Support NeoGAF

[Dr. Claus]

Then I'd suggest to that cake maker to just make the wedding cake for that couple and keep it moving. What is that cake maker going to do next, not make a "wedding" cake for an inter-racial couple too?



You can be disgusted all you want, but this is the problem with social media and conversations on the internet these days. People can't handle simple conversations without going on the attack. Also, I'd like to let you know that Trans people are really suffering too! We can care for more than one issue at the same time. I know it's Ukraine's time in the "spot light", but it isn't like every other issue that the world had before has gone away.



To be fair, not all trans people think alike. Not all trans women feel like the bolded. It's best to stay away from making them a one sized fits all mindset of people.

Translation: „Not everyone is the same and their differences should be valued, except those religious people. They should fuck off and change.“ -Mckmas 2022

 

[NomadicAsiatic]

Like it or not, cancel culture is free speech. It can't be illegal. At least not in America. And that's a good thing.

Right. I think sometimes people forget that cancel culture is just holding public figures accountable. Lest we forget that true cancel culture came from the right; it was called McCarthyism originally.

 

[StormCell]

Then I'd suggest to that cake maker to just make the wedding cake for that couple and keep it moving. What is that cake maker going to do next, not make a "wedding" cake for an inter-racial couple too?

I already stated that the cake maker would sell the couple any of the dozens of existing wedding cakes. The only thing the cake maker won't do is make a custom cake that defies the cake maker's religious beliefs. The cake maker could make any of various custom cakes with rainbows and wedding, but there is just a small detail the cake maker cannot meet, and the customers could put their own topper on (you just push it in). Still got sued.

And if the banks and landlords decided to refuse to serve the cake maker any longer, there is no recourse that can be taken. I suppose you are cool with that because private business and freedoms, right?

 

[StormCell]

Right. I think sometimes people forget that cancel culture is just holding public figures accountable. Lest we forget that true cancel culture came from the right; it was called McCarthyism originally.

Is that why people who get recorded out of context in public get caught in a firestorm of social media outrage, lose their jobs, and have to go into hiding due to hundreds of threats made on themselves and their families?

 

[StormCell]

Like it or not, cancel culture is free speech. It can't be illegal. At least not in America. And that's a good thing.

Cancel culture needs to die a cold fast death. Businesses should have no free speech. Individuals have free speech. Businesses are not human beings. They're not even groups of human beings. It's time to end Citizens United.

Oh, did you forget the left used to be against Citizens United??

 

[InfiniteCombo]

Right. I think sometimes people forget that cancel culture is just holding public figures accountable.

Since I'm a free speech absolutist, I definitely agree with mckmas8808 that cancel culture should be allowed. On the flip side, freedom of speech must allow:

- The people getting cancelled from stating their case and being able to defend themselves
- Normal people freely speaking against the obvious, ridiculous excesses of cancel culture.

Let's not act like freedom of speech only goes in one direction.

Lest we forget that true cancel culture came from the right; it was called McCarthyism originally.

"Came from the right..."

All the victims of Stalin's Great Purge would like to have a word with you.

Regardless of which side of the political people are on (although your post and avatar tell me all I need to know...), at least read a damn history book.

 

[mckmas8808]

Kind of disappointing to see one of my favorite posters recognize not all people in a group are the same, but also suggest people with religious views should just drop them.

To me that issue has always been an interesting topic. It's not a simple issue to fix where everyone is happy. Both sides deserved to be respected, but how can you do that when one side can refuse full service to someone else? There's no easy answers really.

And to be fair, as a Christian myself I find it "personally" annoying that someone is using Christianity as a reason as to why they can't bake someone a proper wedding cake. But that's my personal view and it's fine if other Christians don't see it the same way.

Ultimately it comes down to we all live in a shared society. This whole thing works if we all work together and are fair to one another. But we also have individual rights that must be respected too (from all sides). The moving question is this........"Are your personal rights and views violating my personal rights within a shared society?" Most of the time this is where the courts step in and make a judgement call. I personally don't think questions like this should be up for a vote of the people.

Either way.....it's complicated. My issue with most on the internet today is they try to make this a simple "Yes" or "No" (Hot or Cold) type of choice. It's more nuanced than that. Even this JK Rowling statement that she made is nuanced. But many on the left are trying to make it a binary choice and then turn her into the Boogeyman, like they are trying to do with Dave Chappell.

 

[mckmas8808]

I already stated that the cake maker would sell the couple any of the dozens of existing wedding cakes. The only thing the cake maker won't do is make a custom cake that defies the cake maker's religious beliefs. The cake maker could make any of various custom cakes with rainbows and wedding, but there is just a small detail the cake maker cannot meet, and the customers could put their own topper on (you just push it in). Still got sued.

And if the banks and landlords decided to refuse to serve the cake maker any longer, there is no recourse that can be taken. I suppose you are cool with that because private business and freedoms, right?

I didn't really follow that case 100%. I remember about half of it. But yes, I knew they got sued, but what ended up happening? What was the final ruling? Because I thought the cake maker only offered them "general" cakes, but wouldn't do a "wedding" cake.

But if they were willing to do a basic wedding cake, just without the same extra details (like two dudes at the top), I would think that's a fine compromise.

 

[NickFire]

To me that issue has always been an interesting topic. It's not a simple issue to fix where everyone is happy. Both sides deserved to be respected, but how can you do that when one side can refuse full service to someone else? There's no easy answers really.

And to be fair, as a Christian myself I find it "personally" annoying that someone is using Christianity as a reason as to why they can't bake someone a proper wedding cake. But that's my personal view and it's fine if other Christians don't see it the same way.

Ultimately it comes down to we all live in a shared society. This whole thing works if we all work together and are fair to one another. But we also have individual rights that must be respected too (from all sides). The moving question is this........"Are your personal rights and views violating my personal rights within a shared society?" Most of the time this is where the courts step in and make a judgement call. I personally don't think questions like this should be up for a vote of the people.

Either way.....it's complicated. My issue with most on the internet today is they try to make this a simple "Yes" or "No" (Hot or Cold) type of choice. It's more nuanced than that. Even this JK Rowling statement that she made is nuanced. But many on the left are trying to make it a binary choice and then turn her into the Boogeyman, like they are trying to do with Dave Chappell.

We are in the same boat regarding our views on using Christianity as the reason to refuse the particular service at issue. I am also a Christian and my religious views are the exact opposite of the baker's who refused the service. I personally think they should have made the cake because excluding someone solely for how God made them goes against my beliefs. I do support the baker's right to have differing views on their religion than me, so I think it was a travesty they had to defend themselves in court. But I also think they got it wrong to be in that position, solely because of my differing religious views.

 

[GymWolf]

I like poutine.

Don’t forget the gravy.

Gravy on fucking french fries??

Next what? Dipping french fries on a strawberry milkshake maybe?

 

[NomadicAsiatic]

Is that why people who get recorded out of context in public get caught in a firestorm of social media outrage, lose their jobs, and have to go into hiding due to hundreds of threats made on themselves and their families?

Example(s) please?

 

[InfiniteCombo]

Example(s) please?

Here's are two prominent example of people that the cancel mob has TRIED (and thankfully, failed) to cancel:

Many people aren't as lucky as those two.

 

[StormCell]

I didn't really follow that case 100%. I remember about half of it. But yes, I knew they got sued, but what ended up happening? What was the final ruling? Because I thought the cake maker only offered them "general" cakes, but wouldn't do a "wedding" cake.

But if they were willing to do a basic wedding cake, just without the same extra details (like two dudes at the top), I would think that's a fine compromise.

Damn, I just went to look up the details on that case, and it seems that I maybe followed even less than half of it. I knew that the baker was seeking to push it to the supreme court, but I didn't know that the supreme court sided with him on the basis of the state of Colorado having anti-religious hostility. That literally wasn't the end of it, though, as one of the lawyers in the case then began to call the cake shop to make requests. She asked for a birthday cake celebrating her gender transition from a man and is now trying to sue him. In response, the baker is now suing the entire state of Colorado including the governor and a boat load of activist politicians.

This is the sort of thing where I see no end to it. The activists in that state won't be satisfied until he is out of business and preferably in the ground. I don't think he could live a peaceful life employed anywhere at this point except that he continue to own and operate a business. Were it not for that, you can bet your bottom dollar no one would be inclined to hire him for fear of social retribution.

 

[NomadicAsiatic]

Since I'm a free speech absolutist, I definitely agree with mckmas8808 that cancel culture should be allowed. On the flip side, freedom of speech must allow:

- The people getting cancelled from stating their case and being able to defend themselves
- Normal people freely speaking against the obvious, ridiculous excesses of cancel culture.

Let's not act like freedom of speech only goes in one direction.


"Came from the right..."

All the victims of Stalin's Great Purge would like to have a word with you.

Regardless of which side of the political people are on (although your post and avatar tell me all I need to know...), at least read a damn history book.

1. While I’m not an free-speech absolutist like you, I agree with the first point.
2. What excesses are you referring to?
3. Yes, came from the right. If you want a more recent example, look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks.
4. I’m fine actually. I’ve read several historical and political books. You can go ahead though.
5. What does my name and avatar have to do with anything? What’s the correlation here?


Edit: I read the first part of your post wrong. My bad.

 

[NomadicAsiatic]

Here's are two prominent example of people that the cancel mob has TRIED (and thankfully, failed) to cancel:

Many people aren't as lucky as those two.

2x post but, what? These aren’t the greatest examples. Sure, there’s definitely outrage aimed squarely at both of them(justifiably so), but both people are still:

-Incredibly influential
-Incredibly wealthy
-Beloved by many people

Chappelle has new comedy specials coming soon and Rowling still makes a fair bit of bank to this day. Shit, I want to be canceled if this is what it looks like!

 

[chromhound]

someone else will just do it lol

 

[InfiniteCombo]

1. While I’m not an free-speech absolutist like you, I agree with the first point.

Glad we can agree on something.

2. What excesses are you referring to?

I don't know if you're being clueless, or purposely obtuse. You know EXACTLY the excesses being referred to: online mobs (usually of the left wing variety) trying to cancel -- and sometimes succeeding-- people for perceived wrongs, no matter how small.

3. Yes, came from the right. If you want a more recent example, look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks.

You used one example to try to say that "cancelling" as a concept came from the right. I countered with an example from the left, that chronologically came before the example you provided on the right. Then you jumped to some random comment about the Dixie Chicks. Huh!?

4. I’m fine actually. I’ve read several historical and political books. You can go ahead though.

Clearly you either didn't read them well enough, or the facts escaped you.

5. What does my name and avatar have to do with anything? What’s the correlation here?

Did I say anything about your name? I said your POST. And yes, it's clear that your sympathies are on the left. And that's perfectly OK of course. Not even ok... it's actually GOOD. Differences of opinion are awesome. I just wish you were better at debating, you're fairly weak in that arena.

....................

Oh well, back to the main topic at hand... The so-called "journalist" has all the right to want to cover the game as he sees fit. On the opposite side, people have the right to criticize him for it. Which is what a lot of us are rightfully doing here.

 

[DiddyKongRacing69]

Who cares about some no name Journalist on some website nobody has heard before.

Fanbyte? This is the first time i heard about this site.

 

[StormCell]

Example(s) please?

This couple lost both their jobs after this initially went viral:

Here's some more, and be sure to read all of it: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cancel-culture-changed-lives-forever-cbsn-originals/

Just the notion of cancel culture is just a hideous thing, and then when you wrap businesses into it it becomes this institutionalized activity that can render a person's existence null and void. Business absolutely have no business getting involved in social activism. We need at minimum to neutralize the effects that BlackRock is having on corporate America -- corporations should have no role in radicial social change unless you like having a government-like giant crushing down on you the first time they decide something is socially and morally right that you don't agree with...

 

[InfiniteCombo]

2x post but, what? These aren’t the greatest examples. Sure, there’s definitely outrage aimed squarely at both of them(justifiably so), but both people are still:

-Incredibly influential
-Incredibly wealthy
-Beloved by many people

Chappelle has new comedy specials coming soon and Rowling still makes a fair bit of bank to this day. Shit, I want to be canceled if this is what it looks like!

Anyone with even a bit of reading comprehension could see these were ATTEMPTS at cancelling that didn't work, exactly because of the reasons you said. And anyone with even single digit IQ can tell, from my post, that these are the exception, rather than the rule.

(By the way, going by your logic here, it invalidates the previous point you were trying to make about the Dixie Chicks or whoever...)

You have a predictable "gotcha!" way of interaction that is completely useless in a debate. Yes, cancel culture is a thing. And cancel culture affects people's livelihoods. Do I have time to sit here during my workday and look for specific examples for you? No, I don't.

Take this article from the BBC:

What is the cost of 'cancel culture'?

Activists can be fierce in attacking perceived racism or sexism by people or firms - with serious consequences.

www.bbc.com

Note this clause:

"The goal for Mr Paulinich and activists like him is to use social media to draw attention to these actions, publicly shaming the people involved and ultimately getting the people 'cancelled'...."

They're openly stating that the goal of their activism is to cancel people.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

This couple lost both their jobs after this initially went viral:

Here's some more, and be sure to read all of it: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cancel-culture-changed-lives-forever-cbsn-originals/

Just the notion of cancel culture is just a hideous thing, and then when you wrap businesses into it it becomes this institutionalized activity that can render a person's existence null and void. Business absolutely have no business getting involved in social activism. We need at minimum to neutralize the effects that BlackRock is having on corporate America -- corporations should have no role in radicial social change unless you like having a government-like giant crushing down on you the first time they decide something is socially and morally right that you don't agree with...

I put cancel culture in the same boat as false accusations. Like when you hear about someone trying to sue someone in court for an obviously fake reason.

The reason why both cancel culture and bogus lawsuits exist is because for some reason the penalties for doing them is either non-existent or a slap on the wrist. So if someone is going to troll people or seriously try to get someone in trouble or arrested, it seems pretty fail safe to try for it because the repercussions are a drop in the bucket.

If a guy gets falsely convicted for a crime, he can still do 10 years (whatever the judge decides). If the accuser is lying, or goes through the hassle of prepping a lawsuit and then pulls it at the last moment because they know they arent going to win, their penalty is probably nothing.

In the meantime, the accused can get grilled even though he ends up doing nothing wrong. And even stupider for law, the accuser can sometimes have their identify hidden some reason.

So in bogus cancel culture and lawsuits, the accuser is often hidden and the accused is public knowledge. Makes no sense.

 

[SoloKingRobert]

It's her own opinion. If you don't like people's opinion then I don't know why you're a journalist. J.K Rowling is a woman, she's only talking about issues surrounding her own gender.

 

[laynelane]

Gravy on fucking french fries??

Next what? Dipping french fries on a strawberry milkshake maybe?

Gravy and cheese curds, can't have one without the other when making poutine.

 

[InfiniteCombo]

2x post but, what? These aren’t the greatest examples. Sure, there’s definitely outrage aimed squarely at both of them(justifiably so), but both people are still:

-Incredibly influential
-Incredibly wealthy
-Beloved by many people

Chappelle has new comedy specials coming soon and Rowling still makes a fair bit of bank to this day. Shit, I want to be canceled if this is what it looks like!

Sigh. Fine, fine, FINE.... low quality bait, but I'll bite. A quick and dirty list:

Gina Carano, cancelled for statements she made on Twitter. YES, cancelled. Lost her job as an actress on the show The Mandalorian, and can no longer be associated with Disney.
Bret Weinstein, former professor at Evergreen College, has to resign from EverGreen for giving his opinion on a student-led event that he thought was racist. (Oh the irony...) There are videos of student activists harassing him to the point where, if I were him, I'd feel unsafe.
Marlon Anderson, a black security guard at a a Wisconsin high school fired for using a slur one-time. (Thankfully he has been re-hired by the school)
Adam Rubenstein, a liberal(!) opinion writer, who resigned from the New York Times after he published a piece by Senator Tom Cotton.
Matthew Yglesias - Another liberal(!), who had to resign from the very paper he co-founded. LMAO.

I got these quick examples from an article in the Washington Times, and another in Forbes. But, you see, it wasn't so "quick," because when searching for people getting cancelled, to get to non-celebrity examples you have to go to PAGE 3 of Google's results. (There's something to be said for that but let's not stray further from the main topic....)

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Like it or not, cancel culture is free speech. It can't be illegal. At least not in America. And that's a good thing.

Nah, it's coordinated harassment. Harassment is not free speech, not even in America.

 

[Deaconstanjesusman]

If you’re rich you can avoid cancel culture by not caring. Look at John Cleese.
If you’re a business, unfortunately you’re subjected to these idiots online.

As for this Harry Potter incident. These uneducated deluded idiots need to watch billy Madison. A child says it perfectly “boys have penises, girls have vaginas”
If someone saying that a biological woman has periods, not men
Triggers you and deeply offends you, you should have a hard look at yourself. Maybe grab a plastic bag and some duct tape and reflect on what you’ve contributed to society

 

[NomadicAsiatic]

Anyone with even a bit of reading comprehension could see these were ATTEMPTS at cancelling that didn't work, exactly because of the reasons you said. And anyone with even single digit IQ can tell, from my post, that these are the exception, rather than the rule.

(By the way, going by your logic here, it invalidates the previous point you were trying to make about the Dixie Chicks or whoever...)

You have a predictable "gotcha!" way of interaction that is completely useless in a debate. Yes, cancel culture is a thing. And cancel culture affects people's livelihoods. Do I have time to sit here during my workday and look for specific examples for you? No, I don't.

Take this article from the BBC:

What is the cost of 'cancel culture'?

Activists can be fierce in attacking perceived racism or sexism by people or firms - with serious consequences.

www.bbc.com

Note this clause:

"The goal for Mr Paulinich and activists like him is to use social media to draw attention to these actions, publicly shaming the people involved and ultimately getting the people 'cancelled'...."

They're openly stating that the goal of their activism is to cancel people.

I edited my post to reflect that. Again, my bad.

And no what I said about the Dixie Chicks doesn’t invalidate what I said about JKR and Chappelle. Their careers were somewhat tarnished by their activism I would argue. Meanwhile, JKR and Dave Chappelle are thriving.

I read the whole BBC article and…I’m not seeing a problem? Mr Paulinich highlighted some racist videos and the people that made them paid the price. I’m not entirely sure if people losing jobs over past comments is too extreme but, people shouldn’t get off scot-free for saying and doing bad stuff

 

[mckmas8808]

Who cares about some no name Journalist on some website nobody has heard before.

Fanbyte? This is the first time i heard about this site.

LOTS of people know him. He's not some small time video game journalist.

This couple lost both their jobs after this initially went viral:

Here's some more, and be sure to read all of it: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cancel-culture-changed-lives-forever-cbsn-originals/

Just the notion of cancel culture is just a hideous thing, and then when you wrap businesses into it it becomes this institutionalized activity that can render a person's existence null and void. Business absolutely have no business getting involved in social activism. We need at minimum to neutralize the effects that BlackRock is having on corporate America -- corporations should have no role in radicial social change unless you like having a government-like giant crushing down on you the first time they decide something is socially and morally right that you don't agree with...

Did you NOT see the chick pull a gun out on the other family? Jesus man! What's happening in this world where people are defending the chick with the gun? And are we sure they were fired simply for the video going viral?

Nah, it's coordinated harassment. Harassment is not free speech, not even in America.

Is it harassment? Not all people wanting someone canceled is harassment. Protest is free speech. You all better be careful what you banned in America.

 

[NomadicAsiatic]

Sigh. Fine, fine, FINE.... low quality bait, but I'll bite. A quick and dirty list:

Gina Carano, cancelled for statements she made on Twitter. YES, cancelled. Lost her job as an actress on the show The Mandalorian, and can no longer be associated with Disney.
Bret Weinstein, former professor at Evergreen College, has to resign from EverGreen for giving his opinion on a student-led event that he thought was racist. (Oh the irony...) There are videos of student activists harassing him to the point where, if I were him, I'd feel unsafe.
Marlon Anderson, a black security guard at a a Wisconsin high school fired for using a slur one-time. (Thankfully he has been re-hired by the school)
Adam Rubenstein, a liberal(!) opinion writer, who resigned from the New York Times after he published a piece by Senator Tom Cotton.
Matthew Yglesias - Another liberal(!), who had to resign from the very paper he co-founded. LMAO.

I got these quick examples from an article in the Washington Times, and another in Forbes. But, you see, it wasn't so "quick," because when searching for people getting cancelled, to get to non-celebrity examples you have to go to PAGE 3 of Google's results. (There's something to be said for that but let's not stray further from the main topic....)

Thanks for at least citing sources. I don’t usually get that from people.

EDIT: Shit got too political. My bad. I’ll stop.

 

[StormCell]

Did you NOT see the chick pull a gun out on the other family? Jesus man! What's happening in this world where people are defending the chick with the gun? And are we sure they were fired simply for the video going viral?

I shouldn't need to defend anyone in that incident from social retribution. She's very pregnant, and the adult lady blocking her car from leaving the parking lot is yelling, "I'll beat your white ass" while pounding on the back glass of the car. Add the social unrest context around this story, and it's easy to see why people feel they are in danger. The car will not move due to emergency braking system and the refusal of the lady behind the car to get out of the way.

This situation needs ironed out by the law and a judge in a court room. No one should have lost their jobs as a result of this video. What did that serve?

 

[DarthPutin]

I think the difference between cancel culture and natural consequences is that it's a tiny segment of population trying to control what other people get to see, hear, consume, et cetera. and this relatively small group of people has a lot of power, albeit unofficial one. So instead of government being an instrument of oppression like with McCarthyism, we have more decentralized power which makes it easier to pretend it's just a "voice of people". It's a mob rule, a modern witch hunt. it's not public at large voting against someone, it's this new power trying to silence anyone who disagrees even slightly.

It goes both ways, as in the past same companies often bowed down to conservative voices (still do if we consider China). It seems like things got more personal and vicious recently (and I say it as someone who's on most issues pretty left).

Like it's perfectly fine for people to dislike what JKR has to say, though I mostly agree with her. Totally fine to state that. But now "guilt by association" is passed on not only on the game that has no, AFAWK, transphobic elements, real or imaginary, some try to pass it on anyone who has positive things to say about it. That's insane. Like in darkest stalinist era, when it wasn't just an "enemy of the state", but his family, friends, could be anyone remotely associated if they got bad luck. The consequence of course are in no way as dire, but you feel like it's not for the lack of trying by cancel mob.

Just because cancel culture often fails, does not mean it doesn't exist. It's a struggle for companies and organization between virtue signaling and love of profit (hence the HP IP is still widely used by they pretend not to know who Rowling is))) So you fire Gina Carano but think thrice before firing Chris Pratt (I think people try to get him cancelled for his beliefs or something).

 

[InfiniteCombo]

Thanks for at least citing sources. I don’t usually get that from people.

EDIT: Shit got too political. My bad. I’ll stop.

Do know that I love a good debate, and none of this was personal to me. As the saying goes, "it's all good."

But yeah, let's not deviate too much from the topic. The mods have been nice so far, let's not abuse their generosity

Cheers, man!

 

[Gamer_By_Proxy]

Someone knows the definition of a woman, burn the witch!!!!

 

[Pegasus Actual]

Ultimately it comes down to we all live in a shared society.

 

[mckmas8808]

I shouldn't need to defend anyone in that incident from social retribution. She's very pregnant, and the adult lady blocking her car from leaving the parking lot is yelling, "I'll beat your white ass" while pounding on the back glass of the car. Add the social unrest context around this story, and it's easy to see why people feel they are in danger. The car will not move due to emergency braking system and the refusal of the lady behind the car to get out of the way.

This situation needs ironed out by the law and a judge in a court room. No one should have lost their jobs as a result of this video. What did that serve?

My assumption is the companies didn't want to be associated with someone that pulls guns out on people for a simple parking lot argument. Plus you'd need to follow the trail of what they said on social media after the incident went viral.

I think the difference between cancel culture and natural consequences is that it's a tiny segment of population trying to control what other people get to see, hear, consume, et cetera. and this relatively small group of people has a lot of power, albeit unofficial one. So instead of government being an instrument of oppression like with McCarthyism, we have more decentralized power which makes it easier to pretend it's just a "voice of people". It's a mob rule, a modern witch hunt. it's not public at large voting against someone, it's this new power trying to silence anyone who disagrees even slightly.

It goes both ways, as in the past same companies often bowed down to conservative voices (still do if we consider China). It seems like things got more personal and vicious recently (and I say it as someone who's on most issues pretty left).

Like it's perfectly fine for people to dislike what JKR has to say, though I mostly agree with her. Totally fine to state that. But now "guilt by association" is passed on not only on the game that has no, AFAWK, transphobic elements, real or imaginary, some try to pass it on anyone who has positive things to say about it. That's insane. Like in darkest stalinist era, when it wasn't just an "enemy of the state", but his family, friends, could be anyone remotely associated if they got bad luck. The consequence of course are in no way as dire, but you feel like it's not for the lack of trying by cancel mob.

Just because cancel culture often fails, does not mean it doesn't exist. It's a struggle for companies and organization between virtue signaling and love of profit (hence the HP IP is still widely used by they pretend not to know who Rowling is))) So you fire Gina Carano but think thrice before firing Chris Pratt (I think people try to get him cancelled for his beliefs or something).

For the bolded.......it was always personal and vicious. This is nothing new.

This basketball player lost his job in 1998 for not standing and saluting the flag during the national anthem, because he felt the flag stood for tyranny and oppression. Plus he felt saluting the flag went against his Muslim beliefs. He received death threats and hate mail. Yes real mail lol.

 

[InfiniteCombo]

This basketball player lost his job in 1998 for not standing and saluting the flag during the national anthem, because he felt the flag stood for tranny and oppression.

I'm pretty sure you meant "tyranny," so you may want to correct your post before you yourself get in trouble

On a more serious note, I agree with you that player shouldn't have lost his job (assuming that what you're saying is true, and I have no reason to doubt you). I disagree with his flag disrespecting antics and disagree even more strongly with his reasoning, but he shouldn't have lost his job.

 

[Razvedka]

Since I'm a free speech absolutist, I definitely agree with mckmas8808 that cancel culture should be allowed. On the flip side, freedom of speech must allow:

- The people getting cancelled from stating their case and being able to defend themselves
- Normal people freely speaking against the obvious, ridiculous excesses of cancel culture.

Let's not act like freedom of speech only goes in one direction.


"Came from the right..."

All the victims of Stalin's Great Purge would like to have a word with you.

Regardless of which side of the political people are on (although your post and avatar tell me all I need to know...), at least read a damn history book.

Holodomor.

 

[mckmas8808]

I'm pretty sure you meant "tyranny," so you may want to correct your post before you yourself get in trouble

On a more serious note, I agree with you that player shouldn't have lost his job (assuming that what you're saying is true, and I have no reason to doubt you). I disagree with his flag disrespecting antics and disagree even more strongly with his reasoning, but he shouldn't have lost his job.

YOOOO!!!!! What in the world? Was I drunk? Changing that now. lol

 

[Madjaba]

Like it or not, cancel culture is free speech. It can't be illegal. At least not in America. And that's a good thing.

How could it be « free speech » when the point is to use superiority in number to create pressure instead of communicating with people directly ?

Free Speech is communicating with people you disagree with, not raiding Twitter searching for a way to destroy their lives.

That is harassment and it’s illegal.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

These pricks are going to make me like Harry Potter of all things, and I always hated that wizard-kids stuff.

 

[daffyduck]

My assumption is the companies didn't want to be associated with someone that pulls guns out on people for a simple parking lot argument. Plus you'd need to follow the trail of what they said on social media after the incident went viral.

That doesn't sound like a simple parking lot argument at all.

 

[InfiniteCombo]

YOOOO!!!!! What in the world? Was I drunk? Changing that now. lol

See, even if we strongly disagree on these kinds of topics, we're still GAF brethren, so I got your back bro

 

[mckmas8808]

How could it be « free speech » when the point is to use superiority in number to create pressure instead of communicating with people directly ?

Free Speech is communicating with people you disagree with, not raiding Twitter searching for a way to destroy their lives.

That is harassment and it’s illegal.

I not talking about the people that send threats to kill people into people's DMs. I'm talking about people that start hashtags to alert people to problematic behavior on social media. People did it to the NFL when they only gave a football player a 2 game suspension when he knocked his girlfriend out on an elevator on camera.

After the social media outrage, he ended up being "truly" cancelled and never played football in the NFL again. People used their right of free speech to get him a longer suspension.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Is it harassment? Not all people wanting someone canceled is harassment. Protest is free speech. You all better be careful what you banned in America.

I'm struggling to think of an example where it isn't harassment.

Even if the person targeted is a known POS, in a civilised society, their actions should be judged in a courtroom if they're illegal, not by mob rule. We have rules and laws for a reason. People taking the law into their own hands to harass someone and smear their reputation on the basis of a mere allegation of misconduct is a recipe for a shitty shitty devolvement to mob law.

I originate from Nigeria in West Africa, a country where if someone shouts "thief" and points at someone in an open market, the mob rushes that person, throws tires on them and burns them alive in the middle of the street.

As Nigeria has developed and its people have slowly started to become more exposed, this has started to get called out more. But even then, you hear the odd story about how some disgruntled sociopath essentially weaponized the mob to murder someone they just decided they didn't like....

...and that's precisely the problem with the mob mentality that drives cancel culture, nobody stops to think until there is a body burning in the streets. Mass hysteria is far too easily weaponized by bad actors, and it's especially potent when the hysteria is driven by a sense of justice and righteous indignation.

 

[Captain Toad]

Your current gender is printed on your original birth certificate.

If I was a celebrity in 2022, I'd be receiving death threats for that comment. In 1992, it was still just common sense.

 

[mckmas8808]

I'm struggling to think of an example where it isn't harassment.

Even if the person targeted is a known POS, in a civilised society, their actions should be judged in a courtroom if they're illegal, not by mob rule. We have rules and laws for a reason. People taking the law into their own hands to harass someone and smear their reputation on the basis of a mere allegation of misconduct is a recipe for a shitty shitty devolvement to mob law.

I originate from Nigeria in West Africa, a country where if someone shouts "thief" and points at someone in an open market, the mob rushes that person, throws tires on them and burns them alive in the middle of the street.

As Nigeria has developed and its people have slowly started to become more exposed, this has started to get called out more. But even then, you hear the odd story about how some disgruntled sociopath essentially weaponized the mob to murder someone they just decided they didn't like....

...and that's precisely the problem with the mob mentality that drives cancel culture, nobody stops to think until there is a body burning in the streets. Mass hysteria is far too easily weaponized by bad actors, and it's especially potent when the hysteria is driven by a sense of justice and righteous indignation.

The bolded is literally not reality in the Western world. There's no reason any reasonable society in this world should rely solely on a system created by any government to solve our problems. You guys call it mob rule, I call it society pressure. To me, most people only consider it mob rule if they don't agree with what the public is saying.

Thanks for telling us your story and how you arrive at your point of view. I originate from America. A country that has constantly looked down at black people for 100s of years. We literally had to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps to get everything that we got! The American gov't for 100s of years purposely made it so we couldn't succeed in this world. We had to force our country to respect us and give us equal rights and freedom. My country is about 250 years old, but us blacks have only been free for about 58 of those years.

So excuse me if I and some others don't just sit back and wait for a courtroom to tell me if somebody is guilty or not. Or if a corporation is committing illegal acts or not. And to be fair to our converstation in this thread, people aren't being murdered in Western societies over culture wars.

In my country, some of our best national heroes were considered "bad actors" that caused mass hysteria. But that supposed "mass hysteria" has allowed me to be free, so you can miss me with that attitude (speaking from an American's prospective).

 

[speckz]

Ont he flip-side: A trans gamer reviews the latest Harry Potter video game.

JK Rowling's Anti-Transgender Stance And Hogwarts Legacy

With a brand-new Harry Potter game on the way, now is the time to unpack and try to understand the impact of franchise creator JK Rowling's discriminatory behaviour.

www.gamespot.com

 

[Interfectum]

Your current gender is printed on your original birth certificate.

If I was a celebrity in 2022, I'd be receiving death threats for that comment. In 1992, it was still just common sense.

It still is common sense... we our letting very few people drive our culture through social media.

Think about it. Most people don't have time to post on social media all day. Most of us have full time jobs, kids, responsibilities, etc. The people who do have time to spend on Twitter can push their shit hourly, build influence, get the real media's attention and here we are.

Nothing on REEE, Twitter and the rest is an accurate representation of how most people feel.

 

[Life]

Imagine being in constant war with... human biology. They argue and pretend it's with other people, though. What sad lives they lead.

 

[mckmas8808]

It still is common sense... we our letting very few people drive our culture through social media.

Think about it. Most people don't have time to post on social media all day. Most of us have full time jobs, kids, responsibilities, etc. The people who do have time to spend on Twitter can push their shit hourly, build influence, get the real media's attention and here we are.

Nothing on REEE, Twitter and the rest is an accurate representation of how most people feel.

Your current gender is printed on your original birth certificate.

If I was a celebrity in 2022, I'd be receiving death threats for that comment. In 1992, it was still just common sense.

Imagine being in constant war with... human biology. They argue and pretend it's with other people, though. What sad lives they lead.

No lie.....some of these comments are starting to get transphobic to be honest. Can some of yall lighten up a bit on that? Thanks.....