Hogwarts Legacy Will Allow For Transgender Characters

[Silvanus]

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.

Really? That's what's dishonest? Not... y'know, that description of my position? That's not what I've been saying.

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

Obviously! And it always has!

 

[CriticalGaming]

Obviously! And it always has!

So than in what instance should a piece of media be censored or cancelled because someone somewhere didn't like it?

You agree that these critiques and complains go too far, so where would you draw the line? At what point would you tell someone, "Okay just don't watch/buy whatever this is."

Because we are censoring Dr. Seuss books now. And if we are willing to go that far, then what stops people from tearing anything apart to find something offensive about it. Let's ban old Westerns for cultural appropriation while we're at it.

Soon nobody will be able to tell stories at all because any possible drama might offend someone.

 

[Silvanus]

So than in what instance should a piece of media be censored or cancelled because someone somewhere didn't like it?

If you mean "fired by their employer", then I'd say it's a valid reason to let someone go if they say something deeply inflammatory, for which every case would need to be investigated individually. The responsibility for which would be on the employer, not unconnected people tweeting about it.

You agree that these critiques and complains go too far, so where would you draw the line? At what point would you tell someone, "Okay just don't watch/buy whatever this is."

Everybody has their own line, of course, that will lead them to complain.

Piers Morgan on ITV, who claimed that Meghan Markle was lying about the racism she's faced, and about her mental health issues. That elicited 40,000 complaints to Ofcom. I'd say that's a perfectly valid reason to complain, and I'm happy he's fucked off the show.

Rihanna & Christina Aguilera performing in scanty outfits on the X-Factor. That elicited ~3,000 complaints. In that case I think the complainants were in the wrong, and I'm glad nothing was done about it. Obviously the complainants still have the right to criticise, and me disagreeing with their criticism doesn't mean I think they should all shut up. They can voice what they want.

Because we are censoring Dr. Seuss books now. And if we are willing to go that far, then what stops people from tearing anything apart to find something offensive about it. Let's ban old Westerns for cultural appropriation while we're at it.

Soon nobody will be able to tell stories at all because any possible drama might offend someone.

I want people to be able to tell their stories. I also want people to be able to criticise them.

Companies and public figures have always received criticism, since the inception of art. And sometimes, if they think what they're doing is pissing too many people off, they'll alter what they're doing, without being forced to do so. This has also happened from the very beginning.

The difference now is that some people have manufactured a culture war around defending art from "woke" criticisms. As if those criticisms have some great power, or as if they're somehow new or uniquely dangerous.

 

[Baffle]

Because we are censoring Dr. Seuss books now.

Are you saying the Dr. Seuss estate should be obliged to continue producing material they're don't want to because you like racist imagery in the children's books you read? I think that if someone did a bad thing once, they shouldn't be obliged to keep doing it just because someone else gets off on it. Bonkers idea.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

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 the road is leading to more cases of outright open conflict with people on both sides going to extremes.

There was a guy sending pipe bombs to news agencies because he thought they were a threat to democracy.

There was a group who kidnapped and livstreamed them torturing a guy because they believed he was a Trump supporter or at least accused him of doing it.

The insane push that there can be no balance one side must dominate fully and definitely with ever more extreme things being done by both against the other to try and make them back down or try to find a way to get the win

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.

And Gina Carano didn't either.

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

Nor did Gina. I literally posted what she put out. That's the post that got her in trouble. That's it. Are you seeing a different post to what I am?

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.

They could but generally it will take investigation from an employer to show it is false meanwhile the mob keeps pushing and keeps pushing. Investigations take time and money and so does dealing with the mob clogging up server and attacking websites.

The US Slander and Libel legislation is extremely weak. You have to prove damages directly from the incident. That means basically the company has to say "You were fired due to these allegations" if they don't then it doesn't count as damages even if you were a model employee and only got fired after the allegations started pouring in. No company in the USA will likely ever say "You were fire because of these allegations" thought because then they might be liable for damages for unlawful dismissal or similar.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Are you saying the Dr. Seuss estate should be obliged to continue producing material they're don't want to because you like racist imagery in the children's books you read? I think that if someone did a bad thing once, they shouldn't be obliged to keep doing it just because someone else gets off on it. Bonkers idea.

And by doing that you'll remove the last 80 years of those books being in circulation?

This was a pre-emptive move by the estate and that's their right. In this instance they are trying to avoid being the next target. I found this a rather interesting read https://news.wttw.com/2021/03/08/dr-seuss-literary-estate-embroiled-cancel-culture-controversy But one of the publishers said, “This is actually a decision by a private organization that has come to the conclusion, that given the controversy over the author’s other works that he did leading up to and during World War II, that a target was going to be on their backs. And they made a financial decision here to throw six of the books out in hopes that the entire canon wouldn’t be ultimately canceled. That’s what happened here.”

Basically admitted that the estate is hoping that by removing what might be considered the most egregious of the books, they will avoid controversy over the entire library.

It's also pointed out that while the depictions are exaggerated and ridiculous, it also fits the overall world in which everything is exaggerated and ridiculous.

Not to quote the she-devil but it serves as a beacon of today's social media:
We've lost the ability to let things roll off our backs. To roll our eyes at cartoons, jokes, comics, stories, fictional events, and instead people let everything get to them and if something bother's one person then it must, by proxy, bother everyone else. Those few will paint their problems into broader strokes and conflate their grip into something that can actually be harmful to society regardless of how ridiculous the claim is.

I do not believe the world is as racist, homophobic, or whatever that people online like to claim it is. Because if it was, then society itself would not be functioning because we would all be too busy either enacting violence or trying to fend off violence.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

The difference now is that some people have manufactured a culture war around defending art from "woke" criticisms. As if those criticisms have some great power, or as if they're somehow new or uniquely dangerous.

I dunno how manufactured it is so much as a symptom of the push to dominate or just take petty revenge.



I mean there was also this meeting with actual Science faculty at one place


I'm using these as two easy examples I have to had there has been plenty of other stuff.

The campaign to make 007 a woman for example

They're not new or uniquely dangerous on their own but the present attitude and environment has made them dangerous as it pushes and rewards knee jerk feeling reactions over thought out logic and facts.

The power is companies who act fast are rewarded and companies who act slow by investigating get punished especially if they refuse to pull the stuff

The cycle of this nonsense has gone on long enough and people are pushing back strongly now because some people think the only value in art is as a vector to deliver messages and they want only their messages or those approved by them to be allowed.

 

[Silvanus]

No the road is leading to more cases of outright open conflict with people on both sides going to extremes.

There was a guy sending pipe bombs to news agencies because he thought they were a threat to democracy.

There was a group who kidnapped and livstreamed them torturing a guy because they believed he was a Trump supporter or at least accused him of doing it.

The insane push that there can be no balance one side must dominate fully and definitely with ever more extreme things being done by both against the other to try and make them back down or try to find a way to get the win

Violent political crimes have always happened. This is not a prelude to genocide. And the suggestion that the modern American situation for conservatives is in any way analogous is grossly disrespectful towards the victims.

Nor did Gina. I literally posted what she put out. That's the post that got her in trouble. That's it. Are you seeing a different post to what I am?

No, I'm merely taking the obvious interpretation: when she says "what's the difference", that means she doesn't see a difference. And the two things she uses are... political disagreements in the modern US, and Nazi Germany.

You're bending over backwards to interpret it any other way. It's right there.

They could but generally it will take investigation from an employer to show it is false meanwhile the mob keeps pushing and keeps pushing. Investigations take time and money and so does dealing with the mob clogging up server and attacking websites.

The US Slander and Libel legislation is extremely weak. You have to prove damages directly from the incident. That means basically the company has to say "You were fired due to these allegations" if they don't then it doesn't count as damages even if you were a model employee and only got fired after the allegations started pouring in. No company in the USA will likely ever say "You were fire because of these allegations" thought because then they might be liable for damages for unlawful dismissal or similar.

Then strengthen slander and libel legislation. But they must only ever be utilised against demonstrably false or grossly defamatory statements.

If you want a mechanism in place to prevent people criticising public figures, then you're calling for something altogether more insidious.

 

[Silvanus]

I dunno how manufactured it is so much as a symptom of the push to dominate or just take petty revenge.

View attachment 3390

Good example, actually! Due to a public outcry, GCS has let Kimya Nuru Dennis go as a result of the above position she took.

I presume, from what you've been saying thus far, that you're totally against GCS letting her go? That she should be able to express whatever she wants, and if the GCS has let her go then she's been "cancelled"?

They're not new or uniquely dangerous on their own but the present attitude and environment has made them dangerous as it pushes and rewards knee jerk feeling reactions over thought out logic and facts.

The power is companies who act fast are rewarded and companies who act slow by investigating get punished especially if they refuse to pull the stuff

The cycle of this nonsense has gone on long enough and people are pushing back strongly now because some people think the only value in art is as a vector to deliver messages and they want only their messages or those approved by them to be allowed.

So what's your solution, then? Critics not be allowed to criticise? Or we just criticise the critics?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Violent political crimes have always happened. This is not a prelude to genocide. And the suggestion that the modern American situation for conservatives is in any way analogous is grossly disrespectful towards the victims.

Except it seems to be getting worse. The divisions getting worse and it becoming overall more hostile.

No, I'm merely taking the obvious interpretation: when she says "what's the difference", that means she doesn't see a difference. And the two things she uses are... political disagreements in the modern US, and Nazi Germany.

You're bending over backwards to interpret it any other way. It's right there.

It's bending over backward to say that Gina Carano said it's happening to conservatives.
Actually scratch that it's an outright lie because it's not what she said.
You can say she maybe thought or meant that but she didn't say it.

Then strengthen slander and libel legislation. But they must only ever be utilised against demonstrably false or grossly defamatory statements.

If you want a mechanism in place to prevent people criticising public figures, then you're calling for something altogether more insidious.

I didn't say I was against criticism. I'm against the seemingly false slanderous accusations being weaponised to try to push people to react by knee jerks not thought out responses.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Good example, actually! Due to a public outcry, GCS has let Kimya Nuru Dennis go as a result of the above position she took.

I presume, from what you've been saying thus far, that you're totally against GCS letting her go? That she should be able to express whatever she wants, and if the GCS has let her go then she's been "cancelled"?

Wasn't her job equality trainer though?

If it was the tweet / tweets alone yeh I'm against it. If it was found out her equality training was not that equal in the end then letting her go would make sense.

So what's your solution, then? Critics not be allowed to criticise? Or we just criticise the critics?

Better protections pretty much against false claims and not only employees allowed to claim damages from campaigns against them but employers too (Trust me the moment companies suddenly face almost 0 cost for properly investigating things they very much will do more often.

 

[Silvanus]

Except it seems to be getting worse. The divisions getting worse and it becoming overall more hostile.

Again: grossly disrespectful to the actual victims of actual genocide, and I can fully sympathise with people outraged and upset about this inane suggestion.

It's bending over backward to say that Gina Carano said it's happening to conservatives.
Actually scratch that it's an outright lie because it's not what she said.
You can say she maybe thought or meant that but she didn't say it.

She effectively said the political situation is no different. Who do you imagine she's referring to, given the context of her other posts on political topics?

I didn't say I was against criticism. I'm against the seemingly false slanderous accusations being weaponised to try to push people to react by knee jerks not thought out responses.

So not subjective descriptions like "alt-right", then? Just things that can be said to be factually false?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Again: grossly disrespectful to the actual victims of actual genocide, and I can fully sympathise with people outraged and upset about this inane suggestion.

Then so was the tweet by the Auschwitz museum as it was saying before the genocide happened this did.

She effectively said the political situation is no different. Who do you imagine she's referring to, given the context of her other posts on political topics?

So did the Auschwitz museum essentially................

So not subjective descriptions like "alt-right", then? Just things that can be said to be factually false?

Considering the weight and meaning attributed to Alt-right and the meaning it has come to take on it's not truly a subjective meaning anymore.

 

[Silvanus]

Wasn't her job equality trainer though?

If it was the tweet / tweets alone yeh I'm against it. If it was found out her equality training was not that equal in the end then letting her go would make sense.

I encourage you to look up the response: an officer speaking for GCS specifically said that the post in question wasn't referring to her work with GCS. She was axed due to the post itself, and explicitly (from GCS' own mouth) not due to her work with them.

So, to be clear: you'd say that anyone calling for her to go is part of the problem you're talking about?

Better protections pretty much against false claims and not only employees allowed to claim damages from campaigns against them but employers too (Trust me the moment companies suddenly face almost 0 cost for properly investigating things they very much will do more often.

False claims, yes, but we both agree on slander legislation. We've been talking about subjective descriptions, like "alt-right".

 

[Silvanus]

Then so was the tweet by the Auschwitz museum as it was saying before the genocide happened this did.

The fact that you cannot see the difference (or refuse to admit that you can) at this point beggars belief. You're using the Auschwitz Museum for a cheap false equivalence. I'm more than a little disgusted by it.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

And by doing that you'll remove the last 80 years of those books being in circulation?

This was a pre-emptive move by the estate and that's their right. In this instance they are trying to avoid being the next target. I found this a rather interesting read https://news.wttw.com/2021/03/08/dr-seuss-literary-estate-embroiled-cancel-culture-controversy But one of the publishers said, “This is actually a decision by a private organization that has come to the conclusion, that given the controversy over the author’s other works that he did leading up to and during World War II, that a target was going to be on their backs. And they made a financial decision here to throw six of the books out in hopes that the entire canon wouldn’t be ultimately canceled. That’s what happened here.”

Basically admitted that the estate is hoping that by removing what might be considered the most egregious of the books, they will avoid controversy over the entire library.

Samuel Karnik is not "one of the publishers". Samuel Karnick is the PR guy for the Heartland Institute, a Conservative Libertarian think tank who's vested interest in this situation is Culture War. (And they probably want racist depictions of different ethnicities in children's books to stay circulating, but that's probably just my less than stellar opinion of the American right talking)

He's quite literally talking out his ass. He's not a source

 

[Thaluikhain]

Samuel Karnik is not "one of the publishers". Samuel Karnick is the PR guy for the Heartland Institute, a Conservative Libertarian think tank who's vested interest in this situation is Culture War. (And they probably want racist depictions of different ethnicities in children's books to stay circulating, but that's probably just my less than stellar opinion of the American right talking)

He's quite literally talking out his ass. He's not a source

Sounds like you're implying we shouldn't listen to him just because he's obviously lying. Which is yet more censorship!

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I encourage you to look up the response: an officer speaking for GCS specifically said that the post in question wasn't referring to her work with GCS. She was axed due to the post itself, and explicitly (from GCS' own mouth) not due to her work with them.

So, to be clear: you'd say that anyone calling for her to go is part of the problem you're talking about?

People calling for to go for the tweet yes.
People calling for her to go for her the latter part of her response no because

“Hopefully,” she added, “adults will end the uninformed outrage and work for such justice.”

Not a great look. to call people outraged at it (including members of staff at the school and board members).

The "Crux" of her response was to claim (and I can believe this) that the tweet was a deliberately over the top deliberately provocative tweet designed to push the subject of books and textbooks and curriculum material to the forefront of discussion. It's a very very stupid move that seemingly has taken over activists of "Well as long a we force this issue to the forefront it doesn't matter how we do it or whatever lies we tell or things we misrepresent or how over the top the claim is in fact the more over the top the better".

False claims, yes, but we both agree on slander legislation. We've been talking about subjective descriptions, like "alt-right".

If they define Alt-right yes subjective. If they don't then no as it's being used as a pejorative label.

The fact that you cannot see the difference (or refuse to admit that you can) at this point beggars belief. You're using the Auschwitz Museum for a cheap false equivalence. I'm more than a little disgusted by it.

Because there is little difference other than the person saying the message.

When we look at Auschwitz we see the end of the process. It's important to remember that the Holocaust actually did not start from gas chambers. This hatred gradually developed from words, stereotypes & prejudice through legal exclusion, dehumanisation & escalating violence.

The only real substantial difference is Gina Carano's focussed on on political sides (but literally never mentioned one side or the other). Hell the Auschwitz museum one technically goes further than Gina Carano's in another way by bringing up stereotypes and legal exclusion not merely pushing hated.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Baffle]

And by doing that you'll remove the last 80 years of those books being in circulation?

Right, they aren't removing the ones in circulation, so it's not really censorship, is it? Note: it was you who said it was censorship.

This was a pre-emptive move by the estate and that's their right. In this instance they are trying to avoid being the next target. I found this a rather interesting read https://news.wttw.com/2021/03/08/dr-seuss-literary-estate-embroiled-cancel-culture-controversy But one of the publishers said, “This is actually a decision by a private organization that has come to the conclusion, that given the controversy over the author’s other works that he did leading up to and during World War II, that a target was going to be on their backs. And they made a financial decision here to throw six of the books out in hopes that the entire canon wouldn’t be ultimately canceled. That’s what happened here.”

Basically admitted that the estate is hoping that by removing what might be considered the most egregious of the books, they will avoid controversy over the entire library.

That quote isn't from one of the publishers, it's from (as noted in the article) 'Samuel Karnick, a senior fellow and director for publications at the Heartland Institute'. I hadn't heard of the Heartland Institute, but it didn't sound like a publisher of children's books, so I checked. It's 'an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank'. You think that might influence his perspective a little bit?

What the publisher (Random House) actually said was ' We respect the decision of Dr. Seuss Enterprises (DSE) and the work of the panel that reviewed this content last year, and their recommendation.'

I do not believe the world is as racist, homophobic, or whatever that people online like to claim it is.

They why are so many people crying about companies no longer wanting to produce racist literature?