Ok.
Marc Lamont Hill was fired from CNN for being Pro-Palestine.
Jeffrey Toobin is back on the air after showing himself jacking off to his coworkers on a zoom call.
Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled
- Thread starter Johnny Novgorod
- Start date
Marc Lamont Hill was fired from CNN for being Pro-Palestine.
Jeffrey Toobin is back on the air after showing himself jacking off to his coworkers on a zoom call.
What do you mean "replicating controversy?" Are you suggesting that they intentionally got themselves fired?
Also, Carano was cancelled, and people did their best to cancel Rowling, so that isn't the hypothetical you seem to be suggesting.
Hill's back on the air as well.
If you want to talk about Hill, as questionable as the phrase "from the river to the sea" is, no, I don't think he should have been fired for it.
Ah, so you not even remotely consistent with your definition of the the term. Noted
How is that not consistent?
Ollie Robinson was fired for tweets that resurfaced from nine years ago where he expressed anti-Muslim and anti-Asian sentiments.
Daniel Elder was fired (after refusing to sign a pre-written statement of apology) for criticizing BLM.
Gina Carrano was fired for comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany.
People attempted to cancel Rowling for her "transphobic" letter by staff refusing to publish The Ickabog.
Not my example, but Marc Lamont Hill was fired for using "from the river to the sea" in a UN speech.
If you want an actual definition of "cancelled," while it's nebulous, I'd broadly define it as "being removed from a position and/or being denied access to a position due to the expression of socio-political views." Everyone I listed above would fit that definition with the exception of Rowling, who wasn't fired (likely because she was "too big to cancel," to use the phrase).
Denying advancement is dodgy, however people being removed from work or denied it due to security and background clearances finding they engage in extreme or fringe politics is absolutely a thing in basically every government on earth.
Enid Bylton has been dead for almost 60 years. You can neither libel or cancel the dead.
I think you can, technically, if you prevent anyone from reading their work.
Which hasn't happened with Blyton. Yet. And even if it does, technically, it is the publisher's right to not publish material that it has the rights to.
Take the Seuss example, with the books that were witheld from publication. Was Seuss "cancelled?" Not really. But on the one hand, while it's the estate's right to not publish the works in question, it does mean that people will never be able to read them now (short of forking over hundreds of dollars on Ebay or something).
Can you be "cancelled" if you're long dead? I don't think you can be "cancelled" if you're long dead... it implies impacting the person's career, no?
Sure. But the Socialist Worker's Party and Militant Tendency aren't massively "fringe"; they were both pretty widespread, non-violent, and the latter was even affiliated with the official opposition.
But the reverse can be said. Scott gets tons of people to buy his games, the review it, love it and praise him. Why wouldn't he think they're praising him as a person as well as a creator?
Doesn't buying a product without researching the creator send the wrong message to the creator that you support them, even if you may not? If buying a product from Scott now means you support his anti-LGBTQ message, then buying it before you knew also means you supported that message, you just didn't know it.
No, of course not. People buy stuff they want to buy regardless. So unless the person buying it specifically communicates that they're doing it to financially support Cawthon, there's no realistic reason to think they are. Very few people do that.
???
You can hardly blame someone for just being unaware of it, can you? Not everyone keeps up with this stuff.
On one hand, it seems like a bit of an overkill.
On the other hand, the Republican party is literally the most dangerous organization on this planet right now. One that, for the benefit of all humanity, should be destroyed. So donating to them is not just a shitty thing to do, it's enabling their evil agenda. So fuck him.
On the other hand, the Republican party is literally the most dangerous organization on this planet right now. One that, for the benefit of all humanity, should be destroyed. So donating to them is not just a shitty thing to do, it's enabling their evil agenda. So fuck him.
Dev refused to bend the knee to a bunch of glass dolls so they're upset and trying to review bomb his game but it doesn't seem to be working.
You can't have it both ways. It can't be that people don't have time to do research, or keep up with events or personalities so its unfair to assume they support said personalities...and then also #OMG Did you hear about personality person doing something I didn't know about and don't like? What the hell is with that?!
Its one or the other. You either do your research and are informed, or don't and aren't.
Nobody's "having it both ways". Some people don't keep up with all this, and that's perfectly fine, I don't expect them to; it's not a requirement. Other people do find out about it, and then feel uncomfortable buying from certain people/companies, and choose not to spend their money there. That's also fine.
They're... not the same exact people. I kinda thought that was obvious.
Or: he berated someone in his own company's blog (someone who had been perfectly cordial & polite to him). Others then said it was poor PR to do so, and then he started moaning about cancel culture... in a widely-read blog that offers him a massive platform.
Last edited:
Would you refuse to pay for a game knowing it would profit a Republican donor?