You're not doing anything to rebut the criticism that you have a very shallow understanding of the topic. You keep going back to these platitudes, avoiding saying what any of your ideas would look like in praxis. This is the Ben Shapiro school of free speech argumentation: talk a lot about rationality and objectivity while never actually using either. Talk a lot about ideas while not having any. Your argument boils down to, "If you decide you no longer want to support someone you used to, then you're a bad person." And trying to frame it as "helping" or "coaxing" has the same creepy subtext as evangelical Christians redefining the word "love" so that their bigotry is instead framed as selflessly helping people to overcome their sinful natures. If anything, it carries a distinct stink of arrogance.
Liberals, progressives and conservatives of note sign open letter to end cancel culture. (Noam Chomsky/J.K. Rowling/Gloria Steinem/David Brooks etc.)
- Thread starter Dreiko
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So I forgot to add a point. Left-wing is usually about the people where Right-wing is usually about maintaining the Hierarchy, which is currently Capitalism. For you to be Left-wing, you'd have to be willing to forgo donations from business to sway votes on policies. Both the Republicans and Democrats are neck deep in Big Business donations.
I think it's obvious what they look like. People will watch things and read things and focus on what that experience was without bothering to worry about external factors.
Not forced by some external entity or power. People will, out of their own striving to enjoy their life, manifest in them the desire to be able to enjoy things which by all means they should be able to enjoy, based on the information that it, yes, is indeed possible to enjoy that thing just fine.
It's kinda like noticing when you're being irrational and stopping or at least putting effort in that direction. If someone's arachnophobic they're not a bad person but they also don't benefit from having a panic attack every time they see a spider in a videogame. It is in their best interest to endeavor to not be in that place mentally.
Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, mate. I get the feeling we're never gonna get each other on this issue.
You're conflating people who take issue with problematic authors (and then basically decide to stop supporting that author) with the issue of creators resorting to diversity checklists. Which is not the same issue.
Also, minorities don't like or want the checklists either. It leads to token flat characters and poorly delivered writing.
No. I didn't.
What I said was that I have a line.
Which is, quite simply, "Don't be a massive asshole to the point where my distaste for you is greater than any joy I can wring out of your work, ESPECIALLY if you are the sole creator of that work". I do not think that's unreasonable or neurotic.
As for people's "dark secrets", I don't worry about them, because how the hell would I even know what it is? Worrying about shit I can't possibly know is a recipe for senseless anxiety and I already have to cope with enough of that in my daily life, thank you very much.
Finally, that "literally autistic" line...
Hi. I'm actually on the autism spectrum (Aspergers).
And yet I actually DO recognize that people are nuanced and complicated and multifaceted!
My issue is that sometimes a person pisses me off more than the joy I could get from their work.
A sentiment, which, surprise surprise, is shared by a considerable number of people who are NOT autistic.
Seems to me like it's got nothing to do with autism.
You...Realize I agree with on mandated checklists being bad (AND unnecessary), right? And you're starting to misrepresent the whole thing as "there are neurotic cancelers out there hunting for people who don't follow a diversity checklist, because they desire POWER!" which couldn't be further from the truth.
You're conflating people who take issue with problematic authors (and then basically decide to stop supporting that author) with the issue of creators resorting to diversity checklists. Which is not the same issue.
Also, minorities don't like or want the checklists either. It leads to token flat characters and poorly delivered writing.
Have I ever, at any point in this discussion, said a person must be completely benevolent in order for me to enjoy their work?
No. I didn't.
What I said was that I have a line.
Which is, quite simply, "Don't be a massive asshole to the point where my distaste for you is greater than any joy I can wring out of your work, ESPECIALLY if you are the sole creator of that work". I do not think that's unreasonable or neurotic.
As for people's "dark secrets", I don't worry about them, because how the hell would I even know what it is? Worrying about shit I can't possibly know is a recipe for senseless anxiety and I already have to cope with enough of that in my daily life, thank you very much.
Finally, that "literally autistic" line...
Hi. I'm actually on the autism spectrum (Aspergers).
And yet I actually DO recognize that people are nuanced and complicated and multifaceted!
My issue is that sometimes a person pisses me off more than the joy I could get from their work.
A sentiment, which, surprise surprise, is shared by a considerable number of people who are NOT autistic.
Seems to me like it's got nothing to do with autism.
And once again, a thread in the current events has gotten off topic. Woohoo. Extra hoo.
This really proves how stupid the letter to end cancer culture is.
This really proves how stupid the letter to end cancer culture is.
It's not.
External factors like the views of the creator and how those views inform the work? Or external views like how the material relates in some way to your life?
That is approaching Jordan Peterson level word salad. It's all vagaries and meaningless appeals to, "Doesn't this make you feel better?" Again, you're just trying to police other people's thoughts and speech by telling them that there is your way of engaging with media (shallow, uncritical, unprincipled), and the wrong way (literally any other way of engaging with media).
I watched Triumph of the Will for a documentary film class once. We talked about the innovative techniques it used, but also as the springboard for a discussion on the ethics of documentary filmmaking, the responsibility of creator to audience and the line between documentary and propaganda. According to you, that is the wrong way to engage with media because those are all external factors that had nothing to do with, say, the cinematography. Apparently, we did a horrible disservice to Leni Riefenstahl by not ignoring the fact that she was a literal Nazi.
The idea that we have a moral obligation to never question or criticize the creator, only the art (and even then on only the most superficial levels) is an invention of people who are neither very bright nor particularly thick-skinned. It's a way to deflect criticism and control the conversation. In other words, you are doing exactly what you accuse the left of doing and have justified to yourself as an act of altruism. You are putting feelings over facts. You are censoring people for having the wrong opinions. You are trying to enforce codes of what is and is not acceptable speech.
I missed this earlier. I'm on the autistic spectrum and the strawman you described is not literal autism. Bluntly: you have no idea what autism is.
I believe its called virtue signalling, which is now a sin apparently
Also, youre on the forum for things not to go off topic. This happens in every thread
Want to burn it down more?
Your title is "Lover of beat'em ups" and I was wondering if you've played River City Girls and if it's good.
Not to this degree. That is why whenever you see my threads like this. I usually have or implied guidelines to not get too off topic. I tell them straight up if you are here screw around or derail the thread, then get the hell out.
I have not played it, but I've heard nothing, but good things mostly. I admit, I don't like semi-open world/open-wold brawlers. Most of the Kunio-Kun/River City games are like that in structure. It also has one of those, collect/destroy all of certain objects to get the true ending/final boss bull crap. I tend to hate that. So if I do play it, I will be looking at collection guides.
"Good job!"I see. Good to know.
(Also, oh my God. We can change the size of images?!)
If you've got the clout to get major magazine interviews and published letters and book deals, you aren't cancelled.
Sinead O'Connor got canceled, for ripping up a picture of the pope in protest of the Church's coverup of child rape
The Dixie Chicks got cancelled, for saying the Iraq war, which was started on abject lies, was bad and the George W Bush was an idiot at best.
Most of these powerful folks *love* cancel culture. They just hate that us proles have a tiny amount of organizing power.
Cancel culture is when a trans artist gets "doxed" by kiwi farms and deletes her social media
Cancel culture is when a child black artist shares that they're a ********* as a coping mechanism and bigoted idiots (and hypersensitive "friends") immediately jump to thinking ********* was "pedophile"
Cancel Culture doesn't happen to anybody with any amount of clout. People with clout are just mad they're being held even slightly accountable.
Sinead O'Connor got canceled, for ripping up a picture of the pope in protest of the Church's coverup of child rape
The Dixie Chicks got cancelled, for saying the Iraq war, which was started on abject lies, was bad and the George W Bush was an idiot at best.
Most of these powerful folks *love* cancel culture. They just hate that us proles have a tiny amount of organizing power.
Cancel culture is when a trans artist gets "doxed" by kiwi farms and deletes her social media
Cancel culture is when a child black artist shares that they're a ********* as a coping mechanism and bigoted idiots (and hypersensitive "friends") immediately jump to thinking ********* was "pedophile"
Cancel Culture doesn't happen to anybody with any amount of clout. People with clout are just mad they're being held even slightly accountable.
I think, to a degree, the reaction comes from people who feel (accurately or not) like they’re gonna wind up in the vulnerable category projecting the behaviors taken against the powerful onto a theoretical cancelled version of themselves. They do so only now rather than in relation to these previous “cancellations” because they themselves do not willingly identify with anyone in those vulnerable categories. They are often not a sexual or racial minority or have not faced oppression on that axis, and they refuse to identify with those in the same economic class due to our society’s shaming of poverty and working class solidarity. So when a white guy who talks like them faces a backlash, they worry they will themselves face that backlash, and don’t analyze the actual result of “cancelling“ say, David Brooks.
I cancelled myself off social media by shuttering all my accounts, because they bore me and I wasn't using them anyway. Does that count?
I never had any social media pages to begin with. No Myspace, no Facebook (I predicted it would be the new Myspace), and especially no Twitter. I still wish to get rid of those sites, as they have done barely anything to help people at all.