Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
982
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
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.
And yet, it happened, when it shouldn't have happened at all. Gunn was at least let back in.

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.
Weinstein's hardly right wing, but that aside...okay, but looking at your post (and Dwarf's post), I still don't know what they other professors were fired for. I mean, from what I can tell, it seems unjust - criticizing someone is by no means cancelling them - though there's no mention of a mob either.

But I would absolutely declare that being cancelled sucks no matter who it's done to. This is also partly a reaction to Dwarf's post, but if Anita tried to cancel people while also trying to be cancelled, then both actions are despicable.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,103
614
118
Country
United Kingdom
Censoring: "Remove TB from The Escapist because I don't want him expressing those ideas."
So, given how much I have talked about trans issues on this thread, your decision to default to using he/him pronouns is an interesting decision.

You don't actually have the power to remove me from the Escapist. You saying that I should be removed from the escapist is both protected speech and not in violation of any rules. It's a personal opinion to which you are entitled. The people who can remove me from the escapists are the staff and moderators, who have that power because they are given it by the people who own the site, and who have a right to unilaterally determine who uses their site because it is their site. The idea that you personally could censor me is a ludicrous overestimation of your own power within this situation.

You saying that you want me to be removed from the Escapist is just words. The only power those words have is that they might potentially convince people, which is not a problem, it's literally just how words work. It's also entirely possible that you saying I have bad opinions could result in someone with power concluding that I should be removed from the site. There is no fundamental difference. It is all just words, and this idea that words alone can be censorship is just another attempt to control the discussion.

That's a nonsensical equivalance - you can't equate professions with simply the ability to speak. I'm not entitled to any career, you're not entitled to any career, and if you did end up in journalism, whether you pander to your audience or not is up to you or your editor.
Your entire argument hinges on the fact that people are entitled to access to a platform, and that removing someone's access to a platform is a violation of their rights. Several times now, you have used the example of people being fired for expressing horrible opinions as an example of cancel culture. But if those people were not entitled to their careers, then what exactly is the problem? The decision to fire them was made by their employers, who had the legal right to do so.

If someone who is already a journalist is entitled to keep their job, and thus their platform regardless of what they do or say because otherwise it would be cancel culture, then does that not indicate that they possess some fundamental right or entitlement to their platform? If they possess that fundamental right, then what about the rest of us? Do we also possess that right, or is that a right that only some people actually have? Furthermore, if a journalist did get fired for something they wrote, would that not be a decision made by their editor, or their employer, a person who is entitled to make that decision. If the audience's demands do not impinge upon the ability of a journalist to freely use their platform, why do they impinge on the ability of a publication (or any business) to decide who they want to have access to that platform?

Do people have an inherent right to access to platforms or not?

Okay, how are you defining consequences? Because you're really not clear.
So, most of the specific examples of cancel culture you've provided are only similar in extremely superficial ways. A person says something, they are criticized and (either as a result of what they said or the criticism that followed it) something happened to them which was not very pleasant. Maybe they lost their jobs, maybe they felt overwhelmed and had to quit social media, maybe they were banned from a social media platform, maybe they were protested. In some cases, even this really broad equation is going too far and the cancellation took the form of criticism merely being too shrill or unwarranted (i.e. Dawkins).

For an individual, losing their job or being dogpiled on social media is always an undeniably bad experience, and if you have empathy towards that person then maybe it seems like that bad experience is a societal problem, but that isn't necessarily true. It is normal for bad things to happen to people, it is normal for someone to lose their job if they piss off their employer or become a liability. It is normal for someone to encounter anger if they say something which makes people angry.

There can be times when criticism is unwarranted, or unjustified, or unreasonable. I see nothing wrong with calling out those times just as I see nothing wrong with calling people out in general. But I'm not buying into this logic that a bad thing happening to you as a result of you saying something is automatically a violation of your rights, let alone an actual societal problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,258
1,890
118
Country
United Kingdom
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.
Riiiight. And if you were talking about how awful dogs were, and when I ask for examples, you point to things that are only true of Great Danes...?

I think it'd be a pretty valid reply to point out that you're not actually talking generally about "dogs".

No I brought it up and specified it because this is the specific way it's being done in this case.
Really? Because I haven't actually seen any examples of that. The link provided by the OP didn't provide any. Nobody has posted anything like that regarding the Cawthon instance.

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
I don't give a solitary shit whether you agree with the criticism or not. That's irrelevant to the point being made.

The salient point is it was a mildly-stated criticism, from a single individual. And the response was to label it "cancel culture" and react with hostility.

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.
So now something can be "cancel culture" even if.... 1) it's just a single person, 2) there's no abuse, harassment or threats, and 3) there's no request to remove anything.

Hope you're starting to see how the term is just being used to stifle criticism.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,406
2,209
118
Country
United States
And yet, it happened, when it shouldn't have happened at all. Gunn was at least let back in.
Disney's vulnerable to harassment ops. They're skittish about their image like that.
But if the definition of Cancel Culture involves partisan targeted attacks...then it's not exactly a "culture" thing, is it?

Lumping together targeted political attacks, deliberate harassment, corporate skittishness, being the main character of the day over a misunderstanding, being the main character of the day for being a dumbass, being banned from a platform for harassment, being banned from a platform for actual crimes, losing billionaire donors for supporting crimes, facing consumer boycotts over political beliefs, facing mild criticism of video game design, facing mild criticism for insulting your fan base, and just being the kind of twat that people and companies don't want to associate with...

That's not exactly a useful term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,291
1,494
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
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.
Bret Weinstein called for people to be fired on air over a disagreement in terms, even after said person apologised and took down the tweet even though they thought Weinstein had misinterpreted them (they were being nice.) And Sam Harris was nodding along in agreement

So, Bret Weinstein is another person who can get cancelled for all I care. He's done it to others on a huge platform. Same with Tucker Carlson, with his nonsense of asking people to be fired over FBI agents / informants. Sam Harris is on thin ice, because he approved this (it was his podcast) and didn't push back.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,291
1,494
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
You still didn't actually answer my question as to what the bigger issue is - is it that the guard didn't act, or is it the reasons behind him not acting?

Lets say you're right, thta people did tell the guard directly that people were out to get him. Yes, and? That isn't an excuse to not do his job.

If we're talking about statistics, well, the statistics pretty much tell the same story. Levels of depression in later Gen Y/Gen Z are skyrocketing, and that includes demands for safe spaces, anti-free speech stances, and punitive punishment. You can actually look at the statistics that confirms the anecdotes. The best example I've read is The Coddling of the American Mind, but even recently, I saw poll data for college students on issues such as free speech, censorship, and reporting faculty for "offensive language." The further left you are, the more likely you are to support these positions.
Yah, what? Citation please on 'safe spaces'. Wasn't Parlor set up for conservatives? And Gab? Twitter is not a safe space for anyone. It certainly doesn't support Left ideas or LBGT stuff. At best its Liberal and no one on either side of the spectrum wants American Liberal nonsense.

Also, I've been told for a very long time that Free Speech is important and we shouldn't be having Hate Speech laws. Usually by conservatives. THIS is what they asked for

As for Twitter/Disney, well those are two different things. Twitter is a platform, Disney is a corporation - they have different mandates, so to speak. If I became CEO of Disney, one of my first orders of business would actually be something like giving employees a living wage at Disneyland (look it up, it's shameful), but on the subject at hand, I'd probably work something into what I assume is pre-existing EEO policy. It's already illegal to discriminate based on sex, ethnicity, or religious belief, so make sure that the company has a mandate that political and social belief is worked into the framework.

Twitter's a different story though - there's absolutely cases to ban people and groups from Twitter if they're preaching violence (you wouldn't want an ISIS Twitter account for instance), but apart from that, well, it's kind of a free for all. I don't think there's a simple answer there. It's easy enough to control what Twitter itself does, but what people do is another question. I guess the basis would be something like a 'no harassment' policy, but how do you enforce it, and where do you draw the line?
Gunn and Carano were fired by Disney. Probably by heads of your various studios. As CEO, when should someone be fired of controversy. I get that Gunn and Carano situations would be a blanket not-firing for you. Is Amber Heard/Johnny Depp enough?

As to Twitter, you were worried about Cancel Culture but aren't willing to do anything about it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
982
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
So, given how much I have talked about trans issues on this thread, your decision to default to using he/him pronouns is an interesting decision.
If you want me to use different pronouns, I'll use them.

You don't actually have the power to remove me from the Escapist. You saying that I should be removed from the escapist is both protected speech and not in violation of any rules. It's a personal opinion to which you are entitled. The people who can remove me from the escapists are the staff and moderators, who have that power because they are given it by the people who own the site, and who have a right to unilaterally determine who uses their site because it is their site. The idea that you personally could censor me is a ludicrous overestimation of your own power within this situation.
I never said I had the power to personally censor you, that's beside the point. It's the mere idea of someone thinking you should be for...what? Expressing an opinion? Ideas?

You saying that you want me to be removed from the Escapist is just words. The only power those words have is that they might potentially convince people, which is not a problem, it's literally just how words work. It's also entirely possible that you saying I have bad opinions could result in someone with power concluding that I should be removed from the site. There is no fundamental difference. It is all just words, and this idea that words alone can be censorship is just another attempt to control the discussion.
Words alone aren't censorship, that was entirely the point of the distinction I made.

I mean...sorry, usually I'd try and respond in detail, but all I can really say is that I fundamentally disagree with everything you said. If you think there's absolutely no difference between saying someone has a bad opinion, and making an active, concentrated effort to punish/deplatform/whatever for that opinion, I...I'm sorry, I just can't comprehend that line of reasoning.

Your entire argument hinges on the fact that people are entitled to access to a platform, and that removing someone's access to a platform is a violation of their rights. Several times now, you have used the example of people being fired for expressing horrible opinions as an example of cancel culture. But if those people were not entitled to their careers, then what exactly is the problem? The decision to fire them was made by their employers, who had the legal right to do so.
Okay, but horrible opinions according to whom? You? The employer? The mob? There's safeguards in place to stop employers discriminating on traits such as sex and religious belief, but employers have the legal right to terminate people for expressing opinions? Also, even if there are some things that are universally acknowledged to be terrible, when people dug up the tweets of people like Ollie Robinson, Hartley Sawyer, and Sarah Jeong (who actually did escape cancellation, which is good, even if the reasoning wasn't), if the opinions are made well before joining the period of employment, if the person is genuinely sorry, is there a grace period, or not?

So, let's follow your line of argument, which seems to be:

a) People aren't entitled to a career (technically true)

b) The employer has the legal right to fire anyone for expressing an opinion.

You absolutely see no problem with that? None at all? You don't think if you were brought in before your boss, who says "well TB, you said this thing, so out you go" (you can protest about time passed and/or character change, it doesn't matter, you're still out), you don't think there's something wrong going on here? Nothing at all? Because if not, then we're approaching territory where employers can fire people for any number of things. Or, alternatively, a condition of employment should be to not express an opinion about anything, because at least there we're approaching some kind of consistency.

If someone who is already a journalist is entitled to keep their job, and thus their platform regardless of what they do or say because otherwise it would be cancel culture, then does that not indicate that they possess some fundamental right or entitlement to their platform? If they possess that fundamental right, then what about the rest of us? Do we also possess that right, or is that a right that only some people actually have? Furthermore, if a journalist did get fired for something they wrote, would that not be a decision made by their editor, or their employer, a person who is entitled to make that decision. If the audience's demands do not impinge upon the ability of a journalist to freely use their platform, why do they impinge on the ability of a publication (or any business) to decide who they want to have access to that platform?

Do people have an inherent right to access to platforms or not?
Most people aren't journalists for starters, and there's already a vetting process for journalists. If I go to work for a news group, I'm almost certainly going to be signing some kind of contract. The rules are clearly established. Most social media doesn't have any real vetting process.

So, do people have an inherent right to access platforms? Well, in the strictest sense, no, but if your platform is open-access, then people are going to start to notice when terms and conditions aren't equally applied.

So, most of the specific examples of cancel culture you've provided are only similar in extremely superficial ways. A person says something, they are criticized and (either as a result of what they said or the criticism that followed it) something happened to them which was not very pleasant. Maybe they lost their jobs, maybe they felt overwhelmed and had to quit social media, maybe they were banned from a social media platform, maybe they were protested. In some cases, even this really broad equation is going too far and the cancellation took the form of criticism merely being too shrill or unwarranted (i.e. Dawkins).

For an individual, losing their job or being dogpiled on social media is always an undeniably bad experience, and if you have empathy towards that person then maybe it seems like that bad experience is a societal problem, but that isn't necessarily true. It is normal for bad things to happen to people, it is normal for someone to lose their job if they piss off their employer or become a liability. It is normal for someone to encounter anger if they say something which makes people angry.

There can be times when criticism is unwarranted, or unjustified, or unreasonable. I see nothing wrong with calling out those times just as I see nothing wrong with calling people out in general. But I'm not buying into this logic that a bad thing happening to you as a result of you saying something is automatically a violation of your rights, let alone an actual societal problem.
Again, we've reached the point of fundamental disagreement.

First, societal. It absolutely is a societal problem in my mind, because even if we haven't used the term, cancel culture has existed in some form or another across time and cultures. We don't have to worry about something like blasphemy laws here (well, it seeks the UK does these days), but it's a kind of inverse moral puritanism that really distinguishes cancel culture in my eyes. People will be shitty to one another for all sorts of reasons - I've said repeatedly that not all abuse is cancel culture, but I'd say what distinguishes cancel culture (as in, distinguishing it as an actual culture), is the following:

1) People are either good or evil, right or wrong. There is no grey area whatsoever. It is a battle between "us and them," and we can't afford to give any ground.

2) By extension, it isn't enough to criticize people, one has to remove them entirely.

3) There is no chance of redemption or character growth. If you did something or said something, it doesn't matter when you did it, or how much you might be genuinely sorry, it doesn't matter. You did/said this, so you must be punished.

Doesn't that sound like something else? Like religion, maybe? How certain religions have acted, and in some parts of the world, continue to act?

I've commented before that the right absolutely does wield cancel culture as well, so it's really strange, for me, when we get this kind of secular version of it. I'm certainly not the only person who's noticed it either - everyone from Steven Fry, to Barrack Obama, to Jonathan Haidt, to John McWhorter, to countless individuals (and I mean countless) have noticed the shift - people who've been on this earth longer than I have. You don't think maybe, possibly, SOMETHING has shifted in the culture?

I'm actually going to return to Ellis for a bit, and reiterate what I said. I could actually understand the bullying angle, because I can understand bullying. Bullying at least gives you a sense of power. But these people, and in so many other examples, apparently genuinely thought they were doing the right thing. That they were in the right. That even if Ellis had said something wrong, even after the apology, nope, that still wasn't good enough. Without hyperbole, it's actually kind of terrifying to see that level of certainty in people. So apply that to society at large, and, yeah, I think there's a problem, because the world doesn't operate in moral binaries. I get that religions certainly do, but now you see otherwise agnostic people applying the same certainty.

Second point, you mention "there can be times when criticism is unwarranted, or unjustified, or unreasonable." I agree, but something else that's been established is that we clearly have very different ideas as to when it is warranted (see Dawkins, where we apparently disagree so much we can't even look at the same words and deduce the same meaning). Which, okay, fine, intellectual exercises are fine, and we've never agreed about anything on this site when it comes to interpreting media, but then we come to the real world. If some people are punished, and others not, for pretty much the same thing, people are going to notice. And to borrow a quote, "you cannot keep people stupid forever."

So yes, in a practical sense, tightening EEO laws could at least lay some groundwork, or alternatively, gag people entirely, because if you can't agree, and I can't agree, and 8 billion people can't agree, then we're in a minefield.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
982
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Disney's vulnerable to harassment ops. They're skittish about their image like that.
But if the definition of Cancel Culture involves partisan targeted attacks...then it's not exactly a "culture" thing, is it?
Oh, it pretty much is. You don't think the right and left (at least in the US and UK, where most of this is concentrated) are fighting a culture war?

I laid this out in my response to TB, but a lot of this is absolutely cultural. A form of old culture, yes, but culture that's gone beyond the idea of 'heresy' and 'blasphemy,' been secularized, and has been propogated by social media.

Lumping together targeted political attacks, deliberate harassment, corporate skittishness, being the main character of the day over a misunderstanding, being the main character of the day for being a dumbass, being banned from a platform for harassment, being banned from a platform for actual crimes, losing billionaire donors for supporting crimes, facing consumer boycotts over political beliefs, facing mild criticism of video game design, facing mild criticism for insulting your fan base, and just being the kind of twat that people and companies don't want to associate with...

That's not exactly a useful term.
Well, you're lumping together stuff that I haven't lumped together. I never mentioned actual crimes, or supporting crimes, and I've made a distinction between criticism and cancelling.

Cancel culture absolutely cannot cover all forms of criticism or genuine crimes, and yes, people try to do that. But I think a distinction can be made, and I've tried to be constant with that distinction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,406
2,209
118
Country
United States
Well, you're lumping together stuff that I haven't lumped together. I never mentioned actual crimes, or supporting crimes, and I've made a distinction between criticism and cancelling.

Cancel culture absolutely cannot cover all forms of criticism or genuine crimes, and yes, people try to do that. But I think a distinction can be made, and I've tried to be constant with that distinction.
You have, sure. Even if I don't buy it, you're at least trying.

And in this thread, amongst the people who think cancel culture is a thing, you're alone in that.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
982
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Bret Weinstein called for people to be fired on air over a disagreement in terms, even after said person apologised and took down the tweet even though they thought Weinstein had misinterpreted them (they were being nice.) And Sam Harris was nodding along in agreement

So, Bret Weinstein is another person who can get cancelled for all I care. He's done it to others on a huge platform. Same with Tucker Carlson, with his nonsense of asking people to be fired over FBI agents / informants. Sam Harris is on thin ice, because he approved this (it was his podcast) and didn't push back.
If Weinstein did that, then yes, that does make him a hypocrite.
Yah, what? Citation please on 'safe spaces'.
The book itself for starters.

Wasn't Parlor set up for conservatives? And Gab? Twitter is not a safe space for anyone. It certainly doesn't support Left ideas or LBGT stuff. At best its Liberal and no one on either side of the spectrum wants American Liberal nonsense.
First, I never said they were. Second, I don't know the rules of Parlor or Gab - are opinions banned, or is it just a kind of 'mission statement?' I mean, absolutely conservatives want their own media and whatnot, but in terms of Gen Y/Z, and college campuses, the trends are clear.

Also, Twitter doesn't really side with anything or anyone. And there's no shortage of Left or LGBT stuff, or really, any kind of stuff. Like, at all.

Also, I've been told for a very long time that Free Speech is important and we shouldn't be having Hate Speech laws. Usually by conservatives. THIS is what they asked for
Sorry, what did they ask for? Are you talking about Gab, or something else?

I mean, I actually agree, free speech is important, and conservatives should talk the talk (or walk the walk?) like everyone else.


Gunn and Carano were fired by Disney. Probably by heads of your various studios. As CEO, when should someone be fired of controversy. I get that Gunn and Carano situations would be a blanket not-firing for you. Is Amber Heard/Johnny Depp enough?
As CEO, I absolutely wouldn't fire Gunn, and almost certainly not Carrano. I say that because of all the things she said, the worst was the anti-vax stuff. Even then though, I feel anti-vaxxers should be free to spout their bullshit, and have it be challenged.

Heard/Depp is a different kettle of fish though, because that's a domestic violence case, and also a case where no-one seems to agree on the facts. As CEO, I'd absolutely have to step in at some point in the way, but I can't say what I'd do (at least at this point in time), because the case is practically in he said/she said territory. Also, make no mistake, domestic abuse is worse than anything discussed on this thread.

As to Twitter, you were worried about Cancel Culture but aren't willing to do anything about it?
I didn't say I wasn't willing to do anything about it, I'm saying that it's very difficult to know where to draw the line. And even if it was drawn, how many moderators would we need to enforce it? And if we did enforce it, then we'd be accused of censoring ourselves.

Best I can do without consulting dozens of experts would be to draw the line at hate speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,622
982
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
You have, sure. Even if I don't buy it, you're at least trying.

And in this thread, amongst the people who think cancel culture is a thing, you're alone in that.
Well, in the 'side' that believes that cancel culture is a thing, we can add Dwarf and Crit to the list, I suppose.

On the other hand, supposing that cancel culture isn't real, then I'm insane. There's no other word for it. That, or literally everyone in this thread deserved what happened to them, or it's somehow a list of coincidences that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,406
2,209
118
Country
United States
Well, in the 'side' that believes that cancel culture is a thing, we can add Dwarf and Crit to the list, I suppose.

On the other hand, supposing that cancel culture isn't real, then I'm insane. There's no other word for it. That, or literally everyone in this thread deserved what happened to them, or it's somehow a list of coincidences that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
You aren't insane, you're just married to a phrase that's ultimately meaningless.

This entire thread started on the assumption that Scott Cawthon was Cancel Cultured. If Scott Cawthon wasn't cancel cultured, then...
29C1A087-C93E-4C62-9980-925A3E23B951.png
"Cancel Culture" is the hot new meaningless culture war buzzword for "stuff we don't like". It's SJW, Virtue Signaling, White Knight, Cultural Marxist, the one we don't name, etc

Hell, the Factorio guy got "cancelled" for insulting his fan base. You know, the Ultimate Game Developer Sin Worthy Of Burning A Career. At least, a few years ago it was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,369
483
88
So, given how much I have talked about trans issues on this thread, your decision to default to using he/him pronouns is an interesting decision.

You don't actually have the power to remove me from the Escapist. You saying that I should be removed from the escapist is both protected speech and not in violation of any rules. It's a personal opinion to which you are entitled. The people who can remove me from the escapists are the staff and moderators, who have that power because they are given it by the people who own the site, and who have a right to unilaterally determine who uses their site because it is their site. The idea that you personally could censor me is a ludicrous overestimation of your own power within this situation.

You saying that you want me to be removed from the Escapist is just words. The only power those words have is that they might potentially convince people, which is not a problem, it's literally just how words work. It's also entirely possible that you saying I have bad opinions could result in someone with power concluding that I should be removed from the site. There is no fundamental difference. It is all just words, and this idea that words alone can be censorship is just another attempt to control the discussion.
The issue would be if some-one were accusing you of things not being open about wanting your ideas suppressed.

As a PURELY HYPOTHETICAL example
Lets say there was a member here called Joe Bloggs (I hope there isn't it's a random name)
A person accuses Joe Bloggs of offering FGM services to members (Stands for Female Genital Mutilation, it's sometimes called female circumcision and is potentially really harmful to girls and illegal most places)
The claim however isn't they're doing if via the site but using the site to find people then search their names elsewhere on the web and approach them other places to offer such services.
So we've got a member accused on using The Escapist forum to try and find people here to sell illegal procedures or promote illegal procedures to.
Time is of the essence really to prevent harm here.
Ideally the staff here would look into claims and gather evidence but there's a big push to take action and now people are emailing advertisers with these tales of the site not acting. So you have to rely on the staff (and I think the staff here would look into the claims and not be swayed so much by advertiser pressure) to not buckle and take a knee jerk action.
Now it's not hard to fake stuff, it's not hard to find like minded people wanting to go after a person.
The issue is if all this was done just to silence Joe Bloggs and it was all fake.

That's where I say the line is when false accusations of malice or malicious actions begin, because you can say such claims are free speech but actually in most of the world and event the USA they're not free speech, they're libel or if they're spoken they're slander. Even in the US it's one of the things where you can't just claim Free Speech as a defence because if you used said free speech to infringe other peoples right to live by harming that ability to live such as make money then you can be held liable if they can prove it.

Your entire argument hinges on the fact that people are entitled to access to a platform, and that removing someone's access to a platform is a violation of their rights. Several times now, you have used the example of people being fired for expressing horrible opinions as an example of cancel culture. But if those people were not entitled to their careers, then what exactly is the problem? The decision to fire them was made by their employers, who had the legal right to do so.
Except everything is a platform just with different levels of checks and balances in place.
It's not merely your social media account.
It can be your paypal
Your bank and a whole
The land owner if you are a leasedhold home owner
It can be your entire country.
In the USA in some states they still reserve the right to remove you from living.

You say about people and careers but Michelangelo painted the Sistine chapel roof but evidence suggests he attended autopsies, that at the time were illegal, done by people trying to learn about the body. Should he have been cancelled?

Alan Turing was gay, he also helped create the machine that broke the German Enigma code. At the time being gay was considered illegal should Alan Turing have been denied his career and cut off before building the machine that broke the Enigma code?

Companies in the case of many of the fired were taking knee jerk reactions to appease mobs because investigating stuff is costly vs firing a person which is quicker and cheaper in many cases.

In the UK it's why there's actually protections for belief which were tested not that long ago and shown that some-one who was super environmentally conscious who was fired due to things resulting from that was illegally fired for his beliefs.



There can be times when criticism is unwarranted, or unjustified, or unreasonable. I see nothing wrong with calling out those times just as I see nothing wrong with calling people out in general. But I'm not buying into this logic that a bad thing happening to you as a result of you saying something is automatically a violation of your rights, let alone an actual societal problem.
Well society has different views because of things like freedom of speech protections etc. That people are still doing this same nonsense of trying to deny people who want something access to views or creative works because they personally dislike it is very dumb. I don't care which side it's happening on. I won't say I'm an absolutist in that view there are things I very much oppose but they're generally quite extreme cases. There's a big difference between Battleship Potemkin a film that was previously banned and ISIS beheading videos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,369
483
88
Riiiight. And if you were talking about how awful dogs were, and when I ask for examples, you point to things that are only true of Great Danes...?

I think it'd be a pretty valid reply to point out that you're not actually talking generally about "dogs".
No I didn't say it was only true in said case.
If you read it that way it's on you.
I've now said 5 times that was not what I meant.
Either you can accept that or you can keep banging this drum demanding I argue from what is a Strawman position which I have 0 interest in entertaining further. I've been fairly patient and given you a lot of leeway under the assumption this was just a misunderstanding but if you carry on I'll have no choice but to see it as malicious and dishonest.


Really? Because I haven't actually seen any examples of that. The link provided by the OP didn't provide any. Nobody has posted anything like that regarding the Cawthon instance.
Really no-one posted malicious claims?
Not the whole Jimquisition video posted earlier in this threat which contained claims about how Scott wanted people dead or wanted to kill them?

Or are you trying to get me in a catch 22 where I need to show a person doxxing Scott to show people doxxed Scott thus helping actually spread those doxx and risking trouble myself here for that?


I don't give a solitary shit whether you agree with the criticism or not. That's irrelevant to the point being made.

The salient point is it was a mildly-stated criticism, from a single individual. And the response was to label it "cancel culture" and react with hostility.
Because it was trying to get said developer to join in on mob action or show support for the mob.
Same as if the anti-Ghandi mob demanded a person put #Ghandimustfall in their twitter bio.
Just because I can politely call some-one a bastard doesn't mean I'm not still calling a person a bastard.
Mary Whitehouse always tried to present her side as being the polite and proper side vs the uncouth / nasty / impolite people who opposed her.
It was an illusion of civility in the end.
The response to it chose to call it out for the illusion it was.

So now something can be "cancel culture" even if.... 1) it's just a single person, 2) there's no abuse, harassment or threats, and 3) there's no request to remove anything.

Hope you're starting to see how the term is just being used to stifle criticism.
Except those trying to cancel Uncle Bob are more than one person.
The interaction with the 1 person lead to another person and more people (the subreddit moderators) banning said developer.
Somewhere along the way some-one would have requested the developer be banned or chosen to take said action.
As far as I'm aware the poster asking the Factorio dev to label how Uncle Bob is problematic is not a moderator of the subreddit.

The criticism was "Why aren't you joining in on our criticism of Uncle Bob?" in essence.
Does the developer not have a right to criticise people asking him to join in on such stuff or assuming ignorance on his part?

Do you really not see what a bad road this leads down if everyone must be always informed about how every-one or everything is problematic just incase they don't know? The idea people can't do their own research and make up their own minds if they care so much or wouldn't already know this stuff?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,369
483
88
Disney's vulnerable to harassment ops. They're skittish about their image like that.
But if the definition of Cancel Culture involves partisan targeted attacks...then it's not exactly a "culture" thing, is it?

Lumping together targeted political attacks, deliberate harassment, corporate skittishness, being the main character of the day over a misunderstanding, being the main character of the day for being a dumbass, being banned from a platform for harassment, being banned from a platform for actual crimes, losing billionaire donors for supporting crimes, facing consumer boycotts over political beliefs, facing mild criticism of video game design, facing mild criticism for insulting your fan base, and just being the kind of twat that people and companies don't want to associate with...

That's not exactly a useful term.
yet it is all part of the same kind of actions happening.
The belief that a persons worth or worthiness is based on them holding the right views.
A view which it was either Dickens or Wilde (I forget which) argued very strongly against in the past.
A view which Brecht somewhat pushed and Brecht is blamed by some of causing massive damage and nearly destroying theatre with his ideas.
It's been a thing for a long time just now people have chosen to give it a name.

Also the 17th time in this thread.
No-one is opposing thought out valid criticism itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,369
483
88
Bret Weinstein called for people to be fired on air over a disagreement in terms, even after said person apologised and took down the tweet even though they thought Weinstein had misinterpreted them (they were being nice.) And Sam Harris was nodding along in agreement

So, Bret Weinstein is another person who can get cancelled for all I care. He's done it to others on a huge platform. Same with Tucker Carlson, with his nonsense of asking people to be fired over FBI agents / informants. Sam Harris is on thin ice, because he approved this (it was his podcast) and didn't push back.
Citation needed on him calling for people to actually be fired.

Yah, what? Citation please on 'safe spaces'. Wasn't Parlor set up for conservatives? And Gab? Twitter is not a safe space for anyone. It certainly doesn't support Left ideas or LBGT stuff. At best its Liberal and no one on either side of the spectrum wants American Liberal nonsense.

Also, I've been told for a very long time that Free Speech is important and we shouldn't be having Hate Speech laws. Usually by conservatives. THIS is what they asked for


Gunn and Carano were fired by Disney. Probably by heads of your various studios. As CEO, when should someone be fired of controversy. I get that Gunn and Carano situations would be a blanket not-firing for you. Is Amber Heard/Johnny Depp enough?

As to Twitter, you were worried about Cancel Culture but aren't willing to do anything about it?
Actually it rather is because there's been a spate of people recently getting banned for tweeting "Kill All Men" in reply to some people.
However if you tweet #killallmen
Or if you happen to have certain signifiers in your bio said people haven't been getting banned for it.

Twitter is a safe space because some views and people who hold them are allowed to be as abusive and obnoxious as they want. Other people will be banned for jokes and minor lapses.

Arguing that we should have speech restricting laws otherwise corporations will act on their own is certainly a strange idea. All speech laws would do is make it so the cancellation was from society and basically step thing up further. Surely speech protecting laws would be better?
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,369
483
88
Okay, but horrible opinions according to whom? You? The employer? The mob? There's safeguards in place to stop employers discriminating on traits such as sex and religious belief, but employers have the legal right to terminate people for expressing opinions? Also, even if there are some things that are universally acknowledged to be terrible, when people dug up the tweets of people like Ollie Robinson, Hartley Sawyer, and Sarah Jeong (who actually did escape cancellation, which is good, even if the reasoning wasn't), if the opinions are made well before joining the period of employment, if the person is genuinely sorry, is there a grace period, or not?

So, let's follow your line of argument, which seems to be:

a) People aren't entitled to a career (technically true)

b) The employer has the legal right to fire anyone for expressing an opinion.

You absolutely see no problem with that? None at all? You don't think if you were brought in before your boss, who says "well TB, you said this thing, so out you go" (you can protest about time passed and/or character change, it doesn't matter, you're still out), you don't think there's something wrong going on here? Nothing at all? Because if not, then we're approaching territory where employers can fire people for any number of things. Or, alternatively, a condition of employment should be to not express an opinion about anything, because at least there we're approaching some kind of consistency.
Just wanted to quote this to bring up when this was happening before but in another context.
Walmart (yes that Walmart) was firing staff who were heard or admitted to using birth control because the head / local head of the company at the time was very extremely pro life and contraception was in his view sinful


That shit was something when I heard about I opposed because that was clearly going beyond the head espousing a view and instead punishing those for their views.
That's the weird dystopia we head back to if people don't push back and it shocks me people are seemingly wanting that just because they think their view will be dominant and they can use said ideas to crush their opposition somehow. It's worrying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,291
1,494
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Citation needed on him calling for people to actually be fired.

I can go find the podcast if you like where he repeats what he said here. That one is better as it was after Lech retraction and apology. I just don't want to watch Sam Harris but I'll do it just for you
Actually it rather is because there's been a spate of people recently getting banned for tweeting "Kill All Men" in reply to some people.
However if you tweet #killallmen
Or if you happen to have certain signifiers in your bio said people haven't been getting banned for it.

Twitter is a safe space because some views and people who hold them are allowed to be as abusive and obnoxious as they want. Other people will be banned for jokes and minor lapses.

Arguing that we should have speech restricting laws otherwise corporations will act on their own is certainly a strange idea. All speech laws would do is make it so the cancellation was from society and basically step thing up further. Surely speech protecting laws would be better?
'Twitter being a safe space'. You crack me up.

Sure. It's not a chanboard. Ill give you that

As to free speech... yah, that's what I've been pointing the whole time. Cancelling is protected speech. So, what are you ACTUALLY going to do about. Ban Free speech? I thought you were for that?

Keep in mind that some of this 'cancelling' was scaring people off Twitter (eg. Ellis.) So any rules that forces Twitter to not intervene will ENCOURAGE this tactic. But I'd dare say this is a positive to some pushing this idea.

I put this 'cancelling' in quotations as... well this was a common tactic against Daisy Ridley, Kathleen Kennedy, Girl Ghostbusters, Brie Larsen etc. And it work, like on people like Rose. If you want to add that to cancelling... sure. Carano did similar things, using her audience to create against particular people... soooo....

If you want to ban free speech... cool. I've got a laundry list of other speech that can be banned well before cancelling as they are more dangerous. I can pop it on the bottom if you like. If you want to ban Twitter from acting, prepare for it to turn into a chanboard. They are not know for their free speech

Now, as to #Killallmen... have you reported it? Like, if they banned one thing that similar, this would indicate they are trying and missed. If they made a comment about why they didn't ban the hashtag. Great, petition Twitter to get those sort of hashtags removed. I'll back it
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,369
483
88

I can go find the podcast if you like where he repeats what he said here. That one is better as it was after Lech retraction and apology. I just don't want to watch Sam Harris but I'll do it just for you
Yeh that's pretty shitty then.
I'd have been fine with pretty much everything up to the calling for them to be fired.
Not the first time cancel culture has created more people willing to outright cancel others though because that's how this game seems to go.

'Twitter being a safe space'. You crack me up.

Sure. It's not a chanboard. Ill give you that

As to free speech... yah, that's what I've been pointing the whole time. Cancelling is protected speech. So, what are you ACTUALLY going to do about. Ban Free speech? I thought you were for that?
Technically it's already not Free Speech. At least not absolutely free.
If you push for some-one to be fired based on what they've actually said or done and some "I won't buy your product anymore" claim. Then it's protected.
If you push, as much of cancel culture does, for some-one to be fired based on false claims about them you can be dragged into court for libel.
If you push for some-one to be fired or you'll enact harm that is a criminal threat.

This was actually played out a few years back on Twitter when allegations that a certain member of the Lords was a pedophile started circulating. The Member of the Lords launched a libel action against the claims being spread and everyone who had spread them was court ordered to pay £20 to charity except the main celebs and public figures who'd spread it who had to agree to settlements to be paid to charity themselves and they started at £2,000 and I think the highest was about £200,000

Keep in mind that some of this 'cancelling' was scaring people off Twitter (eg. Ellis.) So any rules that forces Twitter to not intervene will ENCOURAGE this tactic. But I'd dare say this is a positive to some pushing this idea.
See this is why I'm iffy with the Ellis thing I know what she said and think it was dumb but I don't know the full extent of how bad it got to actually comment on that specific one.
It could have been "I left twitter because I was being yelled at"
Or it could have been "I left twitter because some assholes were threatening my life for a bad take"
One would very much be cancel culture the other not so if the yelling was valid and on point.

I put this 'cancelling' in quotations as... well this was a common tactic against Daisy Ridley, Kathleen Kennedy, Girl Ghostbusters, Brie Larsen etc. And it work, like on people like Rose. If you want to add that to cancelling... sure. Carano did similar things, using her audience to create against particular people... soooo....
So 18th time now.
No-one is trying to argue against valid criticism being allowed.
Is saying Gina Carano literally wants to murder Trans people because she won't put pronouns in her bio valid criticism? I'd argue very much no
Was Daisy Ridley, Rose or Brie Larsen facing calls to be fired for whatever they did? (I left Kathleen Kennedy out cause no shit given the state of Star Wars would some people want her fired)

If you want to ban free speech... cool. I've got a laundry list of other speech that can be banned well before cancelling as they are more dangerous. I can pop it on the bottom if you like. If you want to ban Twitter from acting, prepare for it to turn into a chanboard. They are not know for their free speech
Where oddly the talk and ideas can be quite interesting because there is that freedom for said conversation to be had and they do happen in between troll drive bys on chan boards. Hell even chan boards have rules in place lol, they're far less restrictive but there are general attempts to keep things on topic and not absolute cess pits.

Now, as to #Killallmen... have you reported it? Like, if they banned one thing that similar, this would indicate they are trying and missed. If they made a comment about why they didn't ban the hashtag. Great, petition Twitter to get those sort of hashtags removed. I'll back it
Oh plenty of people have #killallmen is specifically protected by twitter. It's one of the things they just refuse to take action against.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hawki