Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled

[laggyteabag]

I don't even know if this qualifies as a cancelling.

The guy willingly retired at the first sign of drama.

Besides, as far "cancellable" offenses go, this one is relatively minor.

If he really wanted to, he probably could have easily just ridden this one out, and everyone would have just moved on with their lives.

This just sounds like someone finding an excuse to retire with his family (and large lumps of money). No doubt he will also continue to profit from existing royalties, and future FNAF projects.

Dude will be fine.

 

[Agema]

Again, not cancel culture.

It basically is, though.

The argument is that people who would watch American football and like to watch American football are withholding their viewership because some athletes do a gesture at the start, the intent being to compel the NFL or clubs to prevent it. Thus it is removing support from something because it has expressed disfavoured views.

An intrinsic conceptual problem with "cancel culture" is that like many fashionable social media buzzwords, it's ill-thought out and defined. It doesn't really survive being tested without concluding that a lot of things we haven't traditionally called cancel culture are. It's just a modern form of a phenomenon that is as old as human society. Does anyone really think a person couldn't be "cancelled" in (say) 1950? Imagine a Hollywood actor said they supported Communism or legalising homosexuality in 1950. I suspect they'd need to go into exile in Europe if they wanted to continue acting, under a welter of public pressure to remove them from the public gaze. How, exactly, is that different? If a person pre-emptively steps back from his company to forestall a similar shitstorm, trying to argue a technicality that they weren't actually cancelled is about as thin as it gets.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Hades]

''Take that son of a ***** off the field!'' seems pretty cancel culture. Especially when the most powerful man in the world says it.

 

[Hawki]

Post #99. Where you were replying to Agema

Where I said that refusing to watch something isn't cancel culture?

Um, yeah, I stand by that statement. If I refuse to do something, I'm not cancelling anyone.

If we're talking about Kapernick, if someone refuses to watch the NFL because of his taking the knee, then that's their business. If someone says "get him off the field/fire him," then that is cancel culture.

It basically is, though.

The argument is that people who would watch American football and like to watch American football are withholding their viewership because some athletes do a gesture at the start, the intent being to compel the NFL or clubs to prevent it. Thus it is removing support from something because it has expressed disfavoured views.

I can only disagree though (see above as to why).

An intrinsic conceptual problem with "cancel culture" is that like many fashionable social media buzzwords, it's ill-thought out and defined. It doesn't really survive being tested without concluding that a lot of things we haven't traditionally called cancel culture are. It's just a modern form of a phenomenon that is as old as human society. Does anyone really think a person couldn't be "cancelled" in (say) 1950? Imagine a Hollywood actor said they supported Communism or legalising homosexuality in 1950. I suspect they'd need to go into exile in Europe if they wanted to continue acting, under a welter of public pressure to remove them from the public gaze. How, exactly, is that different? If a person pre-emptively steps back from his company to forestall a similar shitstorm, trying to argue a technicality that they weren't actually cancelled is about as thin as it gets.

I agree that cancel culture is poorly defined, and I don't think it can really be defined.

 

[Buyetyen]

I agree that cancel culture is poorly defined, and I don't think it can really be defined.

Which makes it linguistically useless because it can be applied to damn near anything without consistency.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I don't even know if this qualifies as a cancelling.

The guy willingly retired at the first sign of drama.

Besides, as far "cancellable" offenses go, this one is relatively minor.

I agree.
What I don't get, is giving money or having given money to the GOP such a big deal? I bet most people - fuck it, everyone - swearing off Cawthon patronize hundreds of other products and services that benefit the occasional GOP donor.
The founders and VP of Blizzard give the GOP money regularly. EA employees and execs have donated a collective 50k. Where's their controversy?

 

[Baffle]

What I don't get, is giving money or having given money to the GOP such a big deal? I bet most people - fuck it, everyone - swearing off Cawthon patronize hundreds of other products and services that benefit the occasional GOP donor.
The founders and VP of Blizzard give the GOP money regularly. EA employees and execs have donated a collective 50k. Where's their controversy?

There's probably a degree of difference with indie devs because of the personal connection the players (think they) have with indie devs that's never going to be the case with corps (apart from Nintendo for some reason).

But it's perfectly normal for people to avoid products by brands they know support certain causes. Loads of people won't buy Warburton's bread because they're well-known Tory donors, won't use Wetherspoons (pub chain) or Tate and Lyle (sugar) because of their Brexit positions. A lot of people won't support companies who pulled their advertising from the new GBNews channel. (I question to what degree many people really boycott stuff vs. how much they cry on Twitter -- no one boycotts IKEA to shop at, what, MFI?)

It's not possible to follow every single purchase to its source, but sometimes the information is just so widely known we can make a decision.

 

[happyninja42]

I agree.
What I don't get, is giving money or having given money to the GOP such a big deal? I bet most people - fuck it, everyone - swearing off Cawthon patronize hundreds of other products and services that benefit the occasional GOP donor.
The founders and VP of Blizzard give the GOP money regularly. EA employees and execs have donated a collective 50k. Where's their controversy?

There are plenty of people who don't support and buy Blizzard/EA (and plenty of other companies) products as a result of their business practices. It might not be enough to make blizzard or ea give a shit, but aside from "answering with our wallets", a response proponents of capitalism/free market always use (but then ***** when people actually stop buying something for reasons), and voicing their dislike in public, there isn't much else that can be done. Aside from pushing for representatives to push legislation to keep them from doing shitty things behind the law, or just straight up legally. That's not so easy, since they are happy to take massive contributions from the companies that pay them to keep letting them act horrible, and this supports horrible representatives that pass horrible legislation.

 

[Hawki]

Which makes it linguistically useless because it can be applied to damn near anything without consistency.

Maybe, but until there's a better term to describe the phenomenon, I'm willing to keep using it.

 

[Agema]

I agree that cancel culture is poorly defined, and I don't think it can really be defined.

Oh, I can define it.

"A load of bollocks dreamt up as a superficial internet meme and mostly employed as a pejorative to make ill-founded complaints about other people disliking certain political views."

 

[Hawki]

Oh, I can define it.

"A load of bollocks dreamt up as a superficial internet meme and mostly employed as a pejorative to make ill-founded complaints about other people disliking certain political views."

Except this isn't a phenomena of "disliking certain political views," it's the action of getting people removed for those views and/or preventing them from expressing those views at all.

 

[Agema]

Except this isn't a phenomena of "disliking certain political views," it's the action of getting people removed for those views and/or preventing them from expressing those views at all.

And yet you claim the idea of people switching off from NFL in the hope it convinces the league or individual clubs stop players protesting racism is not cancel culture...

Although to be fair, mine is not intended as a serious definition, it's deliberately trivialising how people complain about so-called "cancel culture" for the transparently political bullshit that the complaining is. It's a junk pejorative buzzword along with things like "virtue signalling" and "white knighting": finding ways to demean people for having an opinion without having to make a useful argument against that opinion. Its point is the opposite of profundity: it's just a symbolic term to deploy to relevant political groups so they all know "this action is bad and should be opposed". Once that pejorative buzzword has already seeded the desired conclusion, the arguments are fabricated to fit them.

There obviously is a problem that you don't think it can be usefully defined, and yet are at the same time trying to argue what is and isn't cancel culture, as this is self-evidently inconsistent. The debate thus far is people pointing out the vague arbitrariness of the term, that so many things are done that are so similar to cancel culture, why is not applied to them too? And there's an answer to that, which is the above: it's employed as a bullshit pejorative to let people know they need to oppose something. The vague arbitrariness useful to provide wiggle room to say "nuh-uh!" when the accusation gets slung back that "Team anti-cancel" have in fact turned a blind eye to or even supported cancelling just so long as it served their real political ends.

It does of course relate heavily to the general state of the "free speech" debate in popular culture, which is a flaccid, corrupt and pustulent barrage of weak and hypocritical arguments where so-called "free speech" is a weapon to bash political opponents rather than an aim for a better society.

 

[Buyetyen]

Maybe, but until there's a better term to describe the phenomenon, I'm willing to keep using it.

There is a better term for it: accountability. It's just that nobody who buys into the cancel culture boogeyman wants to own up to that.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I agree.
What I don't get, is giving money or having given money to the GOP such a big deal? I bet most people - fuck it, everyone - swearing off Cawthon patronize hundreds of other products and services that benefit the occasional GOP donor.
The founders and VP of Blizzard give the GOP money regularly. EA employees and execs have donated a collective 50k. Where's their controversy?

The only reason this has *any* weight is that it's an indie game. Ubisoft leadership actively covered for executive sexual predation and still gets glowing reviews and write up from the gaming press.

Gamers, by and large, don't give a shit. And it's depressing. So only things with a small audience are affected when a small audience doesn't like a thing, and then only if the small audience for the game and the small audience that gives a shit intersects on a Venn diagram. Like, even if literally everybody who watches James Stephanie Sterlings videos boycotts any Ubisoft game forever, that's only 250,000 people. That might hurt a popular indie, but it's a drop in the bucket for an Assassin's Creed.

 

[CriticalGaming]

The funny thing about all this talking about X-Person is a horrible person, or X-company is filled with terrible people, and the apologizing that happens shortly their after...is that none of it matters. People never hold their stance very long, or pretend to be scoffed about some shit, only to ignore their outrage the moment something they want is on offer.

Scott has that big PS5 horror game coming out soon, and I bet it will sell just fine.

If J.K Rowling started a brand new Potter series featuring a new legacy set of kids or whatever the fuck, it will be an instant best seller.

Far Cry 6 will sell just fine despite Ubisoft being an alleged rape-den.

Think of all the shit you buy. Whether it's soda, fast food, make-up, somewhere along the production line that product was likely assisted by someone who you is a piece of shit for whatever reason.

The fact of the mater is that social media is censoring people for having opinions that they don't like. This is done either directly through the social media itself, in the case of twitter banning people like Milo Yanpapapolius, or the hate crowd that pops up from crazy people who's only job is to find shit to be offended by on social media because their too fucking crazy to hold down their own jobs.

Even this very forum put up stark warnings to not discuss the Jan 6th "riots".

I myself brought up the disgust I had towards twitch for ditching the Pogchamp emote. (one in which they replaced with a DarkSydePhil emote who is a streamer that jerked off live on stream to COMPLETION. Which shows that Twitch is okay with porn on their site but not having tangentile content related to the "wrong" political opinions) But that isn't even really the point.

The point is that this unwavering unwillingness to even consider letting someone be on the Right is being used as a weapon. Conservative opinions must be eradicated, and destroyed. It's a war that is destroying the country and even places outside the U.S. because the same types of battles are happening in the U.K. against people like Piers Morgan and Austrailia.

It's not that any side is 100% correct because both sides have flaws, but the Left has weaponized the outrage to the point of damn near total suppression and that is frankly fucking terrifying. Thankfully there is push back starting because I think the Left is taking shit too far and people (even on the left) are starting to reel back like, "Whoa dude chill a minute". So I'm optimistic that people will come to their sense again and things will level out.

 

[CriticalGaming]

The only reason this has *any* weight is that it's an indie game. Ubisoft leadership actively covered for executive sexual predation and still gets glowing reviews and write up from the gaming press.

Gamers, by and large, don't give a shit. And it's depressing. So only things with a small audience are affected when a small audience doesn't like a thing, and then only if the small audience for the game and the small audience that gives a shit intersects on a Venn diagram. Like, even if literally everybody who watches James Stephanie Sterlings videos boycotts any Ubisoft game forever, that's only 250,000 people. That might hurt a popular indie, but it's a drop in the bucket for an Assassin's Creed.

I agree with this to a point, but I would extend that to everyone not just gamers. Everyone buys products that somewhere along the way a person involved does something they don't like.

The reason EA, and Activision get away with their political donations is because the corporation itself is faceless. Scott is not. J.K. Rowling is not. They are specific people that can be named and "removed" (or so people think). Whereas if you complain about Bobby Kotick to Activision the Board of Directors will just see if Bobby is making the company money and if he is, then they don't fucking care what people think. Keep buying those lootboxes fuckers!

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The fact of the mater is that social media is censoring people for having opinions that they don't like. This is done either directly through the social media itself, in the case of twitter banning people like Milo Yanpapapolius, or the hate crowd that pops up from crazy people who's only job is to find shit to be offended by on social media because their too fucking crazy to hold down their own jobs.

Pretty sure the Yanpapapolius thing was about the time he compared a black actress to an ape and then defended pederasty. 'Cause there's still huge numbers of blisteringly stupid conservatives on social media. I have a hard time *avoiding* seeing them. Most of them are straight up shilling for the My Pillow guy, promo codes and all.

Even this very forum put up stark warnings to not discuss the Jan 6th "riots".
...
The point is that this unwavering unwillingness to even consider letting someone be on the Right is being used as a weapon. Conservative opinions must be eradicated, and destroyed. It's a war that is destroying the country and even places outside the U.S. because the same types of battles are happening in the U.K. against people like Piers Morgan and Austrailia.

It's not that any side is 100% correct because both sides have flaws, but the Left has weaponized the outrage to the point of damn near total suppression and that is frankly fucking terrifying. Thankfully there is push back starting because I think the Left is taking shit too far and people (even on the left) are starting to reel back like, "Whoa dude chill a minute". So I'm optimistic that people will come to their sense again and things will level out.

Lol. "The left" being who, exactly? The only time the right gets in even minor trouble is like, Holocaust denial or defending religious schools being used as death camps, and even then...

 

[Buyetyen]

The fact of the mater is that social media is censoring people for having opinions that they don't like. This is done either directly through the social media itself, in the case of twitter banning people like Milo Yanpapapolius, or the hate crowd that pops up from crazy people who's only job is to find shit to be offended by on social media because their too fucking crazy to hold down their own jobs.

lol nope. Milo was banned from Twitter for repeatedly braeking the rules of the platform and driving a higher-profile user than him off that platform through constant harassment. Do you actually believe that is acceptable behavior?

 

[CriticalGaming]

Lol. "The left" being who, exactly? The only time the right gets in even minor trouble is like, Holocaust denial or defending religious schools being used as death camps, and even then...

I mean the Scott is on the right and he is getting in trouble for supporting a conservative political party, just as an example. How many people get lamblasted for Trump support online or even in person. Remember MAGA hat kid, Stephen Crowder has been assaulted several times during his "change my mind" videos.

And the thing is too about the progressives, is that when you question their views they often don't have good answers for those questions. They break down, and then just complain about racism, sexism, homophobia, whatever box they want to tick, and they often cry harrassment which then gets someone flagged online by facebook, twitter whatever and that results in a ban or suspension strictly based on a disagreement.

I think the separation we need to make is that disagreement is not harassment. Disagreeing with someone, does not mean you are harassing that person. Now it is possible to cross that line during a disagreement, but that line is pretty obvious when discussion stops and violence/verbal insults that are solely designed to cause harm somehow.

lol nope. Milo was banned from Twitter for repeatedly braeking the rules of the platform and driving a higher-profile user than him off that platform through constant harassment. Do you actually believe that is acceptable behavior?

Pretty sure the Yanpapapolius thing was about the time he compared a black actress to an ape and then defended pederasty.

Did he direct harass people? Because people name call all the time. Because this is race related it got escalated maybe. Though Milo was fucking a black dude for years, so I dunno how people can call him racist with a straightface. As if nobody else on the planet has ever told a racist joke....except every stand-up comedian ever.

If he directly committed targeted harassment than the ban is fair enough. But during the Joe Rogan podcast with Jack Doresy and Tim pool where they questioned the heads of Twitter as to why specifically Milo was targeted yet progressives doing the same exact shit weren't, the Twitter Execs could not directly answer and refused to admit the obvious bias that twitter rules get directed towards.