Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled

[Dwarvenhobble]

Far more than just a "random Twitter user," let's be honest. Even if one pissant went after Jones, add in a hundred or a thousand, and that's a lot of pissants pissing and biting.

In contrast, I never saw any attempt to actually deplatform Rolfe, or make any concious attempt to ruin his career.

I said earlier in the thread that I'm not particuarly interested in ranking who has it worse, but Rolfe, at best, had to deal with nonsense articles. Jones had to deal with a Twitterstorm that was part of a larger Twitterstorm, that was part of a larger culture war spat because the Ghostbusters no longer had dicks. Rolfe got drawn into the storm as well, but, well, Jones got hit with more of the debris, so to speak.

No because in James Rolfe's case it's more evidence for later or stuff to make companies etc looking into him think twice about agreeing to deals etc. It's not cancelling him now but it's being saved up until he's deemed to have slipped up worse and gone against the orthodoxy too strongly then it will be wheeled out again as supporting evidence for the case against him.

With most high profile twitter users likely including Leslie Jones content filter will auto filter out a lot of the trolls and bullshit and "non trusted" account on the platform from them even seeing or hearing from them.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

What is "fuck <insert company>, I'm not giving them money while they work with <insert asshole>"?
Am I obligated to continue patronizing a company? Am I not allowed to state my intentions and resoning publicly? Is there a list of specific moral or ethical objections that are allowed?

Because, like, I'm not going to buy a game with Casey Hudson as main writer or creative director and I'm willing to say so publicly. Is there a difference in whether it's Cancel Culture if the reason is because I don't like their writing instead of me disliking them personally? Or am *I* allowed that take, and anybody who disagrees with me and publicly says that they wouldn't want to read my reviews because of my subjectively shit opinion is engaging with Cancel Culture?

According to the people who claimed those cancelling Disney Plus over the firing of Gina Carano were therefore pushing cancel culture by cancelling their Disney Plus subscriptions....... yes you are entirely obliged to continue supporting a company but them firing a person and trying to blacklist them for the perception people had of what they said (not even what they actually said) is totally not cancel culture at all lol.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

It's not me "strawmanning"; you were the one to list death threats and abuse. I didn't do that.

Actually yes you are strawmanning me because I never said only Death Threats and abuse constitute cancel culture.

If I said a Great Dane was a dog and you said I said only Great Danes were dog it would still be strawmanning my position as all what you are presented as what I said and what I actually did say are two different things.

This started because Casual Shinji said, "I'm... not talking about threats, I'm talking about criticism". Those were the exact words. In response, you said, "but I don't really consider the following to be criticism", and listed a bunch of harassment and abuse and death threats.

Now if it's deliberate strawmanning or an accidental syllogism I don't know.

You were the one to steer the conversation in that direction. You were the one who wanted to characterise "cancel culture" that way.

No I brought it up and specified it because this is the specific way it's being done in this case.
If I said in response to a thread about robbery that it was criminality it wouldn't mean I meant the only criminal action and the only way criminals operate is by comitting robbery now would it?

These were the specific comments;



So.... not even asking for anything to be removed. Just asking Kovarex to add a disclaimer. And that was one commentator: there was no "dog-pile", there weren't hordes of people demanding this. It was one guy, on the official blog, making a pretty mild criticism that didn't even involve removing anything.

Yet the Factorio dev was promoting him on the ground of his coding ability. At no point did he talk about Uncle Bob's views.
Do we now need to add justifiers and disclaimers to everything.

If I say I think Ghandi is a good person it should be reasonable to assume I mean because of his non violent resistance methods and not his pretty crappy views on Africa.

Can a person not be allowed to be seen and good and looked up to without also being dragged down by those who are jealous wishing to attach baggage when they see some-one else succeed or just so petty they believe they should have the right to choose. People who care enough will learn about said people and can make their own choices

And Kovarex's response was;





See above. One single guy. And the same crowd is vehemently convinced that it's "cancel culture" just the same.

Because the cancel culture mob doesn't like Uncle Bob and thinks everyone must be made aware how terrible Uncle Bob is even if what's being talked about and he is being praised for has nothing to do with it.

One of the mob was trying to pull the Factorio Dev into helping or joining in with the Mobs effort. That was still cancel culture, it was trying to pull the Factorio Dev in to use his platform to help cancel Uncle Bob. The Factorio Dev then had people try to cancel him and banned him from his own games subreddit.

 

[Hawki]

What is "fuck <insert company>, I'm not giving them money while they work with <insert asshole>"?
Am I obligated to continue patronizing a company? Am I not allowed to state my intentions and resoning publicly? Is there a list of specific moral or ethical objections that are allowed?

First of all, where in the post you quoted did I mention companies at all?

Second, what you're describing is boycotting.

Third, you're not obliged to patron anyone, and I don't know where you got the idea I was suggesting that based on the post you quoted, or heck, anything I said.

Because, like, I'm not going to buy a game with Casey Hudson as main writer or creative director and I'm willing to say so publicly. Is there a difference in whether it's Cancel Culture if the reason is because I don't like their writing instead of me disliking them personally? Or am *I* allowed that take, and anybody who disagrees with me and publicly says that they wouldn't want to read my reviews because of my subjectively shit opinion is engaging with Cancel Culture?

Again, look at the post.

I don't really care what you think about Casey Hudson, and if you don't want to buy a game where he was involved, that's absolutely your business, and I, and no-one else, has any business telling you what to spend your money on, and what to do. If, however, you started a campaign to get the game removed, or Hudson removed, or people from buying the game (as in, preventing them from purchasing it), then yes, we're kind of entering cancel culture territory.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

First of all, where in the post you quoted did I mention companies at all?

Second, what you're describing is boycotting.

Third, you're not obliged to patron anyone, and I don't know where you got the idea I was suggesting that based on the post you quoted, or heck, anything I said.



Again, look at the post.

I don't really care what you think about Casey Hudson, and if you don't want to buy a game where he was involved, that's absolutely your business, and I, and no-one else, has any business telling you what to spend your money on, and what to do. If, however, you started a campaign to get the game removed, or Hudson removed, or people from buying the game (as in, preventing them from purchasing it), then yes, we're kind of entering cancel culture territory.

So, basically zero of the examples in this thread are Cancel Culture then?

 

[Hawki]

So, basically zero of the examples in this thread are Cancel Culture then?

No, most of the examples on this thread are cancel culture.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

No, most of the examples on this thread are cancel culture.

Nobody started a campaign to get Scott Cawthon removed from FNaF nor FNaF removed from stores, so...

 

[Hawki]

Nobody started a campaign to get Scott Cawthon removed from FNaF nor FNaF removed from stores, so...

That's one example - the thread's gone beyond Cawthon.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

That's one example - the thread's gone beyond Cawthon.

Most of the other examples are Boycotts (not cancel culture) or getting banned off a platform for flagrantly violating the platform's rules (not cancel culture). To bring it back to your specific example is "fuck TB and fuck the Escapist until he isn't writing there" a boycott or cancel culture? Is not patronizing a site because you don't like a writer boycotting or cancel culture?

So, if all you're describing is harassment, just call it that. We have a word for that already, and it's not being used by idiot culture warriors who conflate "death threats" with "not buying a product"

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Nobody started a campaign to get Scott Cawthon removed from FNaF nor FNaF removed from stores, so...

And as has been said the effort to drive him from the platform (FNAF) he built basically by using threat is also a way cancel culture operates..........

As for remove Fnaf I've found some stuff about Fnaf related stuff

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Most of the other examples are Boycotts (not cancel culture) or getting banned off a platform for flagrantly violating the platform's rules (not cancel culture). To bring it back to your specific example is "fuck TB and fuck the Escapist until he isn't writing there" a boycott or cancel culture? Is not patronizing a site because you don't like a writer boycotting or cancel culture?

So, if all you're describing is harassment, just call it that. We have a word for that already, and it's not being used by idiot culture warriors who conflate "death threats" with "not buying a product"

Except the people who most conflate those not buying something with cancel culture are those who support cancel culture lol.
It was cancel culture according to them when people were cancelling Disney Plus over Gina Carano being fired.
Why let people who just want to deliberately dilute the phrase down to then claim it's useless actually be able to have that power to stop people using it?

 

[Hawki]

Most of the other examples are Boycotts (not cancel culture) or getting banned off a platform for flagrantly violating the platform's rules (not cancel culture).

No, most of the examples are concentrated efforts to remove someone and/or their work/platform. There's very few actual boycotts that have been mentioned.

To bring it back to your specific example is "fuck TB and fuck the Escapist until he isn't writing there" a boycott or cancel culture?

It really depends on how far I was going. I mean, those are just words, so what do I do after them? If I refuse to visit the site until TB is banned, then it isn't. If I make concentrated efforts to remove TB and/or the site, then it is.

Is not patronizing a site because you don't like a writer boycotting or cancel culture?

No, because me not patronizing the site isn't affecting the ability of anyone else to visit the site.

So, if all you're describing is harassment, just call it that. We have a word for that already, and it's not being used by idiot culture warriors who conflate "death threats" with "not buying a product"

I can harass someone without trying to cancel them, and I can try to cancel them without harassing them (though that's rarer).

I'm reminded of Dwarf's post about dogs. "Great Danes are dogs, not all dogs are Great Danes."

 

[Seanchaidh]

Has anyone said anything about Norman Finkelstein in these 17 pages?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It really depends on how far I was going. I mean, those are just words, so what do I do after them? If I refuse to visit the site until TB is banned, then it isn't. If I make concentrated efforts to remove TB and/or the site, then it is.

So Cawthon wasn't canceled, Factorio wasn't cancelled, Lindsey Ellis wasn't cancelled...

Is whether or not somebody is canceled based on the subjective idea of "how long they're complained about"?

 

[Hawki]

So Cawthon wasn't canceled, Factorio wasn't cancelled, Lindsey Ellis wasn't cancelled...

Is whether or not somebody is canceled based on the subjective idea of "how long they're complained about"?

Ah, yes, Lindsey Ellis just HAPPENED to delete her Twitter account after a self-rightous mob came after her.

Bret Weinstein just HAPPENED to resign after an actual mob came after him.

People like Ollie Robinson, James Gunn, and Hartley Sawyer just HAPPENED to be fired after tweets that were years old were dug up, no matter how hard they apologized for them.

I mean, sure, very few people are cancelled in the sense that they're absolutely deplatformed or completely ostracized, but that isn't a good defence. If your home was burnt down, and you eventually got another home, saying "you've got a home now, why are you complaining?" isn't something you'd probably want to hear.

But to answer your question, being "cancelled" isn't related to the amount of time you're deplatformed, because a lot of the time it isn't a question of time, it's a question of principle.

If you accept the principle that every one of these people (and others) deserved what happened, at least have the guts to say it.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Ah, yes, Lindsey Ellis just HAPPENED to delete her Twitter account after a self-rightous mob came after her.

Bret Weinstein just HAPPENED to resign after an actual mob came after him.

People like Ollie Robinson, James Gunn, and Hartley Sawyer just HAPPENED to be fired after tweets that were years old were dug up, no matter how hard they apologized for them.

I mean, sure, very few people are cancelled in the sense that they're absolutely deplatformed or completely ostracized, but that isn't a good defence. If your home was burnt down, and you eventually got another home, saying "you've got a home now, why are you complaining?" isn't something you'd probably want to hear.

But to answer your question, being "cancelled" isn't related to the amount of time you're deplatformed, because a lot of the time it isn't a question of time, it's a question of principle.

If you accept the principle that every one of these people (and others) deserved what happened, at least have the guts to say it.

So, in order: harassment, harassment, harassment, harassment + skittish corporation, and skittish corporation.

Which, if you want to complain about how corporations knee-jerk when a potential threat to their bottom line shows up, fine, but 4/5ths of your examples are literally just harassment (I don't have context for the Flash guy, because this is the first time I've heard about it). Were Namia Lowe and Rashida Love cancelled at Evergreen too? Or was it just violent harassment via Proud Boys? How is your go-to guy in that situation the verified checkmark with the podcast and the Joe Rogan interview?

 

[Hawki]

So, in order: harassment, harassment, harassment, harassment + skittish corporation, and skittish corporation.

Which, if you want to complain about how corporations knee-jerk when a potential threat to their bottom line shows up, fine, but 4/5ths of your examples are literally just harassment (I don't have context for the Flash guy, because this is the first time I've heard about it).

I disagree that a lot of this is "threats to the corporate bottom line." You think the average person would care about what Robinson or Gunn said years ago, especially if they genuinely apologized for it?

I also disagree that it's simply harassment. Harassment happens all the time, and harassment is of course worthy of being condemned, but these examples aren't simple harassment (I don't think people like Gunn or Robinson were really harassed per se). It's a concentrated effort to remove someone from a position based on something they said. Like, it isn't random regular abuse that (still sticking in this example) that Ellis or Weinstein experienced. I'm surely Lindsay Ellis has received plenty of sexist comments over the years, but what happened was well beyond that. Kind of in the same boat as Anita Sarkeesian - wasn't just pratboys harassing her, it was a concentrated effort to shut her down.

Were Namia Lowe and Rashida Love cancelled at Evergreen too? Or was it just violent harassment via Proud Boys? How is your go-to guy in that situation the verified checkmark with the podcast and the Joe Rogan interview?

I'd need context there. Were the Proud Boys being regular assholes, or were they specifically trying to get them from saying/doing/writing something? The Joe Rogan reference is similarly lost on me (I know who Rogan is, just dont' know how he's related to this scenario.)

 

[Seanchaidh]

Bret Weinstein just HAPPENED to resign after an actual mob came after him.

He should have been fired for writing shitty columns.

edit: Wait, no, that's Bret Stephens I'm thinking of

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I disagree that a lot of this is "threats to the corporate bottom line." You think the average person would care about what Robinson or Gunn said years ago, especially if they genuinely apologized for it?

I also disagree that it's simply harassment. Harassment happens all the time, and harassment is of course worthy of being condemned, but these examples aren't simple harassment (I don't think people like Gunn or Robinson were really harassed per se). It's a concentrated effort to remove someone from a position based on something they said. Like, it isn't random regular abuse that (still sticking in this example) that Ellis or Weinstein experienced. I'm surely Lindsay Ellis has received plenty of sexist comments over the years, but what happened was well beyond that. Kind of in the same boat as Anita Sarkeesian - wasn't just pratboys harassing her, it was a concentrated effort to shut her down.

With Lindsey I'm not sure how far things went with that whole that.
People calling her an idiot for quite a silly take = not what I'd call cancel culture
People making up bullshit about her = yeh that's cancel culture
People calling for punishment beyond her getting dunked on = yeh that's cancel culture
Threats etc if she got any = yes that's cancel culture.

With Anita as you brought her up (or some-one else did).
Were there people wanting her cancelled? Yes but I'd argue and even Anita has argued when she thought she was mostly safe from people finding it (and a video can be provided if needed) that most of her critics don't harass her. Anita cries harassment regularly because it's what AOC once said of pushing a hyperbolic stance to get a reaction. Anita cries she's being harassed? She gets articles or gets her own way. As she said at the UN though she also considers it harassment to tell her she's wrong
Are there people trying to cancel Anita? Yes maybe a few
Has Anita herself tried to cancel people? Yes without a single doubt her and or her fans have tried to and have successfully cancelled some people.
The issue with categorising what is and isn't cancel culture with Anita is actually what is truth vs what she says is truth and differences between them which take some time to dig into.
This is compounded by Trolls and even in one case a Journalist.
The closest I can point to for an actual example of a clearer cut case of some-one trying to cancel Anita was the weird Vampire fiction fan threatening her years later because (though this reason was never stated and is more speculation) Anita was critical of a number of vampire fiction books.

I'd need context there. Were the Proud Boys being regular assholes, or were they specifically trying to get them from saying/doing/writing something? The Joe Rogan reference is similarly lost on me (I know who Rogan is, just dont' know how he's related to this scenario.)

Namia Lowe


She's the one in the pink with the dog
To me seems like she got fired or let go for telling other staff members she didn't want to listen to them they should listen to her and the students or basically fuck off. That's not respectful dialogue but demands

Rashida Love: From what I can tell with brief research resigned / was asked to leave because she was the person who Bret Weinstein emailed to object to her new plays for the day of absence and may have been the one to leak to email exchange out to students. So probably breached a staff privacy code or something there and may or may now have instigated the cancelling and trouble.

I'd say from basic research they were fired for their perceived rolls in harassment or inciting harassment of other staff while seeing said harassment as fully justified and refusing to apologise for any role they played in instigating or exacerbating the problems.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I disagree that a lot of this is "threats to the corporate bottom line." You think the average person would care about what Robinson or Gunn said years ago, especially if they genuinely apologized for it?

The average person *didn't* care about it, hence Gunn being hired back after a short amount of time. That raid was led by Mike "date rape isn't real" Cernovich and his batch of right wing Twitter culture warriors because Gunn disparaged Trump. It was an op.

I'd need context there. Were the Proud Boys being regular assholes, or were they specifically trying to get them from saying/doing/writing something? The Joe Rogan reference is similarly lost on me (I know who Rogan is, just dont' know how he's related to this scenario.)

The Proud Boys specifically showed up to threaten violence, because that's what they do. Of the three professors who resigned after threats, the only one people know about is the now famous right wing white guy who gets regular spots, columns, and interviews about the "dangers of censorship and cancel culture". Getting "cancelled" was the best thing that's ever happened to him, career-wise. The other gals, not so much. But they criticized him (privately), and were thus the Cancellers, so the backlash they got wasn't Cancel Culture. It's only the first bad take that's sancrosanct.