Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,782
370
88
I've always said, it is so weird that we've fixate on cancel culture when death threats are way worse
Not really it depends entirely on the threat.
I say this as some-one whose had 15 death threats. Only one of which was actually enough that I deemed it credible enough to almost report to the police (other circumstances meant I chose to roll the dice on it and not report it and turns out it wasn't credible as I'm still here and no attempt on my life was made). The person who made the credible threat at the time would know where I lived, was within 15 minutes drive of my home at the time and their threat was a set of circumstances I couldn't realistically have acted to prevent or avoid without literally moving homes.

Death threat's come in a variety of forms

Clearly hyperbolic stupid ones for attention. E.G. "I have filled the place you plan to talk with over 9,000 lbs of high explosive and will detonate it if you give the talk" Or "I am a highly trained ex military sniper with over 200 confirmed kills in Afghanistan and you won't even see me coming I lay in wait for you to give the speech them pop off goes your head and no-one will catch me because I'm just that good"

One that are mostly angry and I'd not put much stock in.
These range from angry "I'm gonna murder you" and "I'm hiring a hitman / my buddy is a hitman and will come for you"

Those that could have some validity to them:
Normally know your address and mention things about your habits or have the opportunity to easily enact the threat and motive enough to do it. E.G. they live locally to you and show additional intent to harm (bricks through windows, threatening notes through the letterbox or in the mailbox or cars damaged or attacked)

Ones that are angry mostly are nothing
Ones that bring up the address but seem angry, maybe worth reporting.
Those that bring up more than the address or do so and are local (or worse show pictures of your home that they took) yeh probably worth reporting just in case.

Death threats other than the very rare ones that can seem valid are not that big a problem because at the end of the day it's a short inconvenience and a binary outcome, either they're fake (which most are) and they lead to nothing or they're real and the fuckers come to try and kill you. You have very little control over it in the end and it's over fairly quick either way.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,782
370
88
Part 2 of reply. Forum was being weird

Doxxing is more of an issue due to personal information out there allowing people to commit identity theft and cause further trouble for the person by impersonating them or getting them swatted or straight up identity theft stuff. That can take far longer to sort out and have far worse longer term issues in a persons live

Even without knowing the name or checking the name some financing places will give financing options to people with basic documents and an address even if name on the documents doesn't match any official records of people who are resident there. Yes I'm speaking somewhat from experience when a certain Carol Shaw managed to, for multiple years running get £2,000+ of financing on goods and claimed where I was living with my parents many year ago as her address, not that the goods were delivered here mind just the the address said as the payment address. My parents only found out what was going on after a few months of getting letters for said woman and just posting them back as return to sender not known at this address and got a letter to her with in big red letters "Final demand" written across it and my parents had to go through the trouble of contacting the agencies to tell them they'd been conned and no-one by that name lived here or was known here nor any goods delivered here because the agencies were threatening to send debt recovery agents to the house in 2 days time unless they were paid. That would have been a hassle if they had sent them I'm sure.

Now imagine some-one knowing the names of people who lived at the address. A fake ID or hell not even that just a trusting agency and you could set up all kinds of chaos. With modern spoofing tech you could probably contact water and power companies and have that shut off or other such bullshit.

Cancelling is as bad because it's about trying to destroy their life as they know it. If you're known and trained in a specific field then enjoy losing that position and job if they manage it and with people being specialised to fields it means retraining and possibly starting again in a different field if you get blacklisted from the field you were in as a whole. It means people trying to drive you out of your home either by targeting you or your neighbours. It means trying to ruin your reputation to make you unhireable or get people working with you to cause trouble and or drop their work with you. It's mostly about trying to cause as long a term and as lasting a bit of damage as possible and trying to basically ostracise a person from the rest of society both personally and professionally.

Death Threats = Weeks to months at most
Doxxing = Months to years it can be an issue.
Cancel culture = Years to decades depending on how determined people are.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,474
896
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
I've always said, it is so weird that we've fixate on cancel culture when death threats are way worse
They aren't mutually exclusive - death threats are easily part of cancel culture. Off the top of my head, Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn. I've no doubt that many other people mentioned here have had death threats as well.

But if you want to separate the two, then of course death threats as well, but that isn't the subject of the thread. Like, for instance, there's a thread about hundreds of children's bodies being found at Canadian residential schools, which is far worse than anything discussed here, but this isn't that thread.

Let me tell you guys a story about my day yesterday. I had an assumption about some of my staff at work. Generally, I've noticed that Asian staff at the child care centre are more 'rough' with the children than other nationalities. Not like slapping or something serious like that, like having their hand on the kids shoulder to guide them in a certain direction. I, as a white dude, went down to them to have a chat. We discussed how some of them think that being more rough is a good thing as it keeps the children in line. Others said they felt guilty as they couldn't communicate effectively to keep them in line and had to resort to other means. Others cited examples of how they were usually less rough than other demographics. Other said it's only one or two kids who maybe violent to other children and that's when they might be rough. Others cited their culture, as that's how they were brought up.

I can also tell you a store about our pool. A person dropped off there kid for swimming lessons and wanted to sunbake while they waited. Without their shirt on and thus had their breasts out. A staff member came over and asked them to cover up and the person stated that they identified as a man so what they were doing was fine.

Another story I have is about a mum at the same child care who doesn't want to male staff member to change their kids nappy. Obviously this is sexists and not on.

This is some of my stories from June... let alone the rest of the year. I have to deal with an assortment of racial and trans issues. Guess how many times I've been canceled? Nor has any of my staff.

And most importantly, I dont go into a conversation thinking that a different race, sex or gender identity is out to get me. Because, its incredibly rare. Trans people and other races and genders aren't evil monsters trying to demonise you. Despite what the media says
Those are some nice anecdotes, but let's focus on the heart of the matter.

No, of course people aren't out to get me (as in an individual), and those aren't the only factors that are going to make me cautious about approaching a situation - age, disability, etc (really, I'd approach any situation with some degree of caution, because you never know how someone is going to react). If we're talking about stories from June, one from last week is where I approached a carer with an autistic child playing with an iPad, with the music on very loud. Keeping in mind that it wouldn't look good, I still did my job and asked if the music could be turned down. Long story short, the issue was solved, but not without plenty of accusations of discrimination. Yes, these incidents are rare, but not so rare that you don't remember them, and not so rare that it makes one very aware as to how to approach these situations, and not so rare that the workplace doesn't have specific guidelines as to how to deal with such incidents. Because situations can very easily reach a case of reports being submitted, where such incidents are investigated.

This goes to the topic of cancellation as well - even if it is rare (which it almost certainly is, statistically), I doubt a lot of people here, and elsewhere, expected to have these things happen to them - I doubt Lindsay Ellis expected the Twitter mob to descend on her for instance. You can't stop that from happening 100% of the time, but you can certainly hedge your bets. Which, in my case, includes not posting anything on social media, and on FFN, lay out explicitly in my profile that I don't leave anonymous reviews (a statement coming from when someone went around impersonating me for a bit). That hasn't stopped people from asking for my name and drawing out their phones to record incidents, but it certainly helps if I keep myself as anonymous as possible. I've known that since high school.

But back to our security guard. I don't find it hard to believe he was afraid of being demonized (I mean, you don't seem to like security guards much), but that shouldn't stop you from doing your job.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
3,975
1,654
118
Country
United States
If the people "canceling" you aren't spreading lies and are factually describing somebody's actual thoughts, attitudes, and actions...what exactly is the solution?

Muzzling people's rights to free speech by banning public criticism? Removing people's right to free association by forcing somebody to work with the people they don't like? Forcing people to buy games they don't want to buy?

Sorry, but this reeks of "I can say whatever I want and you are only allowed to praise it, no dissent allowed"
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,782
370
88
Let me tell you guys a story about my day yesterday. I had an assumption about some of my staff at work. Generally, I've noticed that Asian staff at the child care centre are more 'rough' with the children than other nationalities. Not like slapping or something serious like that, like having their hand on the kids shoulder to guide them in a certain direction. I, as a white dude, went down to them to have a chat. We discussed how some of them think that being more rough is a good thing as it keeps the children in line. Others said they felt guilty as they couldn't communicate effectively to keep them in line and had to resort to other means. Others cited examples of how they were usually less rough than other demographics. Other said it's only one or two kids who maybe violent to other children and that's when they might be rough. Others cited their culture, as that's how they were brought up.

I can also tell you a store about our pool. A person dropped off there kid for swimming lessons and wanted to sunbake while they waited. Without their shirt on and thus had their breasts out. A staff member came over and asked them to cover up and the person stated that they identified as a man so what they were doing was fine.

Another story I have is about a mum at the same child care who doesn't want to male staff member to change their kids nappy. Obviously this is sexists and not on.

This is some of my stories from June... let alone the rest of the year. I have to deal with an assortment of racial and trans issues. Guess how many times I've been canceled? Nor has any of my staff.

And most importantly, I dont go into a conversation thinking that a different race, sex or gender identity is out to get me. Because, its incredibly rare. Trans people and other races and genders aren't evil monsters trying to demonise you. Despite what the media says
It only takes 1 determined person who really wants to cause trouble. It will come, how far it gets who knows but it will likely come at some point.

If the people "canceling" you aren't spreading lies and are factually describing somebody's actual thoughts, attitudes, and actions...what exactly is the solution?
tv-quotes-dr-house-hugh-laurie-everybody-lies-house-md-1680x1050-architecture-houses-hd-art-wa...jpg

The only time people aren't lying or misleading is when you've either fucked up to such a level that the law will likely get involved or the group you've pissed off are angry about some specific thing and either are so small they can't truly cancel you or your cancellation will be only specific regions and you might find you get some police protection for a while but won't be cancelled unless you choose to cancel yourself.

Muzzling people's rights to free speech by banning public criticism? Removing people's right to free association by forcing somebody to work with the people they don't like? Forcing people to buy games they don't want to buy?

Sorry, but this reeks of "I can say whatever I want and you are only allowed to praise it, no dissent allowed"
Just put cancellation clauses in contracts. As for forcing people to work with people they don't like? Welcome to how the world works you may not like your co-worker but you don't have the right to have them removed, you can choose to remove yourself if you wish otherwise you have to find a way to deal with it and work together.

As for forcing people to buy stuff? No it's everyone's right to buy or not buy and that's how the market ultimately decides. Denying other people the right to buy is a problem. IT's actually funny the people who most try to force people to buy a product are the pro cancel culture mob types who have deemed the product or game some social cause landmark thing and try to shame people who refuse to take part: Captain Marvel, Ghostbusters 2016, The recent Charlie's Angels, The Last of Us Part II, Life is Strange II, Tale of Tales, Wolfenstein Youngblood (yes really), Star Trek Discovery in some Trek fandom areas.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
3,975
1,654
118
Country
United States
I'm just going to start laughing now. Probably won't stop.
"Cancellation Clauses in Contracts"? The fuck does that even mean? "You see, your honor, my client should face zero repercussions for being a giant public facing douchebag who belittles his co-workers and fights with their customers because he signed a contract saying the company can't fire him regardless of how much money they lose due to people not liking his actions"
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,782
370
88
I'm just going to start laughing now. Probably won't stop.
"Cancellation Clauses in Contracts"? The fuck does that even mean? "You see, your honor, my client should face zero repercussions for being a giant public facing douchebag who belittles his co-workers and fights with their customers because he signed a contract saying the company can't fire him regardless of how much money they lose due to people not liking his actions"
You don't know some contracts have clauses to stop people pulling out support etc and causing trouble like that?
Happens with a lot of actors thanks to the actors unions in the USA now.
If they film even 1 scene and then the studio drops them they still (in most cases) have to pay them the full contract amount for the film.
Johnny Depp got a nice payday from the new Fantastic Beasts film thanks to such a thing.

Some other industries likely have them because of production pipelines and plans so some production facility dropping the company at short notice just before a stage in production (Lets say printers for DVD sleeves) means they have to find a new printer quickly and possibly pay a premium and possibly also delay other things that cost money.

The point being they can fire or drop or do what they like but the price attached is an incentive not to knee jerk over stuff
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,050
1,327
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
I'm just going to start laughing now. Probably won't stop.
"Cancellation Clauses in Contracts"? The fuck does that even mean? "You see, your honor, my client should face zero repercussions for being a giant public facing douchebag who belittles his co-workers and fights with their customers because he signed a contract saying the company can't fire him regardless of how much money they lose due to people not liking his actions"
They are rich man. Why would you think sensible laws would be applied to them?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,161
1,831
118
Country
United Kingdom
No it's really not.

In the case of the Factorio dev the Uncle Bob stuff was trying to pull him in to an effort to cancel Uncle Bob by reducing his exposure. Uncle Bob apparently codes well and is seen as a figure to look up to for coding skill and quality. People who disagree with Uncle Bob's politics think he shouldn't be allowed to be praised or get positive attention or a platform for his coding skills. The Factorio dev call it out for what it was.

Then also called out the calls to change terms like "Craftsmanship" as the set up it was to create and excuse to cancel him. He failed to appease the cocodile so now it was coming for him.
....none of which has anything to do with death threats or abuse.

The Factorio Dev was banned from the games subreddit for his efforts and saw his game face a review bomb (which failed spectacularly)
Have you actually looked at the message he responded to?
It was mild criticism, alongside praise for his work.
Factorio called that cancel culture, and was aggressively rude in his reply- much more so than the original commenter.

One moment you're saying cancel culture necessarily involves death threats, harassment and abuse, and then the next moment you're happy to describe simple criticism as cancel culture.

Pick a damn lane.
 

Secondhand Revenant

Recycle, Reduce, Redead
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,559
138
68
Baator
Country
The Nine Hells
Gender
Male
HOW DARE SOMEONE VOTE FOR THE EVIL ORANGE MAN!!!!! WE MUST BAN TOGETHER TO RUIN HIS LIFE!!!!

Fuck off people. Disagree all you want politically, but people have the right to hold differing opinions. And support those politics as they wish. And frankly what someone does with their money is none of your business.....at least not until the death satellite is complete.
Why are you reiterating his rights? Are they being infringed? No? Then what does that accomplish but give the false impression that they are being infringed
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,081
594
118
Country
United Kingdom
It enters cancel culture when you take away their ability to be assholes, if I'm using that example.
Cool. I'm glad we're in agreement. Cancel culture doesn't exist because noone can take away your ability to be an asshole.

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.
Again, it's one thing to show footage of the students and say "look, we're being balanced" but someone is controlling the editing, and the editing here is weird as hell.

The simple fact is, none of us actually knows why those students were angry or what they thought they were doing. We know far less about them and their motivations than we do about Weinstein, and based on what I can see, Weinstein comes off as arrogant, dismissive and yeah, kind of low key racist. The students just come off as angry. If we're forced to judge this situation based on our own emotion and intuition, which is all anyone is doing, then I'm not inclined to simply trust that Weinstein is in the right.

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?
In this case, we're not talking about colleagues. We're talking about students, who have far less power and far less recourse within this situation. The fact that you confuse the two is telling.

Then it's criticism without basis.
Again, you don't get to decide that.

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?
Yes.

Absolutely.

If he had done that, it probably would have made national news as an outrage story. The sun would probably have photoshopped a hijab on him or something, there'd be a funny headline like "the Mosque Delusion".

I have explained it, numerous times. You just keep saying you haven't explained it.
Okay, let's be more specific. You haven't explained it in a way that makes sense or is consistent with the vast, vast majority (if not all) of the examples you are actually using.

How can you tell if someone is trying to stop someone from saying something? What does that even mean? Does you arguing against me now indicate that you want me to stop making the points I'm making. Am I being CANCELLED? Who the fuck even knows. Cancelling does not seem to mean anything, and if it does then it's so normal, so fundamental to the basic ways in which society works, that it's kind of silly to think we should even care about it.

Even if we concede that, in every single example, these people who supposedly got "cancelled" were wholly in the right and did absolutely nothing that any sane person could object to, and that all the people who did object were just PURELY AND COMPLETELY EVIL and not rational right-thinking sane people like you, then so what? Are you suggesting that people shouldn't have the right to be angry if their anger is unreasonable? Are you suggesting that people should not be allowed to use the voice and the influence they have to attack someone whom they are angry with? Who decides what is reasonable? Do you decide what is reasonable? Are you going to sit on a big throne and judge us lesser mortals for our free speech crimes?

There is a lot of complexity here. I think it's entirely reasonable to think that some of the people you've mentioned were hard done by. The question is, when does that actually become a problem and what should be done about it? In the case of Lindsey Ellis and Natalie Wynn, there is a clear problem or failing on the part of the people who participated. They are being hypocrites, they are attacking marginalized people in the name of defending marginalized people, and that signifies a failure of communication. It signifies how alienated even well meaning people actually are from the experiences of marginalization, and how easy it is to derive all your information about marginalized people from other people like you. Something has gone fundamentally wrong in that case.

Most of these cases you're mentioning are literally just cases of people having a different perspective to you, in my opinion a far more insightful perspective, and being able to see implications and connections that you can't.

Because fundamentally, I don't think your perspective is actually better than those of the people who dogpiled Lindsey Ellis. The fact you didn't do that doesn't indicate that you're too smart or too attuned to the experience of marginalization to fall for obvious white people nonsense, it merely signifies that you don't care. If you also wouldn't have called out JK Rowling, if you won't call out Ben Shapiro or Gavin McInness because you're afraid of cancelling them, then you're not smarter than those people, you're just lazier.

So you see no distinction.
Did I say that?

Well, you know how to be an asshole, so you tell me.
Stay classy.
 
Last edited:

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,474
896
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
If the people "canceling" you aren't spreading lies and are factually describing somebody's actual thoughts, attitudes, and actions...what exactly is the solution?
We can agree on facts in various things, we can disagree about proportionate punishment, or if punishment is deserved.

Muzzling people's rights to free speech by banning public criticism? Removing people's right to free association by forcing somebody to work with the people they don't like? Forcing people to buy games they don't want to buy?

Sorry, but this reeks of "I can say whatever I want and you are only allowed to praise it, no dissent allowed"
Well, for starters, you're not going to be able to go through life and be able to avoid working with people that you don't like, that's, well, life.

But no, it's a simple distinction. I agree that dissent is important. I agree that discussion is important. I don't agree with silencing people.

IT's actually funny the people who most try to force people to buy a product are the pro cancel culture mob types who have deemed the product or game some social cause landmark thing and try to shame people who refuse to take part: Captain Marvel, Ghostbusters 2016, The recent Charlie's Angels, The Last of Us Part II, Life is Strange II, Tale of Tales, Wolfenstein Youngblood (yes really), Star Trek Discovery in some Trek fandom areas.
That's likely true, but that's even more true on the other side of the coin.

Like, take Ghostbusters 2016 for instance. Some people did harass James Rolfe for not wanting to see the film, but that pales in comparison to the abuse directed towards the actresses (especially Leslie Jones). Or take Star Trek Discovery - "forced diversity," "pandering," blah blah blah...the discourse was utterly toxic.

Said it before elsewhere, but while SJWs and SQWs are two sides of the same coin, SQWs are far more vicious in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,050
1,327
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
This goes to the topic of cancellation as well - even if it is rare (which it almost certainly is, statistically), I doubt a lot of people here, and elsewhere, expected to have these things happen to them - I doubt Lindsay Ellis expected the Twitter mob to descend on her for instance. You can't stop that from happening 100% of the time, but you can certainly hedge your bets. Which, in my case, includes not posting anything on social media, and on FFN, lay out explicitly in my profile that I don't leave anonymous reviews (a statement coming from when someone went around impersonating me for a bit). That hasn't stopped people from asking for my name and drawing out their phones to record incidents, but it certainly helps if I keep myself as anonymous as possible. I've known that since high school.

But back to our security guard. I don't find it hard to believe he was afraid of being demonized (I mean, you don't seem to like security guards much), but that shouldn't stop you from doing your job.
So, as you said... its statistically unlikely to happen. Like, there is perhaps 50 'cancelled' people named here on this thread. Across two countries (US and UK). So, rough maths here, 50 people in 300million adult? I'll even push it way out to 1000 people. So 1 in 3 million. At an incredible stretch

But, you think that, somehow, this guard KNEW that this one interaction was going to lead to cancelling backlash? Despite the fact that most of those people who are 'cancelled', from the NFL players to Contrapoints to Joseph Massad to James Gunn did actually do something that was not seen as morally 'acceptably' by certain demographics and this security guard had done nothing. Did he magically know that the perp was going to act that way?

Are you SURE your serious about this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,474
896
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Cool. I'm glad we're in agreement. Cancel culture doesn't exist because noone can take away your ability to be an asshole.
No-one's taken away your ability to be an asshole, but that isn't an argument against cancel culture not existing.

In this case, we're not talking about colleagues. We're talking about students, who have far less power and far less recourse within this situation. The fact that you confuse the two is telling.
Those students are hardly powerless. You're not powerless if you can hold faculty as hostages, barge into lecture halls, and escape without any punishment, all while attending one of the world's top universities.

Yes.

Absolutely.

If he had done that, it probably would have made national news as an outrage story. The sun would probably have photoshopped a hijab on him or something, there'd be a funny headline like "the Mosque Delusion".
Hardly.

Dawkins has criticized Christianity much longer than Islam. No-one accused him of being a "Christianphobe," or a racist, or anything else, or if they did, he never faced any punishment for it (which he shouldn't have - no religion should be above criticism). Switch to Islam though, and the conversation changes.

Okay, let's be more specific. You haven't explained it in a way that makes sense or is consistent with the vast, vast majority (if not all) of the examples you are actually using.

How can you tell if someone is trying to stop someone from saying something?
When someone is removing their ability/platform to say something.

Does you arguing against me now indicate that you want me to stop making the points I'm making. Am I being CANCELLED?
No, because not once have I said that you shouldn't be able to speak on this forum.

Cancelling does not seem to mean anything, and if it does then it's so normal, so fundamental to the basic ways in which society works, that it's kind of silly to think we should even care about it.
Society works under the premise that ideas can be discussed and expressed. Cancel culture is the opposite of how society is meant to function.

Even if we concede that, in every single example, these people who supposedly got "cancelled" were wholly in the right and did absolutely nothing that any sane person could object to, and that all the people who did object were just PURELY AND COMPLETELY EVIL and not rational right-thinking sane people like you, then so what?
So you don't care.

In a scenario (which I've never actually suggested) where the world actually is divided between good and evil people, where all the good people are punished, your answer is "so what?"

Wow. Just wow.

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't have the right to be angry if their anger is unreasonable?
People can be angry about whatever they want.

Are you suggesting that people should not be allowed to use the voice and the influence they have to attack someone whom they are angry with?
I wouldn't want anyone attacking anyone. I've repeatedly stated over the years that I believe in the concept of "attack the product, not the person."

Who decides what is reasonable? Do you decide what is reasonable? Are you going to sit on a big throne and judge us lesser mortals for our free speech crimes?
Well, I-

There is a lot of complexity here. I think it's entirely reasonable to think that some of the people you've mentioned were hard done by.
Oh, so YOU decide what's reasonable. Wonderful.

But to answer your question, no, I would never appoint myself as the moral arbiter of what is and isn't reasonable, which is an argument against cancel culture, not for it.

The question is, when does that actually become a problem and what should be done about it?
I'd say it becomes a problem when people go from criticizing a person's ideas to attempting to remove the means of the person to express those ideas.

As to what to do about it, that varies - free speech laws are already in effect, and those laws don't stop people from acting like shits. I'd say education and exposing people to as many viewpoints as possible, but that's a generic solution. Dwarf mentioned a "cancel culture law" or something to protect employee rights, and I think that's a good idea, but it doesn't solve everything.

In the case of Lindsey Ellis and Natalie Wynn, there is a clear problem or failing on the part of the people who participated. They are being hypocrites, they are attacking marginalized people in the name of defending marginalized people, and that signifies a failure of communication. It signifies how alienated even well meaning people actually are from the experiences of marginalization, and how easy it is to derive all your information about marginalized people from other people like you. Something has gone fundamentally wrong in that case.
Oh, I agree that something has gone fundamentally wrong, but I disagree with your assessment.

First, Lindsey Ellis is hardly "marginalized," but that aside, the failure here is critical thinking (at best) or just plain viciousness (at worse). I can't give any credit to the people in that Twitterstorm because there's only really two options:

a) They saw her tweet, and genuinely saw it as being racist.

b) They saw a tweet, interpreted it as creatively as possible, and used it as an excuse to be shits.

Truth be told, I actually find option b more comforting, because I can at least understand the desire to bully someone for the power drive. Option a however, is kind of terrifying, because it demonstrates that something has gone terribly, TERRIBLY wrong in education (or something similar.

Most of these cases you're mentioning are literally just cases of people having a different perspective to you, in my opinion a far more insightful perspective, and being able to see implications and connections that you can't.
I really don't think so. A lot of the time, perspective doesn't come into at all - Lindsay Ellis, Amelie Zhao, Ollie Robinson, etc. Perspective has nothing to do with these things for instance. And frankly, I'd defend people offering different perspectives. More perspectives there are, the better.

Because fundamentally, I don't think your perspective is actually better than those of the people who dogpiled Lindsey Ellis.
My perspective is that bullying is bad, that Twitter attacks are bad, that it's best to give people the benefit of the doubt, and that commenting on the similarities between two IPs is inocuous.

Um, yes, I think my perspective is better than the people who dogpiled on her, and other authors.

The fact you didn't do that doesn't indicate that you're too smart or too attuned to the experience of marginalization to fall for obvious white people nonsense, it merely signifies that you don't care. If you also wouldn't have called out JK Rowling, if you won't call out Ben Shapiro or Gavin McInness because you're afraid of cancelling them, then you're not smarter than those people, you're just lazier.
Better to be moral and lazy rather than immoral and active.

But getting back to the start of that, no, I do care. I care very much. I wouldn't be spending so much time here if I didn't care. I care, because I think bullying is wrong, that viewpoints should be discussed and not censored, because I think forgiveness is a virtue, because I think consistency is better than hypocrisy, because I think free speech is important, and if I'm being partisan, I care because the left's shooting itself in the foot on the issue, because the right is no stranger to employing cancel culture, but now there's elements of the left that are just as intolerant.

Also, you're conflating with calling people out with cancelling them. Those are different things. First, that isn't really an argument, because there's an infinite number of people in the world, and no-one can address all of them. But for those three individuals, I've certainly expressed distaste with Rowling on a number of issues (probably not the same issues as you) over the years. McInness I've barely touched, because he's rarely come up as a topic of conversation, and I barely know anything about him, only that he is (or was) the leader of the Proud Boys, who, at best, are a bunch of prats. Shapiro is someone I disagree with on some issues (actually, taking a glance at his Wikipedia page, almost certainly most issues), agree with on others (such as cancel culture being bad), but again, Shapiro has rarely been brought up here. But the key difference between me and the Ellis crowd is that I'd never attack them directly and attempt to get them deplatformed. I wouldn't do that to anyone.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,474
896
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
So, as you said... its statistically unlikely to happen. Like, there is perhaps 50 'cancelled' people named here on this thread. Across two countries (US and UK). So, rough maths here, 50 people in 300million adult? I'll even push it way out to 1000 people. So 1 in 3 million. At an incredible stretch

But, you think that, somehow, this guard KNEW that this one interaction was going to lead to cancelling backlash? Despite the fact that most of those people who are 'cancelled', from the NFL players to Contrapoints to Joseph Massad to James Gunn did actually do something that was not seen as morally 'acceptably' by certain demographics and this security guard had done nothing. Did he magically know that the perp was going to act that way?

Are you SURE your serious about this?
Lots of things are unlikely to happen. It's unlikely that when I drive to work tomorrow I'll be in a car crash, I'm still going to put my seatbelt on. Being statistically unlikely isn't really an argument against discussing an issue.

As for what the guard knew, of course he didn't know, that's kind of my point. I've stated more than once that the guard's unease would be understandable, the unease isn't an excuse not to act.

I'm not even sure what argument you're trying to make - is that he shouldn't have acted, or shouldn't have felt uneasy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
3,975
1,654
118
Country
United States
We can agree on facts in various things, we can disagree about proportionate punishment, or if punishment is deserved.

Well, for starters, you're not going to be able to go through life and be able to avoid working with people that you don't like, that's, well, life.

But no, it's a simple distinction. I agree that dissent is important. I agree that discussion is important. I don't agree with silencing people.
It's so simple as to be unusable.
Scott Cawthon has not been silenced. The vast majority of the people in this thread, if not 100% of them, have not been silenced. The closest thing to silenced most of them have been is...banned from social media platforms for explicitly and publicly violating rules around civility and harrassment or doing/advocating crime.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,782
370
88
....none of which has anything to do with death threats or abuse.



Have you actually looked at the message he responded to?
It was mild criticism, alongside praise for his work.
Factorio called that cancel culture, and was aggressively rude in his reply- much more so than the original commenter.

One moment you're saying cancel culture necessarily involves death threats, harassment and abuse, and then the next moment you're happy to describe simple criticism as cancel culture.

Pick a damn lane.
As I already explained.
Uncle Bob has faced cancelation for his views.
The cancelation was from what he's actually good at for views ultimately not related to it.
People respect his skill in said field and don't think his political views should detract from his perceived skill or how much he can teach people.
The people on about not recommending Uncle Bob were trying to get the Factorio dev to jump onto the cancel train against Uncle Bob.
The people "Criticising" the Factorio dev over lack of non gender neutral language like Craftpersonship or whatever were trying to set up a cancellation and build the case for said developer being bad.
Fun fact the blog itself doesn't seemingly mention cancel culture. The developer decried it on the games subreddit when people brought up how not making sure to denounce Uncle Bob's politics enough is itself a political act. The developer told said poster to shove it and went on to explain they're not American

J.K. Rowling was being called transphobic way before she actually said anything just because of the Gryffindor staircase and it never being addressed in the lore about what would happen in regards to Trans students (thank you Tumblr coming up with this madness)

I also never said it specifically requires death threats to be cancel culture so I don't know where you're getting that from. Death threats etc can be one way cancel culture operates. It doesn't mean it's the only way it operates.

Why do I need to pick a lane when cancel culture is a multi lane motorway again?
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,782
370
88
Why are you reiterating his rights? Are they being infringed? No? Then what does that accomplish but give the false impression that they are being infringed
Does the right to support who he chooses without threats and intimidation. The right to politically support who he chooses without having to face people calling for his death not count as a right anymore?

The phrase in the past was "I may not agree with what you have to say but I'd die defending your right to say it" not "I don't agree with what you have to say and will happily kill you or die myself to make sure you don't get to say it".


We can agree on facts in various things, we can disagree about proportionate punishment, or if punishment is deserved.



Well, for starters, you're not going to be able to go through life and be able to avoid working with people that you don't like, that's, well, life.

But no, it's a simple distinction. I agree that dissent is important. I agree that discussion is important. I don't agree with silencing people.



That's likely true, but that's even more true on the other side of the coin.

Like, take Ghostbusters 2016 for instance. Some people did harass James Rolfe for not wanting to see the film, but that pales in comparison to the abuse directed towards the actresses (especially Leslie Jones). Or take Star Trek Discovery - "forced diversity," "pandering," blah blah blah...the discourse was utterly toxic.

Said it before elsewhere, but while SJWs and SQWs are two sides of the same coin, SQWs are far more vicious in my opinion.
There's actually a term for the use of dissent and freedom of speech to try and silence people, it's called Heckler's veto. The idea being just because you have to right to dissent you don't get to use said right to deny others their right to free speech. It applies more in the case of IRL speeches etc as it's easier for heckler's to shout over people and drown them out there but I'd argue can apply online to where people are ignoring what the person is saying and instead attributing their own claims to said persons actions especially when it's a big media company or companies doing so.

James Rofle got dragged by ~20 different outlets with accusations going so far as claiming he just hated all woman and him refusing to see it was somehow an attack or declaration of war against women.

Leslie Jones got trolls attacking her on twitter.

In terms of scope and scale.

Leslie Jones got maybe 100 Trolls fucking with her James Rofle got a number of outlets that are seen to have some level of greater validity to their claims (at least in so much that they can be cited on wikipedia and seen as fact by people) making claims about him. In terms of actual damage and impact, sorry but James Rolfe came off worse because you can google his name and fine the articles about him still easily. The comments towards Leslie Jones by trolls? Resigned to history mostly all that can be said is it happened not even mostly what the claims were or them easily found.

The power of the media (While heavily waning due to misuse of that power) is still in effect and still unfortunately can easily become record.