Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,171
197
68
Finland
Been having this conversation a lot lately, but it's this:

1. I buy a product from a company, unaware of the company's ethics/stances, because it's just a company selling a product.
2. The company donates to a cause that is actively harmful to me or others.
3. My money is being used to harm myself or others.
4. I feel let down, and I will no longer give them that money.

I'm not trying to punish anyone for having the wrong opinions (though I might consider doing that too if I could), but why would I help to fund that or support it in any other way? Certainly, the idea that I'm 'cancelling' someone because I get to choose where my money is spent is ludicrous -- it's my money.
And you still pay taxes. You criticize the economy yet participate in it. Interesting. I am very intelligent for pointing this out.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
1,593
701
118
Country
United States
That's also not an example of "cancel culture."

The BBC is/was a government entity. Take a guess at another name for "counter-subversion vetting": a background check. You know, that thing that every government employee in every (competent) country undergoes.

As an aside, maybe don't rely on unsourced tweets for informing yourself, even (especially?) if they agree with your personal beliefs.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,031
1,704
118
Country
United Kingdom
I mean sure, but that's entirely your fault for thinking A. A company is a person, B. That companies have morals, and C. Companies do or should share your morals.

No, it's not. None of those are necessary premises for someone to buy into in order to want to avoid actively giving money to companies they find repellant.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
8,577
2,888
118
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.
.....you do realize that this rationale is EXACTLY why people who disagree with him are not supporting him right? He has the right to believe whatever he wants, and support whoever he wants. But when the people he supports are festering shitheads, the people on the receiving end of that "differing opinion" equally have the right to tell him he's a fucking asshole for supporting them, and urge people to not give him any of their money. Because what THEY do with THEIR money, is none of his business....except it IS his business, exactly his business. He takes their money, and then gives it to people they don't like, to fund policies they don't like, and actively harm them. So...yeah, they have every right to tell him to fuck off, and not buy his shit anymore.

That's how the free speech thing works. He says what the fuck he wants, we reply how the fuck we want.
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
10,749
1,151
118
Corner of No and Where
No, it's not. None of those are necessary premises for someone to buy into in order to want to avoid actively giving money to companies they find repellant.
No one is forcing anyone to give their money. Don't like what a company stands for, don't give them money. Simple as that. But don't blame the company for you not knowing what they donate to/believe.

No company is moral, nor do they have to be. Wanting to be a moral person is a noble goal, but good luck finding a company that buying from doesn't compromise your beliefs. Im from St. Louis, the most moral grocery store we have is Wal-Mart. The rest a run by super conservatives right wing religious nut families. But I need to eat.
I bought a car last year. Name me a moral car dealership or production company? I get my internet from Charter, the company that brings in Indian immigrants on slave visas for pennies on the dollar for their IT work.

Companies aren't moral, so you have to pick your battles. If Scott Cawthon donating to right-wing politicians is too much for some people, sure whatever. Personally I think he's a religious nut-job, but that FNaF can be fun. I think a lot of people outraged by Cawthon would be shocked if they knew all the politicians other companies donate to.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,446
1,500
118
Australia
I'd have thought it quite normal to consider him pretty good, but to place him above
I said he's my favourite. As in the director who's movies I like the most. This does not mean he is a better director than any your aforementioned artists.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,031
1,704
118
Country
United Kingdom
No one is forcing anyone to give their money. Don't like what a company stands for, don't give them money. Simple as that.
That's literally what these people are doing.

But don't blame the company for you not knowing what they donate to/believe.
I'm not seeing people blaming the company for their own lack of knowledge. They're blaming the company for making the donations. Which... is perfectly reasonable. They did make them. They can take the consequences of their own decisions if they alienate people.

No company is moral, nor do they have to be. Wanting to be a moral person is a noble goal, but good luck finding a company that buying from doesn't compromise your beliefs. Im from St. Louis, the most moral grocery store we have is Wal-Mart. The rest a run by super conservatives right wing religious nut families. But I need to eat.
I bought a car last year. Name me a moral car dealership or production company? I get my internet from Charter, the company that brings in Indian immigrants on slave visas for pennies on the dollar for their IT work.

Companies aren't moral, so you have to pick your battles. If Scott Cawthon donating to right-wing politicians is too much for some people, sure whatever. Personally I think he's a religious nut-job, but that FNaF can be fun. I think a lot of people outraged by Cawthon would be shocked if they knew all the politicians other companies donate to.
OK, obviously no company (or almost no company) is moral. But that doesn't mean that everyone should just ignore things they personally find objectionable. It's their own damn business who they purchase from. It's a personal metric.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,031
1,704
118
Country
United Kingdom
I said he's my favourite. As in the director who's movies I like the most. This does not mean he is a better director than any your aforementioned artists.
Sure. But that means you find Titanic and Avatar and Aliens and Terminator preferable to the work of Scorsese or Spielberg. Which, yeah, I find a bit odd.

I'm not judging you; it was meant to be an off-hand comment. Like what you like!
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
10,749
1,151
118
Corner of No and Where
My point isn't that Scott Cawthon suddenly changed and is now some completely different anti-LGBTQ person. He's always been that way. He made games about "Christian values" and a movie about Puritan Christian values.
Anyone who is now shocked or offended or surprised he's donating to Right-Wing Christian conservatives has simply not been paying attention.
 

Baffle

Elite Member
Apr 6, 2020
1,879
759
118
I mean sure, but that's entirely your fault for thinking A. A company is a person, B. That companies have morals, and C. Companies do or should share your morals.
That's not entirely correct. (B) I use a green energy supplier -- there's an ethical commitment there, that encourages me to use that company; (B) Fairtrade is a thing. Many companies don't have morals, absolutely, and they profit handsomely all the same (Amazon, Sports Direct, any number of fast fashion brands that pretend they have ethical supply chains), but some do, and I preferentially use those brands. Yeah, there's greenwashing and pinkwashing all over the place, and I can't devote every second of the day to tracking the supply chain of every purchase I make, but some companies do have morals. (C) They absolutely should if they want my business (which, as noted, they don't need because there's enough people who can't/won't go elsewhere). (A) This is murky in this specific case because indie devs really are the company; like this Cawthorn guy is the face of FNAF in the same way that Schafer is the face of Double Fine, and a lot of the apparent values of a company come from those figureheads.

Also for fucks sake before FNaF Scott made children bible games that reinforced "Christian values", and an entire 2 hour animation on the "Pilgrim's Progress" a fucking batshit insane story written by a Puritan preacher on what it takes to get to Heaven. The dude wasn't hiding his political or religious views at all.
I actually didn't know anything about the guy, and I've never played any FNAF games, so while it's obvious to some, it wouldn't be to me. I can't actively research every purchase I make, I can only deal in what is generally publicly known (accepting that in this case it might have been, but I definitely was unaware).

Its the equivalent of getting mad at Smith and Wesson because you just learned they make guns. It's kinda their brand.
You say that, but you also say there's no actively anti-LGBT content in FNAF. It can't be both (unless Smith and Wesson also make bouncy castles or something?).
 

Baffle

Elite Member
Apr 6, 2020
1,879
759
118
And you still pay taxes. You criticize the economy yet participate in it. Interesting. I am very intelligent for pointing this out.
I actually don't mind paying taxes, but I do, at present, object to the way they're spent. I only wish I (but only me) had the same recourse with taxes as I do with purchases.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,413
1,841
118
Country
United States of America
As an aside, maybe don't rely on unsourced tweets for informing yourself, even (especially?) if they agree with your personal beliefs.
The source used by the composer of that tweet was apparently the BBC. While the BBC tends to be self-serving or pro-government trash in a lot of cases, it seems reasonable to trust its assessment of itself and its own histroy to err on the side of too little rather than too much criticism.

BBC said:
This is how the system worked.
Vetting was brought into play once a candidate and one or two alternatives labelled "also suitable" had been selected for a job. The alternatives served a useful purpose. If the first choice was barred by vetting, the appointments board moved easily on to the second. The candidates were told only that "formalities" would be carried out before an appointment was made. This sounded harmless enough; it would allow time to follow up references, perhaps. Candidates did not know that "formalities" meant vetting - and was, in fact, the code word for the whole system.
A memo from 1984 gives a run-down of organisations on the banned list. On the left, there were the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Socialist Workers Party, the Workers Revolutionary Party and the Militant Tendency. By this stage there were also concerns about movements on the right - the National Front and the British National Party.
A banned applicant did not need to be a member of these organisations - association was enough.
BBC said:
If MI5 found something against a candidate, it made one of three "assessments" in a kind of league table:

  • Category "A" stated: "The Security Service advises that the candidate should not be employed in a post offering direct opportunity to influence broadcast material for a subversive purpose."
  • Category "B" was less restrictive. The Security Service "advised" against employment "unless it is decided that other considerations are overriding".
  • Category "C" stated that the information against a candidate should not "necessarily debar" them but the BBC "may prefer to make other arrangements" if the post offered "exceptional opportunity" for subversive activity.
The BBC procedure was in principle never to employ someone in Category "A", though a few did get through the net. This contradicted its public position that the BBC controlled all appointments. In theory it did. In practice it gave that choice to MI5 in Category "A" cases.
People were barred or sometimes removed from employment or advancement because of their politics. Just like McCarthyism in the United States, this constitutes "cancel culture".
 
Last edited:

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
12,052
1,686
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
...yet lambast football players kneeling because they can't respect a flag that will allow citizens to be brutalized by the police because they are apart of the fringe population.
This is why I don't take the term "cancel culture' seriously, because it's so often spouted by people who called a football player "a traitor to his country" because he didn't stand during the National Anthem, and interpreted falling NFL ratings as some sort of vindication for their being offended.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,665
3,809
118
This is why I don't take the term "cancel culture' seriously, because it's so often spouted by people who called a football player "a traitor to his country" because he didn't stand during the National Anthem, and interpreted falling NFL ratings as some sort of vindication for their being offended.
"I hate cancel culture. That's why I'm not watching NFL in the hope it goes bankrupt and they force those players to not take the knee."
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,031
1,704
118
Country
United Kingdom
My point isn't that Scott Cawthon suddenly changed and is now some completely different anti-LGBTQ person. He's always been that way. He made games about "Christian values" and a movie about Puritan Christian values.
Anyone who is now shocked or offended or surprised he's donating to Right-Wing Christian conservatives has simply not been paying attention.
It's not really that unreasonable to learn something about someone later.

Nobody researches the background of everybody who produces something they buy before they buy it. That doesn't somehow then mean that if they learn something objectionable later, they're not justified in withdrawing their business.

It's the consumer's own damn business.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,956
1,029
118
Country
Argentina
I think anybody can do whatever they please with their money. FNaF guy, people offended by FNaF guy, etc.
I also think it's incredibly disingenuous to pretend this guy's career isn't over, and not in his own terms, no matter the PR pretending otherwise.
And for the record I don't care for him or his games or his Republican leanings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,031
1,704
118
Country
United Kingdom
I also think it's incredibly disingenuous to pretend this guy's career isn't over, and not in his own terms, no matter the PR pretending otherwise.
I guess so, but retiring with a net worth of $60 million is still far beyond the dreams of most people. It's difficult for the sympathy barrel to overflow.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,346
809
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Here's one/many:

Maybe people aren't discussing events from forty years ago because they're from, I dunno, forty years ago?

I'd consider Avatar to be "quite (not particularly) good", and Titanic to be very average. The only ones I'd consider genuinely very good are Aliens and Terminator 2. Probably not even near my top 10 as a director.
I'd rank Avatar, T1, T2, and Aliens from "good" to "excellent" - mostly the latter for all of them bar Avatar. True Lies is simply average.

"I hate cancel culture. That's why I'm not watching NFL in the hope it goes bankrupt and they force those players to not take the knee."
Again, not cancel culture.

If you want actual examples of cancel culture in sport, you can look at Ollie Robinson - tweets resurface from nine years ago, and...he's gone. Not just from the team, but banned from all international cricket until further notice. Or to use another example, this time from the music field, take Daniel Elder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,965
1,285
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Again, not cancel culture.

If you want actual examples of cancel culture in sport, you can look at Ollie Robinson - tweets resurface from nine years ago, and...he's gone. Not just from the team, but banned from all international cricket until further notice. Or to use another example, this time from the music field, take Daniel Elder.
Yeah, we know. They're just replicating 'controversy' like JK Rowling, Enid Blyton or Gina Carano being 'cancelled'.