflecting reality.

I think it was Dickens or Wilde or in their essays on the nature of criticism said words to the effect of "Don't judge a work based on if you agree or disagree with it's politics as politics is forever changing and the pressing issues of today will be forgotten by future generations or entirely irrelevant them for the most part. Criticism should be based on how well the story is executed and how well literary devices and other elements are used to portray the theme and say about the politics of the piece. A piece about some hot button political issue may have some critics wanting to celebrate it for echoing the view they think are good at the time but ultimately it will be pieces that tell us something more about innate qualities both good and ill of humanity that will endure and be seen to have worth for far longer."

Uh-huh, and I comprehensively disagree with that stance, and actually find it somewhat absurd. If someone says something shitty, you can call it a shitty thing to say. I don't see why it should be considered off-limits.

And I severely doubt that was Dickens.

It could be argued that the presence of minority characters is a political point and not a good one when they're not fleshed out as it's going "Here have these crumbs rather than a property more specifically aimed at you". Thing is it's not or at least companies don't think it's profitable to actually make stuff for said groups alone.

It's considered a contentious political point solely by those who find the presence of such people objectionable.

If a character is poorly written, criticise the writing. Progressives constantly criticise poorly-written gay and female characters, particularly if they're presented as one-dimensional or stereotypical. Don't criticise the mere fact they're gay or a woman.

yet the claim is seemingly any gripe was automatically claimed to be being used to disguise a gripe about women.

Not in my experience-- unless the gripe veered off talking about writing/ valid stuff and started to moan about the fact they're women. Which happened all the time.

 

[Silvanus]

No she never mentioned conservatives. She mentioned a general Trend

I'm not sure how else you can interpret this;

How is [what the Nazis did to Jewish people] any different from hating someone for their political views?

Yet Pedro Pascal made a similar sentiment but was more explicit in choosing sites framing Trump et al as the Nazi side.

Pascal compared a political group to a political group. Carano compared a political group to an ethnic group suffering a genocide. This is a false equivalence.

No the reason people are "crawling out of the woodwork" now is because they're seeing a distinct growing hypocrisy emerging and people who think the answer to speech they don't like is more than merely speech in return but far further responses and recognise this will just lead to escalations eventually if this becomes the established rhetoric and deemed acceptable.

Fucking hell, I'm not going to watch a moron like Yiannopolous mouthing off. If you need that to make your point, the point isn't worth making.

The truth is that the employer retains rights over employment. PR is unavoidably going to be a major part of that. And saying stuff that's massively inflammatory is bad for PR. The solution to this, for the employee, is not to just bring about a situation where they can say whatever they want and the public can't respond. It's to not be a douchebag.

As I've said already, professional news outlets have a greater responsibility to weigh words and vet factual claims. But you don't appear to be talking about those; you appear to just be taking issue with the fact that people found what other people said objectionable and complained about it. Big whoop; that's the right to reply.

 

[CriticalGaming]

OK. I'd need to see that to actually judge it as an individual example. But so what? Black Panther got perfectly valid criticism; the image you paint of certain products being impossible to criticise just isn't reflecting reality.

I have to say that I'm really kind of confused as to the argument you've been making for the past couple of pages. You keep bringing up criticism as if it is the same thing as the demanded outrage that Dwarven has been talking about this whole time.

And I can't tell if you are doing it on purpose knowing full well that there is a difference between going "I really didn't like that thing" and "I don't like that thing and therefore I demand that it not only be destroyed but the people responsible should lose their jobs and apologize for upsetting me". And you are just calling it criticism to pretend like one of those things isn't obviously crossing the line.

Or if you genuinely think that both those statements are valid responses to a thing you dislike. In which case you would terrify me.

So I'm dangerously cautious to know which one is true.

I comprehensively disagree with that stance, and actually find it somewhat absurd. If someone says something shitty, you can call it a shitty thing to say. I don't see why it should be considered off-limits.

Because you have to understand the difference in cultural climate from which something was created. You think something is shitty to say because in your current world view it is shitty to say. But to the people of that timeframe it wasn't shitty and what gives you any more right to say it's wrong than the people of the time saying it's fine? The answer is nothing.

. Progressives constantly criticise poorly-written gay and female characters, particularly if they're presented as one-dimensional or stereotypical. Don't criticise the mere fact they're gay or a woman.

The problem here is the optics. Because of the current cultural climate, when critics look at a show like "Batwoman" and you can tell it's a show made to make the Lesbian traits of the characters stand out, more than it is about trying to make a good show. Because the sexuality of the characters is the forefront of the show, it's going to be the target of the criticism.

And I agree with you. If you just made good characters that also were gay, nobody would fucking care because the show and the characters are good.

Explain to me why people think the CW shows suck ass and mock the overabundance of LBGT tropes, while at the same time people love Modern Family a show with a wonderful and funny gay couple as part of the main cast? Why is Rocky Horror Picture Show such a classic and beloved film?

Things don't exist in this SJW-vacuum and nobody wants to admit that making media of any kind with progressive ideals is never going to work if you aren't building a good framework around those ideals. The core of the show, movie, book, or game must be good before you can play with inserting ANY ideal into it, otherwise it will just bounce off of people and they'll hate it.

Not in my experience-- unless the gripe veered off talking about writing/ valid stuff and started to moan about the fact they're women. Which happened all the time.

Got any examples? Because outside of very few exceptions I can't think of any outright complaints about anything under the single basis of "eww girls are gross".

 

[CriticalGaming]

The truth is that the employer retains rights over employment. PR is unavoidably going to be a major part of that. And saying stuff that's massively inflammatory is bad for PR. The solution to this, for the employee, is not to just bring about a situation where they can say whatever they want and the public can't respond. It's to not be a douchebag.

And yet people wonder why Colin Kapernick can't return to football. Regardless of his message, people responded badly to it and it caused drama for the NFL and no team will touch him.

Then there are some people who would say that athletes and celebrities have a duty to use their platform and voice to call out issues in society because that's what gets people's attention and who things get changed. Unfortunately for Gina, your opinion only matters so long as whomever is currently holding the political megaphone agrees, otherwise you're fucked.

Fucking hell, I'm not going to watch a moron like Yiannopolous mouthing off. If you need that to make your point, the point isn't worth making.

Perfect example. "I don't like this guy's opinion, and therefore he is a moron and any point he could offer is stupid."

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I'm not sure how else you can interpret this;

Some-one worried about the trend in society and calling for people to look what's going on?

Some-one who gives two shits about things going on and the division on society.

It's only because people seemingly read into what she tweeted and some of her other tweets that people even though she was a republican. She never stated it before

Pascal compared a political group to a political group. Carano compared a political group to an ethnic group suffering a genocide. This is a false equivalence.

No Pascal showed kids behind bars (not even in the USA actually not that he knew that) with the Caption "Trump's America" and I think something about Nazi germany. So no he was more explicit in his comparisons as the Nazis did have Jewish children in the camps too......

Fucking hell, I'm not going to watch a moron like Yiannopolous mouthing off. If you need that to make your point, the point isn't worth making.

It's literally raw footage without Milo or commentary film by others outside the event.

The truth is that the employer retains rights over employment. PR is unavoidably going to be a major part of that. And saying stuff that's massively inflammatory is bad for PR. The solution to this, for the employee, is not to just bring about a situation where they can say whatever they want and the public can't respond. It's to not be a douchebag.

yet in this day and age it's weaponised like when Ben Kuchera (yes the games journalist) tried to have a guy fired from a job at a sporting goods store for the "Crime" of calling Ben Kuchera foolish on twitter when Kuchera was claiming Tetris was actually Soviet propaganda. It's people with big platforms or being allowed to use them trying to use said platforms to create bad PR now to get people fired quite often. I mean remember Shirtgate? Where a reporter tried to get a guy in trouble for wearing a shirt his friend made for him?

As I've said already, professional news outlets have a greater responsibility to weigh words and vet factual claims. But you don't appear to be talking about those; you appear to just be taking issue with the fact that people found what other people said objectionable and complained about it. Big whoop; that's the right to reply.

It's the right to reply. Not the right to go running to an authority figure to try and get them to take action. Hell some outlets don't even give the right to reply to those they go after.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I see we've reached "people saying anything I don't like about media is Cancel Culture, so people should only criticize things in ways I agree with"


For the love of god, every time I hear "I guess we just can't make jokes anymore" I lose more of my swiftly dwindling number of brain cells. I've been hearing that bullshit for over two decades and it's never been true. Cancel Culture is just the new Political Correctness Gone Wild, pushed by the same shitheads that need outrage to stay relevant.

No no, this time, this time it's the real thing. Witch hunts! Caesar getting stabbed to death! These are things we all have to take seriously for some reason.

(Ok, the US Capitol is kinda based around the Roman forum, and there nearly were a bunch of leaders murdered there 2 months ago, but that's not the important part)

 

[Silvanus]

I have to say that I'm really kind of confused as to the argument you've been making for the past couple of pages. You keep bringing up criticism as if it is the same thing as the demanded outrage that Dwarven has been talking about this whole time.

And I can't tell if you are doing it on purpose knowing full well that there is a difference between going "I really didn't like that thing" and "I don't like that thing and therefore I demand that it not only be destroyed but the people responsible should lose their jobs and apologize for upsetting me". And you are just calling it criticism to pretend like one of those things isn't obviously crossing the line.

Or if you genuinely think that both those statements are valid responses to a thing you dislike. In which case you would terrify me.

So I'm dangerously cautious to know which one is true.

OK, look at it this way. What does "demand" mean in this context? We usually use the term in connection with someone who actually has the authority to get something done. If we're talking about a twitter rando using the hashtag #FireGinaCarano, it doesn't mean very much beyond "I think X should get rid of them". They might be being hyperbolic, but they're not leveraging any great power.

Functionally, it's identical to criticism or condemnation. So I'm not seeing the threat to freedom of expression that it represents. The public figure utilised freedom-of-expression; the twitter rando utilised it in response.

Because you have to understand the difference in cultural climate from which something was created. You think something is shitty to say because in your current world view it is shitty to say. But to the people of that timeframe it wasn't shitty and what gives you any more right to say it's wrong than the people of the time saying it's fine? The answer is nothing.

Every value judgement we can possibly make is subjective, obviously. That doesn't mean we cannot make them. It's not as if something occurring in the past magically makes it always morally-neutral.

The problem here is the optics. Because of the current cultural climate, when critics look at a show like "Batwoman" and you can tell it's a show made to make the Lesbian traits of the characters stand out, more than it is about trying to make a good show. Because the sexuality of the characters is the forefront of the show, it's going to be the target of the criticism.

And I agree with you. If you just made good characters that also were gay, nobody would fucking care because the show and the characters are good.

That's not what I'm saying. The subset of the community I'm talking about would absolutely still care.

But in your example: what exactly is the criticism? The writing is poor? Then say that. If your criticism is that they're focusing on the "lesbian traits" (whatever that means), then I don't consider that a valid criticism. Is a book/film in which Bond has loads of sex focusing on the "hetero traits", and equally objectionable?

Explain to me why people think the CW shows suck ass and mock the overabundance of LBGT tropes, while at the same time people love Modern Family a show with a wonderful and funny gay couple as part of the main cast? Why is Rocky Horror Picture Show such a classic and beloved film?

You'd have to ask people who simultaneously come out with the criticisms I'm talking about, and also love Modern Family & RHPS. I don't know any of said people.

Things don't exist in this SJW-vacuum and nobody wants to admit that making media of any kind with progressive ideals is never going to work if you aren't building a good framework around those ideals. The core of the show, movie, book, or game must be good before you can play with inserting ANY ideal into it, otherwise it will just bounce off of people and they'll hate it.

....and if they then resort to complaining about the presence of minority characters in that book/show/movie etc, then they're railing against it for a stupid reason. If they're disliking it because it lacks a good core, then criticise that. There's no reason that has to be arbitrarily connected with the existence of minority characters all the damn time, as if gay characters make the writing bad.

Got any examples? Because outside of very few exceptions I can't think of any outright complaints about anything under the single basis of "eww girls are gross".

Well, let's look at the Ghostbusters example that's already been brought up.

The film is mediocre, lacking in imagination, written way too obviously. The acting is quite poor. These issues don't have anything to do with the fact that the characters are women, any more than the reason the original Ghostbusters was good was because the actors and characters were men. And yet the criticism was hyper-focused on that element of it.

 

[Silvanus]

And yet people wonder why Colin Kapernick can't return to football. Regardless of his message, people responded badly to it and it caused drama for the NFL and no team will touch him.

Then there are some people who would say that athletes and celebrities have a duty to use their platform and voice to call out issues in society because that's what gets people's attention and who things get changed. Unfortunately for Gina, your opinion only matters so long as whomever is currently holding the political megaphone agrees, otherwise you're fucked.

Taking the knee to protest racial injustice is not morally equivalent to arguing that the treatment of US conservatives is analogous to genocide.

Perfect example. "I don't like this guy's opinion, and therefore he is a moron and any point he could offer is stupid."

Oh, for goodness' sake. I'm well acquainted with Yiannopolous and consider him a contemptuous idiot. I've formed that opinion after endless exposure to his rantings. Am I allowed to form a judgement about him, or not?

 

[Silvanus]

Some-one worried about the trend in society and calling for people to look what's going on?

Some-one who gives two shits about things going on and the division on society.

She didn't say "I'm worried". She specifically said "how is it different?", indicating that she thinks it's not different.

No Pascal showed kids behind bars (not even in the USA actually not that he knew that) with the Caption "Trump's America" and I think something about Nazi germany. So no he was more explicit in his comparisons as the Nazis did have Jewish children in the camps too......

Right, so.... still comparing a political group to a political group, as I said.

yet in this day and age it's weaponised like when Ben Kuchera (yes the games journalist) tried to have a guy fired from a job at a sporting goods store for the "Crime" of calling Ben Kuchera foolish on twitter when Kuchera was claiming Tetris was actually Soviet propaganda. It's people with big platforms or being allowed to use them trying to use said platforms to create bad PR now to get people fired quite often. I mean remember Shirtgate? Where a reporter tried to get a guy in trouble for wearing a shirt his friend made for him?

....Which is why I said professionals have a greater responsibility to weigh their words and to vet factual claims. From the start I've drawn a distinction in how we should be considering random members of the public or low-level pundits, and how we should be treating professional outlets.

It's the right to reply. Not the right to go running to an authority figure to try and get them to take action. Hell some outlets don't even give the right to reply to those they go after.

When you say "running to an authority figure", do you literally just mean tweeting them or writing them a letter?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I see we've reached "people saying anything I don't like about media is Cancel Culture, so people should only criticize things in ways I agree with"


For the love of god, every time I hear "I guess we just can't make jokes anymore" I lose more of my swiftly dwindling number of brain cells. I've been hearing that bullshit for over two decades and it's never been true. Cancel Culture is just the new Political Correctness Gone Wild, pushed by the same shitheads that need outrage to stay relevant.

Well there's a bit of a difference between

"This piece of media pushes this idea and this idea leads to rape and domestic abuse because this Ted Talk I saw once says so"

and

"Yeh this plot doesn't actually work, the jokes don't land and the effects look unpolished".

Because the top line normally gets followed explicitly or implicitly with "And that's why we need to bad it for the good of society" while the later is followed by "Better luck next time artist / company or I don't recommend you buy this one".

 

[Trunkage]

No no, this time, this time it's the real thing. Witch hunts! Caesar getting stabbed to death! These are things we all have to take seriously for some reason.

(Ok, the US Capitol is kinda based around the Roman forum, and there nearly were a bunch of leaders murdered there 2 months ago, but that's not the important part)

Cancel Culture is so bad....

Top 10 Most Challenged Books of 2023

Every year, the American Library Association compiles a list of the Top 10 Most Frequently Challenged Books based on reports from the field and media coverage.

www.ala.org

I wonder if I can find a common theme in the top book censored (or attempted to be censored) in America....

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Oh, for goodness' sake. I'm well acquainted with Yiannopolous and consider him a contemptuous idiot. I've formed that opinion after endless exposure to his rantings. Am I allowed to form a judgement about him, or not?

Again it's not even a video of him, it's a video of riots outside what was planned to be one of his events.

She didn't say "I'm worried". She specifically said "how is it different?", indicating that she thinks it's not different.

Except her message also says before the camps and before the gas chambers it started with pushing hatred and getting neighbour to go after neighbour......... which yeh isn't super out there take when there has been bullshit with neighbourhoods after one another and a deep seething hatred happening.

The key part of her message is it happened before the escalation.

She was in no way (and I suggest people look up her original message) claiming the modern treatment of people (maybe other than in some parts of China) was equivalent to the experiences of people in the concentration camps.

Right, so.... still comparing a political group to a political group, as I said.

Pascal yes, Carano no. Again if you've not seen what she actually posted I'd strongly suggest googling it

....Which is why I said professionals have a greater responsibility to weigh their words and to vet factual claims. From the start I've drawn a distinction in how we should be considering random members of the public or low-level pundits, and how we should be treating professional outlets.

Yet part of the issue is the framing by the press because some people in the press seem to give these random twitter people power by amplifying their voices. Just like programs and publications in the past amplified the voices of Mary Whitehouse and co.

When you say "running to an authority figure", do you literally just mean tweeting them or writing them a letter?

When it's to get a person fired for disagreeing with you on twitter, yes any of that.

 

[Silvanus]

Again it's not even a video of him, it's a video of riots outside what was planned to be one of his events.

OK. Couldn't see the thumbnail, because Youtube is requesting a sign-in before it shows me anything.

What's the intention in showing me this? Obviously violence or vandalism goes beyond "criticism".

Except her message also says before the camps and before the gas chambers it started with pushing hatred and getting neighbour to go after neighbour......... which yeh isn't super out there take when there has been bullshit with neighbourhoods after one another and a deep seething hatred happening.

The key part of her message is it happened before the escalation.

She was in no way (and I suggest people look up her original message) claiming the modern treatment of people (maybe other than in some parts of China) was equivalent to the experiences of people in the concentration camps.

This is a completely absurd reading of what she said. Why do you think she chose that particular example, rather than any of the other thousands of examples of "pushing hatred"? Because of where it ended up.

Pascal yes, Carano no. Again if you've not seen what she actually posted I'd strongly suggest googling it

I know exactly what she posted. "Pascal yes, Carano no" is exactly my point. That's the difference between what they posted. Carano equating a political group with an oppressed ethnic group is far more inflammatory.

When it's to get a person fired for disagreeing with you on twitter, yes any of that.

And companies have received letters of feedback since.... well, since the end of Feudalism. What makes this particular area deserving of special treatment, to be protected from feedback?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

OK. Couldn't see the thumbnail, because Youtube is requesting a sign-in before it shows me anything.

What's the intention in showing me this? Obviously violence or vandalism goes beyond "criticism".

To prove how things get out of control and it's really not just a few whiners on twitter if something goes far enough.

This is a completely absurd reading of what she said. Why do you think she chose that particular example, rather than any of the other thousands of examples of "pushing hatred"? Because of where it ended up.

Well yes because it's a warning of where the road goes.
Like the Auschwitz Museum tweet I posted says.

I know exactly what she posted. "Pascal yes, Carano no" is exactly my point. That's the difference between what they posted. Carano equating a political group with an oppressed ethnic group is far more inflammatory.

Except she didn't. At no point did she state a political side in it

Everyone read into it what they wanted



At no point did she state a political side as you can see.

So is only one side allowed to point this out and try to call for unity now?

And companies have received letters of feedback since.... well, since the end of Feudalism. What makes this particular area deserving of special treatment, to be protected from feedback?

Because more and more often it's making false claims about the person to try and get the company to act to punish the person as though it's a court the court system.

 

[Silvanus]

Well yes because it's a warning of where the road goes.

Where "the road goes". What road? The road of... modern American treatment of conservatives? You know, conservatives, who control the political structures in half the States, and held the Presidency until January? One of the largest and most immensely powerful groups in America? You believe the road we're on is leading to... woke people massacring them in their millions?

....And how come you now seem to be treating the idea as a credible warning, when a moment ago you were saying it was entirely misrepresented in the first place and she never said it?

Except she didn't. At no point did she state a political side in it

Everyone read into it what they wanted

At no point did she state a political side as you can see.

So is only one side allowed to point this out and try to call for unity now?

No fucking "side" should be equating political groups in modern America with ethnic groups facing genocide. But nobody else has done that. Pedro Pascal didn't, and the Auschwitz Museum didn't.

You're trying to create an equivalence, when in fact nobody else you're pointing to actually took part in equivalent behaviour.

Because more and more often it's making false claims about the person to try and get the company to act to punish the person as though it's a court the court system.

OK. If it's a false claim about a factual matter, the employer can dismiss it out of hand; or if they're propagating it through a media outlet, I've already said that's unacceptable, and they should have recourse to slander & libel legislation.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Where "the road goes". What road? The road of... modern American treatment of conservatives? You know, conservatives, who control the political structures in half the States, and held the Presidency until January? One of the largest and most immensely powerful groups in America? You believe the road we're on is leading to... woke people massacring them in their millions?

....And how come you now seem to be treating the idea as a credible warning, when a moment ago you were saying it was entirely misrepresented in the first place and she never said it?



No fucking "side" should be equating political groups in modern America with ethnic groups facing genocide. But nobody else has done that. Pedro Pascal didn't, and the Auschwitz Museum didn't.

You're trying to create an equivalence, when in fact nobody else you're pointing to actually took part in equivalent behaviour.



OK. If it's a false claim about a factual matter, the employer can dismiss it out of hand; or if they're propagating it through a media outlet, I've already said that's unacceptable, and they should have recourse to slander & libel legislation.

This back and forth is getting kind of silly.

Dwarven is on the side of trying to define a clear difference between offering criticism, versus actually trying to eliminate the thing you are critiquing.

You seem to be saying, "Hey they are just criticisizing and if they happen to get cancelled then sucks to suck bro." Which comes across as not only very basic and cold hearted, but also extremely dishonest.

So I'll ask you a simple question. Can we agree that some criticism as of late goes too far?