Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
17,356
1,494
118
Ah yes powerless in the land of gun.
Remember when some deranged terrorist thought that some politicians were fascists so went to the congress baseball game with a gun?
Scott doesn't have that kind of protection and the rhetoric some people have been pushing has been "They want us dead" and sooner or later that becomes or it gets floated "well we should get them first before they come for us". Even if it's in some corner with deranged idiots.
We live in a world where some idiot tried to hire a hitman on the dark web to kill youtube Boogie 2998. We live in the world where some psycho broke into the home of Rooster Teeth's Gavin Free and Meg Turney because he thought Gavin wasn't good enough for Meg.
The Scott Cawthon situation from my perspective is people trying to drum up outrage and stoke the fires in the hopes some unhinged person goes too far. Or hell even the police show up and things go badly when some-one uses that personal info to swat him.
I'm... not talking about threats, I'm talking about criticism. Which is what the outrage against the outrage is about; People being mad that people are mad that Scott Cawthon donated to Trump and his ilk. Death threats are never justified, but that's not why the 'cancel culture' flagwaving crowd is mad. They're mad because people are upset that Scott Cawthon finincially supports Trump, and how dare they be upset about that. Even without the death threats people who like to cry cancel culture would be just as ticked off by this.

As a reminder Tarantino was actually on the back seat of the car during that incident, he was the one filming. People tend to forget that little bit of info lol. Yes he screwed up but you kinda have to admit his logic was somewhat sound "Well we've checked going one way down this stretch of road and it was fine so why would going the other way down it suddenly be more dangerous" and if he at least put himself on the line too.
Yeah sure, that makes it better. How bad was his neck injury by the way?

After all the years of being told I by preachers etc on the street that I'm a sinner who will burn in hell because I don't believe in some magical sky man. At this stage it takes a real personal set of insults to actually get to me or some pretty impressively nasty bullshit to actually get me truly peeved. Some have actually managed this (Hello publisher who once told me that they can't wait for "You and people like you to become extinct for the good of all humanity".)
Cool story bro.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,254
1,889
118
Country
United Kingdom
But you can blame Scott for not having precognition to know months or years into the future politicians he supported would put forward Anti-LGBTQQIAA2+ bills (I think I got the acronym right).
No precognition needed. Mitch McConnell and Ben Carson etc were well known as vitriolic assholes at the time.

So people who are fine with certain drugs used today developed thanks to highly immoral (not just unethical) Nazi experiments on prisoners support the Nazis still?
How about Nasa and space exploration? Nazi Scientists helped with that stuff so I guess supporting Nasa is now supporting the Nazis too?
What is the limit on this stuff? Is there one or is all time now something we can retroactively look back and say people are bad to support now because of things they were built on?
Past actual representation in some things is being deemed modern problematic because it doesn't live up to specific modern standards.....
Uhrm, is anyone here at all arguing that we should somehow remove everything Cawthon made...? I'm not seeing it. It's literally just criticism.
 
Last edited:

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,325
473
88
Jesus Christ, okay. People aren't even allowed to say someone's being rude anymore or it's "cancel culture".

It's truly lost all meaning.
As a reminder they did ban the developer from his own subreddit over that and then launched a campaign to try and mass downvote the game on steam (it failed but they tried). Uncle Bob may be a huge asshole but then again so are plenty of people in history and if we wish to discard them and wish to stop people like that in the hear and now we will lose a lot. There's this weird assumption that "Oh the thing would be made or discovered eventually anyway so we should just make sure it's some-one we approve of who does it" which is kinda a bullshit stance I've seen people taking especially when the standards are ever shifting.

With the NFL, was there someone who was fired, who wasnt allowed to return to the league... still?
In Actuality? No
In PR wars? Yes
Colin Kaepernick.

Actuality:
Kaepernick was the 2nd worst performing Quarterback in the NFL in the last full season he played. He refused however to take the role of a back up quarterback / reserve / second quarterback and insisted he be only would sign contacts offering him a position as an opening quaterback. (who from my understanding are seen as higher prestige positions often paying more as they spend more time on the field)

PR wise:
The claim is Kaepernick won't be hired because of his beliefs and positions and the protests he did and the PR conveniently leave out the whole part about poor performance and waiting only specific contracts. It's why some people see his action as more of a PR move because he wasn't getting the contracts he wanted so wanted attention on him and some club to feel guilty or at least open up a new possible avenue for him to earn money as an activist icon for a while.

Would you buy coffee if the profits went to an Ehtopian war lord?
People probably do they just don't realise it lol.


I agree.
What I don't get, is giving money or having given money to the GOP such a big deal? I bet most people - fuck it, everyone - swearing off Cawthon patronize hundreds of other products and services that benefit the occasional GOP donor.
The founders and VP of Blizzard give the GOP money regularly. EA employees and execs have donated a collective 50k. Where's their controversy?
Isn't some-one at some major game studio like Trumps cousin or cousin in law too?

There is a better term for it: accountability. It's just that nobody who buys into the cancel culture boogeyman wants to own up to that.
Maybe because we have these things called legal systems designed to actually deal with the very serious cases were it's normally most deserved?
Cancel Culture is more destruction via the mob and Kangaroo court / mob justice.
I dunno maybe I've seen too much dystopian fiction stuff and learned to much about about past events etc that I really don't see it as accountability and really think at some point people have to be ok to let things go when it's down to tribalism and not so much personal attacks and insults against specific people.


lol nope. Milo was banned from Twitter for repeatedly braeking the rules of the platform and driving a higher-profile user than him off that platform through constant harassment. Do you actually believe that is acceptable behavior?
Just stepping in to correct this.
At the time Milo's ban was due to "Being a verified user and sharing information you know or a sane person should rightly realise is false" basically some-one sent him some fake tweets claiming to be from Leslie Joans. He shared them with his followers and he was banned for in twitter's view deliberately sharing false information. He never did compare her to anything (as some-one else in this thread said). Though other people did in replies and they weren't banned for it.
A rule that was quickly never applied again as Trump's campaign accelerated.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,618
978
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
No precognition needed. Mitch McConnell and Ben Carson etc were well known as vitriolic assholes at the time.



Uhrm, is anyone here at all arguing that we should somehow remove everything Cawthon made...? I'm not seeing it. It's literally just criticism.
FYI, I think you misquoted me - I think you were meant to be quoting Dwarf.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,102
614
118
Country
United Kingdom
Did Brett Weinstein deserve to be hounded off campus because he said that the day of absence was a bad idea?
I don't know. But he did involve himself in a situation he didn't understand and then, when confronted, dug in and choose to disregard or ignore the reasons why students were angry with him (which by my reading has very little to do with the day of absence).

Regardless, he wasn't fired. He quit his job, tried to sue his institution for not the having students arrested for.. confronting him in a hallway and then he started hanging out with Jordy P and the scientific racism gang. That is not the reaction of a normal person, and it makes me wonder if this is the first time something like this happened, or just the one time it got big enough that everyone heard about it. I don't know because noone bothered to ask the students what their issues with him actually were. We only have his word, and that of his family, that he wasn't racist before.

Did Dawkins deserve to be piled on for saying that church bells sounded nicer than the Adhan? (Which, incidentally, showed the hypocrisy of people like Hamid Dabashi - fine to Christianity, but criticize Islam? Islamophobe and racist.)
So, that's not what he said. He said "our" church bells sound nicer than the "aggressive-sounding allahu akhbar" (sic)

Now, when Dawkins talks about "our great medieval cathedrals", do you think the "we" means Christians? Do you think he's admitting that he's a Christian now? No. The "our" is white British people like himself. Dawkins thinks that medieval cathedrals and their bells are part of his legacy as a white person, and that this legacy compares favourably to that of the culture that produced the adhan (here conflated with the takbir).

Frankly the level of response he received was absurdly respectful.

Unfortunately though, this is scraping the tip top of the iceberg in terms of weird shit Dawkins has said. Again, he hasn't been fired or "cancelled" (the closest we got is the American Humanist Association taking away his award because he kept being weird and transphobic). It's just that noone cares about him any more. He's become this weird hateful old man who flirts with ethnonationalism and hatred of minorities and then pretends he's being scientific, and even most of the people who used to like him don't recognize or want to be associated with him any more.

And you haven't answered the question I raised earlier, whether everyone mentioned in this thread deserves to be fired.
Most of them haven't been fired from anything.

Again, I don't think James Damore should have been fired. I think Google should have recognized that he wasn't capable of understanding the implications of his actions and ensured he was provided with help, but Google is a business. Like many tech businesses, it is happy to exploit the neurological differences of autistic people while also feeling no obligation towards them.

Google made the decision to fire James Damore. Google made the decision to blacklist him from the tech industry. Google, incidentally, is a company which lets its executives sexually harass employees and, when they get caught, gives them severance packages so large they will never need to work again, so they clearly take workplace sexism very seriously.

And what this tells me is that you don't have any principles. You're fine with people being fired, or having their lives ruined, but at the same time, you'll turn a blind eye when it's a cause you happen to agree with.
I'm fine with people facing consequences for their actions.

I don't have to agree with every single thing that happens to people, and I don't have to agree that every response is proportionate or necessary. But then, I don't think cancel culture is real. I don't think all unrelated events are symptomatic of the same overarching problem. I don't see any problem with people getting pushback on twitter when they go out of their way to attack minorities. I don't inherently see any problem with people in the public eye losing incredibly lucrative jobs because they keep saying and doing shit so awful that even the soulless corporations who employ them feel compelled to drop them.

I don't accept that merely criticizing someone else means you've ruined their life or "cancelled" them (whatever the hell that even means now). I do think it's entirely normal to criticize people, even loudly or emotionally or in public, and the idea that certain people (you know who I mean) should be able to go on the internet and say whatever horrible shit they want without anyone being allowed to criticize them and without any risk of suffering consequences to their career or public image isn't a sound liberal or humanitarian position.

It's absolutely the same phenomena of social stigmatization, on the intent to silence people and ruin their lives.
Sometimes, people would be better off being silent.

That's not actually problem, that's literally how society works. If something is important enough to be worth saying, noone is stopping you from saying it anyway. It's a sad commentary on the state of the political right that the hills our forebears died on are civil rights or legal equality, while the hills they fantasize about dying on are saying the n-word and stopping trans people from peeing. No one is actually stopping them from saying these things, if they're too scared to suffer the consequences, then good. Society working as designed.

I don't have to imagine, I've seen the footage, seen it in real life, and seen it in published work.
It's a description.

You're being told that the demographic categories into which you fall shape your opinions and imbue you with particular interests, and you're so incapable of accepting that fact that to you pointing out constitutes an honest to god slur. That is literally my point.

Well, marches, petitions, written work, representation in media, etc.
Words.

Those are still mostly words.

I agree, but voting is bottom-tier effort. Yes, I voted to allow gay marriage in the referendum we had here a few years back, I don't expect brownie points.
I mean, if you revealed that you voted against it, I'd definitely be judging you, and that's normal. Being judged for things you do and say and for beliefs you hold is normal. Accept that, or be prepared to live a very miserable and anxious life.
 
Last edited:

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,325
473
88
Which is of course the lion's share of the appeal to perpetually aggrieved white boys who wouldn't know what discrimination was if it kneeled on their necks and suffocated them to death.
I like how you just made massive assumptions about peoples lives and experiences there completely oblivious to just how comedically off base you might find reality. Tell me have you ever had some-one try to stomp on your head?
Because a long time ago I did lol.

Did anyone say that?

Choose your political affiliation. Vote for whoever you want.

But if the people you vote for and affiliate yourself with support cops murdering people in the street, or depriving low income families of basic needs. If they are actively trying to restrict the ability of women and queer people to live their lives, or to legislate trans people out of existence, or to put innocent people in concentration camps, then don't expect anyone to pull their punches with you, because the people you're enabling have never pulled their punches for anyone.

If you're too scared to just own what you are and face whatever adversity comes your way as a result, then maybe public life isn't for you. Because if conservatives have made anything abundantly clear, it's that noone is entitled to live a life without adversity.

Reap the whirlwind.
So people who vote the other way for those who want to abolish police are pro criminals killing people and pro criminality? Because that's what people have seen happening in places cutting police seriously or abolishing them. Hell people in said areas have been leaving to go to other states and jurisdictions because of how bas things have been getting.
Welcome to the problems of a system where there are only 2 sides.

Jessica Price and a dude who defended her were fired for being "rude" online.

Was that a cancellation? If not, then why are we talking about Factorio, exactly?
Jessica Price was rather rude to basically another employee of the company (or more correctly more of a contractor) and when the guy tried to justify his question or offer an apology and drop it she carried on and then tried to drum up people to go after him by basically hauling him infront of all her followers to face a struggle session. The Dude defending her I feel far more sorry for but Price has a history of being an aggressive loudmouth toward other employees at other companies and drumming up drama and campaigns against people.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,325
473
88
The world is full of people, and a lot of them have strange ideas. Anyone in a public-facing role is going to have to deal with the people who turn up and talk bollocks. If you ill-temperedly let fly at cranks with comments likely to piss off a huge number of people, you can suck up the resultant shitstorm you needlessly brought on yourself.

Part of the complaint here is often bringing politics into an arena where it is not necessary or desirable. Well, that also means that if someone does bring unnecessary or undesirable politics into your arena, you don't double down and kick up an even bigger, more divisive political mess. Otherwise you are exactly what you are complaining about.
In this case people dug the stuff up about Scott he didn't brag and yell about this stuff though......
In the case of the Factorio dev the person approaching him was doing so with a political intention and so faced a political reply. You can't really argue "It's unfair to bring politics into it" when the initial point was political. Which BTW I can see as an acceptable argument in relation to NFL kneeling before anyone brings it up because it is weird for non national events to have the national anthem played (then again I'm not American)

I have to wonder what proportion of people whinging about cancel culture are aware of things like this and what proportion are aware, they just either don't care or worse, actively agree.
And I wonder how many people are aware what was just said was complete and utter bovin excrement.
It's a narrative.
If I asked for examples I doubt I'd get any or get some weird "Oh if you squint at this thing it looks bad." I'm guessing it would be Gina saying she wouldn't fight Fallon Fox in the UFC. Fallon being a Trans woman who so far has broken the skulls of 2 women in UFC fights..........I'd call that more sanity and self preservation more than anything else faced with that information.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,063
4,256
118
It's not just Brendan O'Neil saying that, it's the actual report saying that.
The report says that, but only because the security guard told them so. It's not like there's some objective proof of that.

But did the security guard tell the truth? Because I certainly think if I had a long period of time to think about my inaction potentially contributing to 22 dead people, I might come up with something plausible that generates a lot more sympathy than some variant on "I didn't think it worth doing anything". I don't mean to claim that he did lie, just to leave the matter open as it is hardly unusual for people to sugar-coat their actions.

There is a particular issue here that this sort of claim has an element of politicisation: "afraid of being called racist" implies "so this is the fault of the censorious liberal left, then".
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,286
1,488
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
First, you're the one who responded that "racism is good," as if that's what I was actually suggesting.

Second, I agree that racial profiling is bad, but it's a fact that fear of being called racist prevented Kyle Lawler from acting, and if he did, there's a chance those people would still be alive.

It isn't the only case of this where political correctness has done harm - take the Rotherham sex abuse scandal, where people didn't speak out for fear of being called racist. Or, in London, where stop and search policies were dropped (because Black British boys were ten times as likely to be searched than White British, ergo, racism), the rate of knife crime skyrocketed (over 100% in some cases). In the words of John McWhorter, "gosh that's not pretty. But like a lot of things that aren't pretty, it's also true."
So, lets pretend you are this security guard. What would have you done in that moment?
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,325
473
88
I'm... not talking about threats, I'm talking about criticism. Which is what the outrage against the outrage is about; People being mad that people are mad that Scott Cawthon donated to Trump and his ilk. Death threats are never justified, but that's not why the 'cancel culture' flagwaving crowd is mad. They're mad because people are upset that Scott Cawthon finincially supports Trump, and how dare they be upset about that. Even without the death threats people who like to cry cancel culture would be just as ticked off by this.

Yeah sure, that makes it better. How bad was his neck injury by the way?

Cool story bro.
Well I don't know about you but I don't really consider the following to be criticism. (these are based on real tweets I've seen floating about)

"Scott Cawthon supports killing children"
"Scott Cawthon should kill himself"
"Scott Cawthon wants [insert group] dead]"
"Scott Cawthon is a fascist who should be dragged out into the streets and shot"
"Scott Cawthon doesn't deserve to have a family"
"I hope his wife has a miscarriage"

This is the kind of bullshit people are objecting to. It's not criticism it's vitriol and bile being spewed often just done to reinforce narratives especially
in the case of the additional often unproven accusations of malice people are attributing to Scott.

As for Tarantino. He didn't get a neck injury he was lucky, he only fell off the seat into the footwell apparently.
Uhrm, is anyone here at all arguing that we should somehow remove everything Cawthon made...? I'm not seeing it. It's literally just criticism.
No, though people apparently were arguing for it's removal from Steam elsewhere on the internet.


I don't know. But he did involve himself in a situation he didn't understand and then, when confronted, dug in and choose to disregard or ignore the reasons why students were angry with him (which by my reading has very little to do with the day of absence).

Regardless, he wasn't fired. He quit his job, tried to sue his institution for not the having students arrested for.. confronting him in a hallway and then he started hanging out with Jordy P and the scientific racism gang. That is not the reaction of a normal person, and it makes me wonder if this is the first time something like this happened, or just the one time it got big enough that everyone heard about it. I don't know because noone bothered to ask the students what their issues with him actually were. We only have his word, and that of his family, that he wasn't racist before.
He quit his job because he literally wasn't being allowed on campus to teach. His attempts to teach on campus were met with protestors coming into his lectures to disrupt them and he felt the institution just didn't have his back at the time.

Also as for the arrests and stuff......... there were people stalking him and his class pupils and trying to dox them along with attempted intimidation towards him and locations where he decided to try and still hold lessons.

The reaction of a normal person is to go with the group that allows you to survive. The "Woke" side has no way back unless you willing to be a perpetually grovelling pet. The side of liberty including the freedom to disagree and be wrong doesn't condemn you for being wrong normally. I wonder why a Scientist who cares about truth and the idea it may not be as simple as we believe would actually side with those who value the ability to ask questions others may find awkward or offensive..........

Damn Scientists wanting to suggest the Earth revolves around the sun and not that the wholes solar system revolves around the earth. Oh and damn them for trying to find out how the body works so we now in the modern age have the knowledge and technical ability to fix ailments.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,618
978
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
I don't know. But he did involve himself in a situation he didn't understand and then, when confronted, dug in and choose to disregard or ignore the reasons why students were angry with him (which by my reading has very little to do with the day of absence).
Yeah, that isn't what happened.


Regardless, he wasn't fired. He quit his job, tried to sue his institution for not the having students arrested for.. confronting him in a hallway
You're really going into those kind of semantics?

The students practically took staff hostage. The campus frankly failed to provide security.

and then he started hanging out with Jordy P and the scientific racism gang.
Yeah, scientific racism...sure mate.

That is not the reaction of a normal person,
Ah, yes, and in contrast, the students are the normal ones.

I don't know because noone bothered to ask the students what their issues with him actually were.
The students' issues was that Weinstein was racist for objecting to a day of absence. That's it.

We only have his word, and that of his family, that he wasn't racist before.
And that's your litmus test is it? Guilty until proven innocent? We can't prove that Weinstein DIDN'T do something, so therefore, the jury's out.

Yeah, that's not how burden of proof works. Not yet at least.

So, that's not what he said. He said "our" church bells sound nicer than the "aggressive-sounding allahu akhbar" (sic)
Again, you're getting into semantics.

Now, when Dawkins talks about "our great medieval cathedrals", do you think the "we" means Christians? Do you think he's admitting that he's a Christian now?
No, just European/British. You can appreciate a nation's cultural heritage even if you don't belong to the faith to which your heritage belongs.

No. The "our" is white British people like himself.
Yeah, sure mate. Somehow you made this about race/ethnicity. I didn't even think that was possible.

Dawkins thinks that medieval cathedrals and their bells are part of his legacy as a white person, and that this legacy compares favourably to that of the culture that produced the adhan (here conflated with the takbir).

Frankly the level of response he received was absurdly respectful.
The tweet was barely worthy of a response at all. Ooh, shock horror, Dawkins doesn't like the sound of the Adhan and prefers church bells. Hide your children...

Unfortunately though, this is scraping the tip top of the iceberg in terms of weird shit Dawkins has said. Again, he hasn't been fired or "cancelled" (the closest we got is the American Humanist Association taking away his award because he kept being weird and transphobic).
Dawkins had more than that in terms of cancelling, with being disinvited from various events.

Wouldn't mind so much if people didn't apply double standards to the critiism of Christianity vs. Islam. Again, Hamid Dasabi had nary to say when he was criticizing the former, but the come the latter? Oh boy.

Most of them haven't been fired from anything.
Some of the very first people I listed were...

You know, why bother? You won't answer, because you know what the answer is.

I'm fine with people facing consequences for their actions.

I don't have to agree with every single thing that happens to people, and I don't have to agree that every response is proportionate or necessary. But then, I don't think cancel culture is real. I don't think all unrelated events are symptomatic of the same overarching problem. I don't see any problem with people getting pushback on twitter when they go out of their way to attack minorities. I don't inherently see any problem with people in the public eye losing incredibly lucrative jobs because they keep saying and doing shit so awful that even the soulless corporations who employ them feel compelled to drop them.
I don't see any problem getting pushback either, that isn't being cancelled.

Then, you see things how you want.

I don't accept that merely criticizing someone else means you've ruined their life or "cancelled" them (whatever the hell that even means now). I do think it's entirely normal to criticize people, even loudly or emotionally or in public, and the idea that certain people (you know who I mean) should be able to go on the internet and say whatever horrible shit they want without anyone being allowed to criticize them and without any risk of suffering consequences to their career or public image isn't a sound liberal or humanitarian position.
Again, criticism isn't cancelling.

Sometimes, people would be better off being silent.

That's not actually problem, that's literally how society works. If something is important enough to be worth saying, noone is stopping you from saying it anyway. It's a sad commentary on the state of the political right that the hills our forebears died on are civil rights or legal equality, while the hills they fantasize about dying on are saying the n-word and stopping trans people from peeing. No one is actually stopping them from saying these things, if they're too scared to suffer the consequences, then good. Society working as designed.
Actually, I'd say it's a sad commentary on the state of the political left. I expected censoriousness from the right, because they're always had a puritanical streak, but when the left starts doing it...well again, Scylla vs. Charybdis.

It's a description.

You're being told that the demographic categories into which you fall shape your opinions and imbue you with particular interests, and you're so incapable of accepting that fact that to you pointing out constitutes an honest to god slur. That is literally my point.
You're really playing word games? Because, y'know, tone of voice, and context, and the person saying it, can never carry context?

Of course that's a fact, but anyone can use facts as insults and slurs as well. Saying that someone is gay can be a fact, or an insult, or both, for instance. Take "gay." You seriously think I can't turn "Bob is gay," for instance, into a slur, depending on how I said it, and the context in which it was said?

Words.

Those are still mostly words.
And what's wrong with that? You clearly love words.

I mean, if you revealed that you voted against it, I'd definitely be judging you, and that's normal. Being judged for things you do and say and for beliefs you hold is normal. Accept that, or be prepared to live a very miserable and anxious life.
Of course judging people is normal. I can judge people while also not being an asshole to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,618
978
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
The report says that, but only because the security guard told them so. It's not like there's some objective proof of that.

But did the security guard tell the truth? Because I certainly think if I had a long period of time to think about my inaction potentially contributing to 22 dead people, I might come up with something plausible that generates a lot more sympathy than some variant on "I didn't think it worth doing anything". I don't mean to claim that he did lie, just to leave the matter open as it is hardly unusual for people to sugar-coat their actions.

There is a particular issue here that this sort of claim has an element of politicisation: "afraid of being called racist" implies "so this is the fault of the censorious liberal left, then".
You're shifting the goalposts.

If we're playing this game, then anyone who says anything, in any report, or declaration, or anything similar, is up for debate.

Frankly, I can relate to him, because I've experienced people playing the race card, and it isn't pleasant. I still have to do my job though, even if people are accusing me of being intentionally difficult for them (which thankfully rarely happens, but it does stick out).

So, lets pretend you are this security guard. What would have you done in that moment?
Acted on the customers' concerns, no question.

I say that based on the following:

1: I don't know what the exact security protocols were that evening, but I'm reminded of airports, where rules to keep in mind are to never leave baggage unattended, and to not make any jokes about carrying items, because security guards are obliged to act on these kinds of things, no matter how small the chance. I don't imagine that the area was as highly secured as an airport, but this was 2017, and Europe wasn't exactly running short of terrorist attacks round then.

2: I work with security guards on a regular basis, and even in the scope of my own position, if a customer expresses unease about something, I'm obliged to go and check it out. Sometimes it's nothing, other times it's serious (serious enough to even call the police in). But I can't simply say "don't worry about it." Fear of being called something, or intentionally harassing someone, or being anything else, isn't pleasant, but I can't not do my job based on what I find pleasant and not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,102
614
118
Country
United Kingdom
So people who vote the other way for those who want to abolish police are pro criminals killing people and pro criminality?
Who would I vote for if I wanted to abolish police?

That's not even a rhetorical question. Who should I vote for?

As one of the very, very few people who supports actually abolishing police, I think that's pretty consistent with an anti-criminal stance because, let's be real, many police officers are criminals, criminals who are protected and shielded by their positions and allowed to carry on being criminals with impunity. Then it gets even worse, because police are literally allowed to commit crimes in the course of their work due to qualified immunity.

But furthermore, abolishing the police doesn't mean just getting rid of the police and replacing them with nothing. It doesn't mean allowing criminals to kill people with impunity (that would be a pro-police position), it means replacing the police with something else. It means looking for better solutions to the problems police generally fail to solve, so that the same people whose job is to catch organized criminals aren't also dealing with people who have drug problems or mental health issues or who have been sexually assaulted. It means adding accountability to every stage of the process so that those who enforce the law can't simply abuse people and get away with it, so that calling for someone to help you is a safe thing to do rather than literally taking your life into your own hands and subjecting yourself to the whim of some violent, mentally deranged authoritarian who can kill you at any moment and get away with it.

Because that's what people have seen happening in places cutting police seriously or abolishing them.
So, you're kind of playing your hand with the bullshit here because nowhere have police been abolished. Police abolition has barely been discussed. In some places police have had their budgets cut or their responsibilities reduced, mostly due to city budgets being cut during the coronavirus pandemic and the general reduction in many crimes that has occurred during the pandemic. In a few cases, police funds have been redirected to other services. The consensus is very much out on what the net impact of this has been, particularly given the exceptional conditions during the pandemic. For example, while crime overall has dropped, murder rates in the US have risen substantially during the pandemic. This is true pretty much across the whole country and irrespective of whatever is happening in the police department, so blaming it on police reform is pretty desperate.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,325
473
88
The students' issues was that Weinstein was racist for objecting to a day of absence. That's it.
The weird thing is how it played out.
The day of absence wasn't a new thing it was a traditional thing.
The general approach was "Ok POC don't have to attend today you can go take part in community projects or causes you're linked to. White people come in and have a specifically tailored day of lectures and activities and presentations about race issues and historical stuff like red lining and Jim Crow to try and help educate people who may not know about such things."

The change and reason he objected was because the proposal for the next day of absence was to tell white people not to turn up and then teach POC a perfectly normal day of lectures and sessions. Including material that would be on the examinations. Weinstein objected to this change because well it's a really weird and dumb idea that to even things out White students should deliberately harm their education so POC will perform better on the tests or stand more of a chance in the test of answering some questions having been the only ones present for said lectures.

Also in other subjects you can make the case it wouldn't be that harmful at 1-2 hours of lectures to catch up on maximum but in Science where in UK unis your day can vary from a light day of 4 hours of lectures to a heavy day of 8 - 9 hours in rare cases solid lectures so you have to actually sit eating packed lunches during the lectures (or in the case of some I know send 1 of them as a runner to come back with a take away order). Yeh that's a lot of stuff to miss out on in a day. Weinstein objected to that idea.

But apparently people then drummed up hate against him as either the emails leaked (thanks to some activist staff member) Or somehow his objections got out and his actions were framed as him being racist with no actual response allowed. What happened to him was closer to a struggle session and at the time he was I think meant to be starting teaching a class but apparently him refusing the handle an angry mob wanting a struggle session and instead wanted to have a proper discussion in a better venue was seen as him adding more fuel to the fire or something.

The tweet was barely worthy of a response at all. Ooh, shock horror, Dawkins doesn't like the sound of the Adhan and prefers church bells. Hide your children...
Church bells are nice. Just not at 8am and 9am on a Sunday morning
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,325
473
88
Who would I vote for if I wanted to abolish police?

That's not even a rhetorical question. Who should I vote for?

As one of the very, very few people who supports actually abolishing police, I think that's pretty consistent with an anti-criminal stance because, let's be real, many police officers are criminals, criminals who are protected and shielded by their positions and allowed to carry on being criminals with impunity. Then it gets even worse, because police are literally allowed to commit crimes in the course of their work due to qualified immunity.

But furthermore, abolishing the police doesn't mean just getting rid of the police and replacing them with nothing. It doesn't mean allowing criminals to kill people with impunity (that would be a pro-police position), it means replacing the police with something else. It means looking for better solutions to the problems police generally fail to solve, so that the same people whose job is to catch organized criminals aren't also dealing with people who have drug problems or mental health issues or who have been sexually assaulted. It means adding accountability to every stage of the process so that those who enforce the law can't simply abuse people and get away with it, so that calling for someone to help you is a safe thing to do rather than literally taking your life into your own hands and subjecting yourself to the whim of some violent, mentally deranged authoritarian who can kill you at any moment and get away with it.



So, you're kind of playing your hand with the bullshit here because nowhere have police been abolished. Police abolition has barely been discussed. In some places police have had their budgets cut or their responsibilities reduced, mostly due to city budgets being cut during the coronavirus pandemic and the general reduction in many crimes that has occurred during the pandemic. In a few cases, police funds have been redirected to other services. The consensus is very much out on what the net impact of this has been, particularly given the exceptional conditions during the pandemic. For example, while crime overall has dropped, murder rates in the US have risen substantially during the pandemic. This is true pretty much across the whole country and irrespective of whatever is happening in the police department, so blaming it on police reform is pretty desperate.
1) Some rules have to be broken to allow them to work. E.G. Police can't be obeying all traffic laws while in a high speed pursuit.
2) Getting rid of the police just will end up replacing them with some for of vigilantism. You abolish the police you abolish all those that go after the organised criminals too except the federal level agencies.
3) Force is sometimes needed because you can't expect a counsellor to work well in the field with patients who aren't exactly co-operative. You also can't expect orderlies to be going in to disarm people who are in such a state and are armed. Police very much have a use and the use of force helps shut down potential harm to others and should allow for them to be treated after the situation is diffused.

As for playing my hand. No the services have just started to be cut back somewhat and already the trouble is starting from just reductions.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
17,356
1,494
118
Well I don't know about you but I don't really consider the following to be criticism. (these are based on real tweets I've seen floating about)

"Scott Cawthon supports killing children"
"Scott Cawthon should kill himself"
"Scott Cawthon wants [insert group] dead]"
"Scott Cawthon is a fascist who should be dragged out into the streets and shot"
"Scott Cawthon doesn't deserve to have a family"
"I hope his wife has a miscarriage"

This is the kind of bullshit people are objecting to. It's not criticism it's vitriol and bile being spewed often just done to reinforce narratives especially
in the case of the additional often unproven accusations of malice people are attributing to Scott.
No, it's not. People are objecting to Scott Cawthon being called out and having criticism leveled toward him for donating to people who are openly anti-LGBTQ and racist. And people who are deciding to no longer support FNaF, and how this is "cancelling" him. The discussion isn't about death threats, it's about "cancel culture" and how Cawthon is supposedly the latest victim. You can pull out death threats and try to apply it to the entire situation, as if that's what the people who are upset over this reveal are all about, but that's BS.

The outrage over Gina Carrano's "cancelling" was equally not about death threats, neither was J.K. Rowling's. It was 'People are taking offence to what these rich celebrities are saying, and deciding to criticize them and/or not financially support them anymore. The nerve!'
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,102
614
118
Country
United Kingdom
You're really going into those kind of semantics?
Yes. Because we're trying to define "cancel culture", and I'm not seeing any evidence that cancel culture is actually a single thing beyond just people reacting to things in ways you personally don't like, even if those things are themselves provocative or hateful.

Yeah, scientific racism...sure mate.
Jordan Peterson has been pretty open about the fact that he believes in racial differences in IQ, a belief he shares with Stefan Molyneux and which they've discussed pretty openly on all the occasions they've done podcasts together. That whole genre of "intellectual dark web" losers is full of people peddling defunct scientific racial theories, not to mention coronavirus conspiracies and neo-Nazi cultural Marxism/great replacement bollocks. If that's the genre you end up in, it's not a great testament to your character.

The students' issues was that Weinstein was racist for objecting to a day of absence. That's it.
How do you know?

Did you ask them?

This is the irony of crying about cancel culture. Weinstein got to appear on national news. He got interviewed over and over again. He had journalists climbing over themselves and salivating at the thought of getting access to his very important opinions, and yet he's been "cancelled." He's not allowed to express his opinions! Meanwhile, Vice (founded by Gavin McInness) interviews one white student in the interests of appearing balanced,, and conveniently cuts the part where they actually explain what the problem was.

Such free speech.

Guilty until proven innocent?
This isn't a criminal court.

Everyone can make up their own mind on whether Weinstein's actions incriminate him, just like everyone can make up their own mind on whether the protestors were justified. I'm not fundamentally seeing the problem here, and I'm certainly not seeing how it's related to all the otherr things we're randomly connecting and deciding constitute some big and serious problem of "cancel culture".

No, just European/British.
So, arabs can't be European or British?

Yeah, sure mate. Somehow you made this about race/ethnicity. I didn't even think that was possible.
And you somehow made this about "cancel culture".

Of course, if you actually look at the tweet and read the responses, you'll realise that people are actually talking about race and ethnicity. It is explicitly the point of much of the criticism that Dawkins received. Your insistence that this is actually about the BAD LEFTIST CANCELLING DICK DORKINS BECAUSE THEY LOVE MUSLAMICS is entirely unevidenced and entirely inconsistent with the actual substance of the criticism.

The tweet was barely worthy of a response at all.
You don't get to decide that.

Wouldn't mind so much if people didn't apply double standards to the critiism of Christianity vs. Islam.
Why is this about Christianity vs. Islam? Dawkins just likes the sound of church bells more than the adhan, remember. It's a completely innocent statement of musical taste which has nothing to do with anything, remember.

Come on, I know you're losing but try a little harder.

Again, Hamid Dasabi had nary to say when he was criticizing the former, but the come the latter? Oh boy.
Stop cancelling Hamid Dasabi.

I don't see any problem getting pushback either, that isn't being cancelled.
So what is being cancelled?

Because you haven't explained it, you've just listed a bunch of people, many of whom are literally just people who got criticized on social media.

You're really playing word games? Because, y'know, tone of voice, and context, and the person saying it, can never carry context?
I'm not indulging the farcical position that any sequence of words spoken with sufficient anger or contempt becomes a slur. That is the mentality of someone who has never actually had to consider the meaning of a slur.

And what's wrong with that? You clearly love words.
Nothing is wrong with it. I'm not the one who believes in a false dichotomy between words and actions.

Of course judging people is normal. I can judge people while also not being an asshole to them.
Does free speech end at the point someone is being an asshole?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,325
473
88
No, it's not. People are objecting to Scott Cawthon being called out and having criticism leveled toward him for donating to people who are openly anti-LGBTQ and racist. And people who are deciding to no longer support FNaF, and how this is "cancelling" him. The discussion isn't about death threats, it's about "cancel culture" and how Cawthon is supposedly the latest victim. You can pull out death threats and try to apply it to the entire situation, as if that's what the people who are upset over this reveal are all about, but that's BS.

The outrage over Gina Carrano's "cancelling" was equally not about death threats, neither was J.K. Rowling's. It was 'People are taking offence to what these rich celebrities are saying, and deciding to criticize them and/or not financially support them anymore. The nerve!'
Except it's not generally good criticism people are objecting to it's the weird narrative building going on where Scott is now some ultimate evil. It's ignoring what he's saying and even context itself to try and paint him and the villain.

Again Scott donated to the politicians, time passed and then they introduced said bills. He didn't donated to them with them saying how they would push these bills as I doubt many of them were saying about how they'd push said bills outside of closed doors meetings with religious leaders.

It's not "Hey Scott I disagree with you" or "Hey Scott these people aren't so great I'm not exactly happy to see them supported" not it's "Scott Cawthon literally wants me dead" or "Scott Cawthon supports the fascist death cult" or "Anyone still supporting Scott should fuck off you're all fascists"

People just going "yeh I'm not supporting him anymore because I disagree" are not getting pushback.

Again it's not been reasoned criticism it's been vitriol and bullshit narrative building for the most part that I've seen.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
17,356
1,494
118
Except it's not generally good criticism people are objecting to it's their weird narrative building going on where Scott is now some ultimate evil. It's ignoring what he's saying and even context itself to try and paint him and the villain.
If he's donating to people like Trump it doesn't matter how he explains himself or what he has to say about the matter. That's not people building a narrative, it's people judging him on his actions.
Again Scott donated to the politicians, time passed and then they introduced said bills. He didn't donated to them with them saying how they would push these bills as I doubt many of them were saying about how they'd push said bills outside of closed doors meetings with religious leaders.
Hey, if Scott Cawthon actually comes to the realization now that 'Shit, I've actually been donating money to a bunch evil scumbags. I didn't know.' and proceeds to stop doing this then that's cool. But somehow I doubt that. And Jesus Christ, everyone knew what Trump was about the moment he started running for president. If by 2020 Cawthon (who was still donating for Trump's reelection) still didn't know, then I'm sorry, but I find that hard to believe.
It's not "Hey Scott I disagree with you" or "Hey Scott these people aren't so great I'm not exactly happy to see them supported" not it's "Scott Cawthon literally wants me dead" or "Scott Cawthon supports the fascist death cult" or "Anyone still supporting Scott should fuck off you're all fascists"
Supporting the rebublican party NOW pretty much equates to supporting a bunch of facists who want gays, trans people, and non-whites to go away. So saying 'Hey Scott, I disagree with you' and saying 'Fuck you Scott for supporting these facist shitheels' pretty much comes down to the same thing.
People just going "yeh I'm not supporting him anymore because I disagree" are not getting pushback.

Again it's not been reasoned criticism it's been vitriol and bullshit narrative building for the most part that I've seen.
And who decides what is and isn't reasoned criticism? (And no, I'm not talking about death threats.) The very fact that Cawthon is getting pushback of any kind is already seen as unreasonable by the usual crowd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,618
978
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Yes. Because we're trying to define "cancel culture", and I'm not seeing any evidence that cancel culture is actually a single thing beyond just people reacting to things in ways you personally don't like, even if those things are themselves provocative or hateful.
Lots of people react to things in ways I don't like, because the world has no shortage of assholes. It enters cancel culture when you take away their ability to be assholes, if I'm using that example.

Jordan Peterson has been pretty open about the fact that he believes in racial differences in IQ, a belief he shares with Stefan Molyneux and which they've discussed pretty openly on all the occasions they've done podcasts together.
I watched one of the podcasts for reference - Peterson focuses on IQ, he doesn't really go into racial differences.

Molyneux absolutely sees the world through IQ, and applies it to entire racial groups. Peterson, on the other hand...well, apart from an Askanazi Jew reference and the Bell Curve, he's not really saying much that I haven't seen elsewhere (e.g. Jonathan Haidt). Even recently, in workplace documents, it stressed how IQ tends to be relatively static after a certain point in a person's development, whereas EQ can vary wildly (I don't really buy into EQ, but that's another matter). General consensus seems to be that IQ is inheritable to a point between individuals, but there's not a causal link between groups.

How do you know?

Did you ask them?

This is the irony of crying about cancel culture. Weinstein got to appear on national news. He got interviewed over and over again. He had journalists climbing over themselves and salivating at the thought of getting access to his very important opinions, and yet he's been "cancelled." He's not allowed to express his opinions! Meanwhile, Vice (founded by Gavin McInness) interviews one white student in the interests of appearing balanced,, and conveniently cuts the part where they actually explain what the problem was.

Such free speech.
McInness had left Vice well after that video was made, so that's a red herring.

And yes, Weinstein wasn't cancelled from ever speaking again (few people are), but there was a concerted effort to get him fired for an inocuous email, to the extent where students practically took staff members hostage.

The video interviews a number of students (there's the student who wants him fired, there's "Kirsten," there's the group of students who go "fuck free speech," and recordings of them making demands and chanting, so there's not really a dearth of representation of the students' actions. But if your argument is "how do you know, did you ask them?" you're basically relying on the "were you there?" non sequitur. But let's say, hypothetically, the video is deliberately misrepresenting what's going on, then that's misrepresentation that's come from various sources.

Feel free to present evidence of your own if you want.

This isn't a criminal court.

Everyone can make up their own mind on whether Weinstein's actions incriminate him, just like everyone can make up their own mind on whether the protestors were justified.
I can say lots of things were justified, but not all justifications are equal.

Suppose a colleague sends out an email with statements I disagree with. Am I justified in getting a mob together, barging into their office, and trying to get them fired?

I'm not fundamentally seeing the problem here, and I'm certainly not seeing how it's related to all the otherr things we're randomly connecting and deciding constitute some big and serious problem of "cancel culture".
A person sends out a statement.

A mob descends on the person.

The mob has interpreted the statement in the most negative way possible.

The person tries to reason with the mob, but the mob keeps howling for their blood.

The person gives up and leaves the proximity of the mob.

Am I describing Lindsay Ellis, or Bret Weinstein?

So, arabs can't be European or British?
So now we've gone from religion, to race, to nationality. Somehow.

Fine. Arabs can be British, because British is a nationality. Whether Arabs can be European really depends on what the term means to you. Arabs are a recognised ethnic group that are indigenous to the Middle East, whether Arabs can be European depends on whether you see "European" as having any ethnic connotation, or whether it's a term that refers purely to a continent. For instance, I can call myself Australian, I can't call myself an indigenous Australian.

Though what this has to do with anything, I have no idea.

And you somehow made this about "cancel culture".
This thread is literally called "SCOTT CAWTHON (FNAF GUY) CANCELLED." One of these things is closer to the topic of the thread than the other.

Of course, if you actually look at the tweet and read the responses, you'll realise that people are actually talking about race and ethnicity.
If people are talking about race and ethnicity on a tweet that compares church bells with the Adhan, then those people are idiots.

It is explicitly the point of much of the criticism that Dawkins received.
Then it's criticism without basis.

Your insistence that this is actually about the BAD LEFTIST CANCELLING DICK DORKINS BECAUSE THEY LOVE MUSLAMICS is entirely unevidenced and entirely inconsistent with the actual substance of the criticism.
If your criticism is "you like church bells more than the Adhan, therefore you're racist," then there isn't any substance in the criticism.

There's at least a chain of logic to call Dawkins an Islamophobe based on the tweet (a flimsy chain, but a chain nonetheless), but that's it.

You don't get to decide that.
And let me guess, you do?

Why is this about Christianity vs. Islam? Dawkins just likes the sound of church bells more than the adhan, remember. It's a completely innocent statement of musical taste which has nothing to do with anything, remember.
The tweet itself? No. But it's symbolic as to how it's much easier to criticize Christianity than Islam.

Whether that's the point of the tweet, I don't know, but the reaction further proves the point.

Be intellectually honest for a second and ask yourself - if Dawkins had said he liked the Adhan more than church bells, would he have been called anti-Christian? Would people have come down on him nearly as hard?

Stop cancelling Hamid Dasabi.
How am I doing that?

I bring up Hamid Dasabi because it's emblematic of what the tweet represents - fine with Dawkins criticizing Christianity (which he was doing long before Islam), but criticize Islam? Islamophobe. Bigot. Racist. Shun him.

So what is being cancelled?

Because you haven't explained it, you've just listed a bunch of people, many of whom are literally just people who got criticized on social media.
I have explained it, numerous times. You just keep saying you haven't explained it.

I'm not indulging the farcical position that any sequence of words spoken with sufficient anger or contempt, becomes a slur.
How?

I want you to somehow defend such an idiotic line of reasoning.

That is the mentality of someone who has never actually had to consider the meaning of a slur.
That's an absolutely insane line of reasoning, and I think you know that. You're basically arguing that not being subjected to something, you can't possibly understand it.

Also, I have been subjected to slurs, which should be completely academic.

Nothing is wrong with it. I'm not the one who believes in a false dichotomy between words and actions.
So you see no distinction.

You see absolutely no distinction betwen me saying "poverty is bad" and actually doing something to alleviate poverty.

All words and actions are equal in your eyes.

Does free speech end at the point someone is being an asshole?
Well, you know how to be an asshole, so you tell me.
 
Last edited: