Support NeoGAF

[mckmas8808]

Cancel culture is never a "good thing"...

But like all "in theory, it's a good thing" i.e communism and the like, it's never practiced like one sells it... or ever will be.

Snake oil, and all that jazz. Human nature.

In a perfect world, cancel culture wouldn't exist because if people got out of line they'd be dealt with by their friends, family, company, etc. And those people would understand why there was an issue. And the people that had the issue with what that person did or said would understand the mishap or difference of opinion and either agree to disagree or accept that person's changed behavior.

But we know the world isn't perfect. So what would you want to happen if someone does or says something foul in a public space? Should the be accountable at all? If so, what does that accountability look like?

 

[DeepEnigma]

In a perfect world, cancel culture wouldn't exist because if people got out of line they'd be dealt with by their friends, family, company, etc. And those people would understand why there was an issue. And the people that had the issue with what that person did or said would understand the mishap or difference of opinion and either agree to disagree or accept that person's changed behavior.

But we know the world isn't perfect. So what would you want to happen if someone does or says something foul in a public space? Should the be accountable at all? If so, what does that accountability look like?

Ignore them. I know, novel idea.

 

[BbMajor7th]

Gotcha! And that's a good understanding of what true cancel culture tries to do. In theory cancel culture to me is a good thing (as long as everyone plays by the rules and doesn't go overboard).

I disagree - it's a form of social vigilantism. If you think another person's actions are unlawful, then legal structures exist to take action on that in a fair and balanced way. If you think that another person's actions are causing demonstrable harm, but are not covered under current criminal law, then write to you local representative, raise a civil case and set a precedent, or lobby whoever will listen to have the law changed (get a Twitter mob to pour money in your GoFundMe and enact a change in the law that will help everybody rather than getting your pound of flesh from one individual you've decided to make the lightning rod for your ire). If you simply don't like another person's opinion but can accept that - horrible as it might be - you'd have a hard time demonstrating actual harm caused thereby, then block/delete/unfollow them and move on.

Attempting to leverage corporate PR anxieties to punish otherwise law-abiding citizens for holding, expressing and sharing views that you don't like is not justifiable. It's a circumvention of legal structures that allows ordinary folks to act as judge, jury and executioner and take out their frustrations with systems and institutions, which are more often than not the cause of social discord, on individuals who are the products thereof.

 

[mckmas8808]

I disagree - it's a form of social vigilantism. If you think another person's actions are unlawful, then legal structures exist to take action on that in a fair and balanced way. If you think that another person's actions are causing demonstrable harm, but are not covered under current criminal law, then write to you local representative, raise a civil case and set a precedent, or lobby whoever will listen to have the law changed (get a Twitter mob to pour money in your GoFundMe and enact a change in the law that will help everybody rather than getting your pound of flesh from one individual you've decided to make the lightning rod for your ire). If you simply don't like another person's opinion but can accept that - horrible as it might be - you'd have a hard time demonstrating actual harm on that basis, then block/delete/unfollow them and move on.

Attempting to leverage corporate PR anxieties to punish otherwise law-abiding citizens for holding, expressing and sharing views that you don't like is not justifiable. It's a circumvention of legal structures that allows ordinary folks to act as judge, jury and executioner and take out their frustrations with systems and institutions, which are more often than not the cause of social discord, on individuals who are the products thereof.

The bolded is exactly what it is. And I like that it exist in society. We are all held to it in reality. "Legal structures" don't work for everybody. The system isn't set up to fairly hold people or corporations accountable in a "fair and balanced" way. That's not reality.

Life has always been this way? Why is it that today, people seem to think that we should live a life absent consequences? Has social media clued people to the fact that consequences exist?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Why is it that today, people seem to think that we should live a life absent consequences?

Who is even saying that?

Those who deal in dishing out such consequences, sure live their life absent of it (currently, as long as you cult along openly). They have shifted the Overton way too far, and history IS repeating itself. Seems to be on an every 100 year cycle too.

 

[NickFire]

The bolded is exactly what it is. And I like that it exist in society. We are all held to it in reality. "Legal structures" don't work for everybody. The system isn't set up to fairly hold people or corporations accountable in a "fair and balanced" way. That's not reality.

Life has always been this way? Why is it that today, people seem to think that we should live a life absent consequences? Has social media clued people to the fact that consequences exist?

My friend, the reason society did away with those bolded items is because of the harm they inflicted on innocents and society in general. I submit to you that it is a fool's errand to revisit wells of bad ideas like vigilante justice for "good reasons." Leave that stuff to the MCU if you really want a better society. Every action leads to an equal and opposite reaction, right?

 

[UnNamed]

Check out this "essay" from Gamespot :

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

These people are delusional.

Too long to read.

The problem with these ideologies is they are pretty homophobic: for these people be trans is like subscribe to Transgender.org, follow the rules and a statute, and if you don't pay attention you're out. If a transgender person don't agree with them, he/she is not a "true" transgender, it's a traitor and can be insulted because they are "bad", that's why they invented terms like TERF.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Follow the hurd, be stunning and brave.

This person should probably move on to a political commentary position somewhere.

 

[IDKFA]

Is the game journalist in question a biologist?

 

[mckmas8808]

My friend, the reason society did away with those bolded items is because of the harm they inflicted on innocents and society in general. I submit to you that it is a fool's errand to revisit wells of bad ideas like vigilante justice for "good reasons." Leave that stuff to the MCU if you really want a better society. Every action leads to an equal and opposite reaction, right?

Who is even saying that?

Those who deal in dishing out such consequences, sure live their life absent of it (currently, as long as you cult along openly). They have shifted the Overton way too far, and history IS repeating itself. Seems to be on an every 100 year cycle too.

I'll ask you guys..........what would you consider the following people and situations to be? And are any of these akin to the so-called "cancel culture" that we supposedly have today?

- The Boston Tea Party of 1773 (the original American protest)
- Martin Luther King Jr (1950s and 1960s civil rights movement in America)
- Anti-Apartheid movement in 1986 (International campaign against the Royal Dutch Shell company) to not buy gas from Shell stations.



To me cancel culture done right is when it's about establishing new ethical and social norms and figuring out how to collectively respond when those norms are violated. I do think things at times people can take things too far. But yall truly believe that leaving things as the status quo is always the best option?

 

[iHaunter]

His Twitter says he used to be a senior editor at Game Informer Magazine.

A gaming site (mag and website) that gives almost every game at least a 7/10.

And he's talking about boycotting promoting and talking about one Harry Potter related game? LOL. What an asshole.

The heck is a trans charity? We paying people to be trans now? Have nothing against it, but what?

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'll ask you guys..........what would you consider the following people and situations to be? And are any of these akin to the so-called "cancel culture" that we supposedly have today?

- The Boston Tea Party of 1773 (the original American protest)
- Martin Luther King Jr (1950s and 1960s civil rights movement in America)
- Anti-Apartheid movement in 1986 (International campaign against the Royal Dutch Shell company) to not buy gas from Shell stations.



To me cancel culture done right is when it's about establishing new ethical and social norms and figuring out how to collectively respond when those norms are violated. I do think things at times people can take things too far. But yall truly believe that leaving things as the status quo is always the best option?

The thing is, it's not being done right. The Overton has shifted too far now.

 

[NickFire]

I'll ask you guys..........what would you consider the following people and situations to be? And are any of these akin to the so-called "cancel culture" that we supposedly have today?

- The Boston Tea Party of 1773 (the original American protest)
- Martin Luther King Jr (1950s and 1960s civil rights movement in America)
- Anti-Apartheid movement in 1986 (International campaign against the Royal Dutch Shell company) to not buy gas from Shell stations.



To me cancel culture done right is when it's about establishing new ethical and social norms and figuring out how to collectively respond when those norms are violated. I do think things at times people can take things too far. But yall truly believe that leaving things as the status quo is always the best option?

None of those movements would constitute cancel culture to me, and its not even a close call IMO. But I do somewhat appreciate your perspective, and if you would define them as cancel culture then I can sort of understand why your position is much different than mine regarding its merits.

Regarding those three movements, I still submit they are not even close to cancel culture. There is simply no equivalence, in my mind, between the people putting their lives at risk to rectify injustice at a macro level on the first hand, and a bunch of partisan keyboard warriors using social media to wreck havoc on the professional and personal relationships of individuals because of disagreements with something they said. Your examples are people putting themselves at risk for others. Cancel culture is more akin to sociopaths reaping that sweet, sweet dopamine that floods the brain when they hurt others.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Cancel culture is more akin to sociopaths reaping that sweet, sweet dopamine that floods the brain when they hurt others.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

The bolded is exactly what it is. And I like that it exist in society. We are all held to it in reality. "Legal structures" don't work for everybody. The system isn't set up to fairly hold people or corporations accountable in a "fair and balanced" way. That's not reality.

Life has always been this way? Why is it that today, people seem to think that we should live a life absent consequences? Has social media clued people to the fact that consequences exist?

I have a friend from Venezuela (a couple actually). Though guy, he was the army (yes on Chavez's side) and all, they have actual vigilanty justice over there because they can't fund the damn police.

Well, guess what happens if you are a bit too hungry and decide to "get" something to eat at the market? Better hope there is no misunderstandings or that whoever points the finger at you is right because the punishment for stealing a loaf of bread can be a swift death .

Another good example is the good ol' Klan, yup that was vigilante justice as well. They saved the women from the rapist too, with "consequences"! Obviously they were also always wrong, but how do you know your vigilantes will be correct and measured in their response?

What about the Chaz people in Portland? They certainly offered consequences to the dissidents, no prison? No problem we have machine guns!

Give me a clear cut example of vigilante justice that works at scale.

It's not like the justice system was anywhere near perfect, but going back to monkey level revenge "justice" offers no solution, it only makes things worse-for everyone.

 

[mckmas8808]

The thing is, it's not being done right. The Overton has shifted too far now.

I do agree that the pendulum has gone too far to one side (I don't think that side has anything to do with politics). Nowadays people just want their pound of flesh. It's less about conversing and improving communities and more about "winning" the argument.

None of those movements would constitute cancel culture to me, and its not even a close call IMO. But I do somewhat appreciate your perspective, and if you would define them as cancel culture then I can sort of understand why your position is much different than mine regarding its merits.

Regarding those three movements, I still submit they are not even close to cancel culture. There is simply no equivalence, in my mind, between the people putting their lives at risk to rectify injustice at a macro level on the first hand, and a bunch of partisan keyboard warriors using social media to wreck havoc on the professional and personal relationships of individuals because of disagreements with something they said. Your examples are people putting themselves at risk for others. Cancel culture is more akin to sociopaths reaping that sweet, sweet dopamine that floods the brain when they hurt others.

That's what the new version of cancel culture started as. It was always supposed to be a way of saying, "you are canceled out of my life". The "you" could be a comedian, Activision, NIKE, Chick-Fila, etc. But the bolded is showing me why I have such a difference of opinion on so-called "cancel culture". It's just how we define it.

Because (for the most part) the keyboard warriors piss me off too and they are EXTREMELY annoying. I lost a video game bet with a Gaffer and my failure resulted in me needing to change my avatar to Colin Moriarty lol! The real funny thing is, I think that Gaffer thought I hated Colin due to some of the things that he's said in the past. And in reality, I've kept the avatar long after the bet stated to show my support for Colin. I always rolled with Colin all the way back to the beginning of the Podcast Beyond days during the PS3 era. I hated how the Kinda Funny crew (Greg mainly) kicked him out the cool kids club.

And I still listen to some Kinda Funny shows, but they did my guy Colin dirty man. And Colin was actually cancelled too (which really sucks because the guy is great at talking video games). I'm glad his podcast is doing great. And in that light, I agree with you guys that actions like that aren't productive.


Ultimately, I'm a big believer in "Counsel Culture" instead of cancel culture.

 

[Optimus Lime]

Ultimately, I'm a big believer in "Counsel Culture" instead of cancel culture.

Have you considered minding your own business?

 

[mckmas8808]

Have you considered minding your own business?

How is that possible when 99% of the time when something happens that gets people in an uproar it happens in public? We don't live in caves! Plus all of our lives are interconnected to a degree. Even on this board some of the anti cancel culture crowd, also hate it when.........

- a female video game character isn't pretty enough
- a entertainment company talks about increasing the diversity within their workforce
- have a racially diverse group of main characters in a video game
- they find out that a character in a game is\was gay the whole time
- they saw Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem


We don't live in a bubble. People are allowed to speak their displeasure with things that happen around them. It's odd of you and anyone else to think people should just shut up and not say anything when something is happening in their country or anywhere in the world that they don't like.

 

[Optimus Lime]

We don't live in a bubble. People are allowed to speak their displeasure with things that happen around them. It's odd of you and anyone else to think people should just shut up and not say anything when something is happening in their country or anywhere in the world that they don't like.

I absolutely think you should just shut up and not say anything when something is happening in your country or anywhere else in the world that you don't like. Just shut up. For five minutes, just shut the fuck up. You're not 'helping', you're not important. Just shut up.

 

[InterMusketeer]

People are allowed to speak their displeasure with things that happen around them. It's odd of you and anyone else to think people should just shut up and not say anything when something is happening in their country or anywhere in the world that they don't like.

Living in a free society means you're going to be confronted with things you don't like. If I had to voice my opinion on all the things I disagree with, there'd be no end to it!

I'd argue that, for example, refusing to cover a video game because it's based on a franchise created by a person who holds some views you disagree with is quite the exaggerated response. Then going on to broadcast this decision on the internet to literally signal your virtue is pathetic IMO. If your political convictions are so extreme that you don't want to support this person at all with publicity, just don't cover the game.

 

[Dr. Claus]

How is that possible when 99% of the time when something happens that gets people in an uproar it happens in public? We don't live in caves! Plus all of our lives are interconnected to a degree. Even on this board some of the anti cancel culture crowd, also hate it when.........

- a female video game character isn't pretty enough

A very small group is actively complaining that the character isn‘t „pretty enough“. The majority of folks that had a problem were referring explicitly to the purposeful change by the creators to specifically make her uglier.

- a entertainment company talks about increasing the diversity within their workforce

Diversity of mind is more important than the diversity of skin. Hire people based on skill, not based on immutable characteristics.

- have a racially diverse group of main characters in a video game

No one has a problem with this. Point to what you are referring to, but if its anything else like this „list“, you are purposefully being ignorant and pushing disingenuous strawman arguments.

- they find out that a character in a game is\was gay the whole time

Um, what are you talking about? People have a problem with blatant tokenism and terrible slacktivist-bent writing. Not having a Character that is gay.

We don't live in a bubble. People are allowed to speak their displeasure with things that happen around them. It's odd of you and anyone else to think people should just shut up and not say anything when something is happening in their country or anywhere in the world that they don't like.

You claim people should speak their displeasure, but then in the very same post you create strawman arguments and to try and shut people up and dismiss their displeasure. Do you not see the irony In that?

 

[BbMajor7th]

The bolded is exactly what it is. And I like that it exist in society. We are all held to it in reality. "Legal structures" don't work for everybody. The system isn't set up to fairly hold people or corporations accountable in a "fair and balanced" way. That's not reality.

Life has always been this way? Why is it that today, people seem to think that we should live a life absent consequences? Has social media clued people to the fact that consequences exist?

Vigilantism is inherently authoritarian and right-wing. Democratic legal structures construe their authority from the principle of 'rule by consent': government and legislators are (in principle) elected by the people to make these judgements over the people with the people's consent. If you feel some part of that system does not properly represent your concern, it could be that the system requires change (lobbying, petitioning, judicial precedents, etc.) or it could be that your concern simply does not meet the requirements for criminal prosecution. If it's the latter, it's deemed that your wants and desires infringe unfairly on the rights and freedoms of others - you're only option at the junction is to argue for a diminishment or suspension of those rights, or rather, to demand an extension of your rights at the expense of another's.

While I fully agree that structures of power and wealth have created loopholes at very high-levels in our legal systems, I do not deem that as a fault with those individuals so much as with the system. Public outrage and petitioning can do a lot change that.

At the heart of vigilantism is laziness, ignorance and contempt. Laziness, because it's far easier to whip up outrage and indignance than it is to lobby for systemic chagne. Ignorant, because it's almost always predicated on the assumption that the law has 'failed', has been 'corrupted' or simply 'doesn't care about something' rather than being constructed in such a way that it is equitable, applicable and enforceable. And lastly, contemptuous because it assumes that justice is about coercion through intimidation and force, rather than being about fairness and communal coexistence. And all of this applies as much to those who stormed the Capitol in 2020 as it does to those who try get celebrities fired over their Tweets.

As I already said above, if something is unlawful, you have options, if it isn't unlawful but you think it ought to be, you have options, and if it is simply something you don't like, you have options.

 

[mckmas8808]

I absolutely think you should just shut up and not say anything when something is happening in your country or anywhere else in the world that you don't like. Just shut up. For five minutes, just shut the fuck up. You're not 'helping', you're not important. Just shut up.

But........you're talking now about this. Does this not apply to you also?

 

[mckmas8808]

A very small group is actively complaining that the character isn‘t „pretty enough“. The majority of folks that had a problem were referring explicitly to the purposeful change by the creators to specifically make her uglier.


Diversity of mind is more important than the diversity of skin. Hire people based on skill, not based on immutable characteristics.


No one has a problem with this. Point to what you are referring to, but if its anything else like this „list“, you are purposefully being ignorant and pushing disingenuous strawman arguments.


Um, what are you talking about? People have a problem with blatant tokenism and terrible slacktivist-bent writing. Not having a Character that is gay.



You claim people should speak their displeasure, but then in the very same post you create strawman arguments and to try and shut people up and dismiss their displeasure. Do you not see the irony In that?

I've literally seen every one of those arguments happen on GAF and on general Twitter. They happen every day. It's not a strawman argument just because you've ignored the conversation. My personal intent is to NEVER shut people up. Regardless if I believe in what they say or not. I like these type of conversations.

But there's a new trend in our culture that have some on both sides wanting to shut people up and it will always be weird to me.

 

[Kimahri]

To me cancel culture done right is when it's about establishing new ethical and social norms and figuring out how to collectively respond when those norms are violated. I do think things at times people can take things too far. But yall truly believe that leaving things as the status quo is always the best option?

This is where you shoot yourself in the foot.

Who has the authority on what is good, bad or acceptable?

You? If so, why?

Cancel culture is dangerous bullshit because all it takes to get going is one loud voice to shout first, and a bunch of useful idiots to follow along because they don't have the mental faculties to realize this might be a bad idea.

That first loud voice could easily be, and often is, someone who knows less than necessary to lay judgment, and understands less than necessary to have any right to judge others.

Accepting cancel culture is arrogant narcissism, because cancel culture can not ever, by its nature alone, be done "right".

 

[GymWolf]

Is the game journalist in question a biologist?

More like a moronist.

 

[mckmas8808]

This is where you shoot yourself in the foot.

Who has the authority on what is good, bad or acceptable?

You? If so, why?

Cancel culture is dangerous bullshit because all it takes to get going is one loud voice to shout first, and a bunch of useful idiots to follow along because they don't have the mental faculties to realize this might be a bad idea.

That first loud voice could easily be, and often is, someone who knows less than necessary to lay judgment, and understands less than necessary to have any right to judge others.

Accepting cancel culture is arrogant narcissism, because cancel culture can not ever, by its nature alone, be done "right".

Nobody has that authority to say what's good, bad, or acceptable. It's just everyone's individual opinion. But the bolded I agree with 1000%. It's literally impossible to be done correctly, because we are humans.

 

[Astral Dog]

You only have to look at ERA to know cancel culture isn't always right

 

[BbMajor7th]

Nobody has that authority to say what's good, bad, or acceptable. It's just everyone's individual opinion. But the bolded I agree with 1000%. It's literally impossible to be done correctly, because we are humans.

Exactly, which is why no one group should have the right to directly punish others for holding differing opinions. To be frank, I think you tacitly believe you're own opinions to be above those of others. To quote you in an earlier post:

In a perfect world, cancel culture wouldn't exist because if people got out of line they'd be dealt with by their friends, family, company, etc. And those people would understand why there was an issue. And the people that had the issue with what that person did or said would understand the mishap or difference of opinion and either agree to disagree or accept that person's changed behavior.

But we know the world isn't perfect. So what would you want to happen if someone does or says something foul in a public space? Should the be accountable at all? If so, what does that accountability look like?

The bolded implies some agreed moral standard beneath which none should fall without correction. This already exists in law, and is defined by demonstrable harm caused, but beyond that, who gets to define what's 'out of line' or 'foul' and who gets to decide how they should be 'dealt with' or they should be held 'accountable'? Would you argue that people who don't agree with more recent (and constantly evolving) views about gender should be 'dealt with' but an unregulated panel of strangers since their own 'friends, family, company' have failed to properly guide them?

 

[Mess]

Nobody has that authority to say what's good, bad, or acceptable. It's just everyone's individual opinion. But the bolded I agree with 1000%. It's literally impossible to be done correctly, because we are humans.

The law is the boudaries of what a society deemed acceptable. Cancel culture is just a subset of people trying to apply *its* law when something doesn't please them, against democracy. If a group of people is not happy with society's norm, there are ways to convince their fellow electers and change the norms/laws. That's how civilised countries got rid of capital punishment. Cancel culture is just vigilantism, fueled by the hatred of anyone who thinks differently.

 

[Optimus Lime]

But........you're talking now about this. Does this not apply to you also?

I haven't been spewing opinions for pages of this thread. Calm down. This is just 'counsel culture'. I'm counselling you to shut up for thirty seconds.

 

[mckmas8808]

Exactly, which is why no one group should have the right to directly punish others for holding differing opinions. To be frank, I think you tacitly believe you're own opinions to be above those of others. To quote you in an earlier post:



The bolded implies some agreed moral standard beneath which none should fall without correction. This already exists in law, and is defined by demonstrable harm caused, but beyond that, who gets to define what's 'out of line' or 'foul' and who gets to decide how they should be 'dealt with' or they should be held 'accountable'? Would you argue that people who don't agree with more recent (and constantly evolving) views about gender should be 'dealt with' but an unregulated panel of strangers since their own 'friends, family, company' have failed to properly guide them?

Why do some of you guys act as if this hasn't always existed? It exist in all countries and cultures. The perception of right and wrong doesn't only belong to the government. It never has! Farting out loud in a crowed movie theater wouldn't get you arrested. But you would be looked down upon by the people around you. Again.....this isn't new.

And to answer your question that I bolded....my short answer would be "yes". But the way to do that would be to stop supporting their music, movies, or any other thing that they are selling. Talk about your displeasure online with what that person did or said. And if you'd like, start a hashtag to bring awareness to the situation if needed.

But I'm 100% against harassment of that person. Both physical, verbal, or emotional. No need for that at all! Plus if the person shows remorse or some sign of understanding that what they did or said was out of line.....forgive and move on.

I haven't been spewing opinions for pages of this thread. Calm down. This is just 'counsel culture'. I'm counselling you to shut up for thirty seconds.

 

[Optimus Lime]

And there you are. There's your real face, behind the pretentious posturing.

 

[benno]

last time I checked, farting in a cinema wouldn't get a mob of bellends frantically searching through you internet history to try and find something to use against you to make you homeless.

 

[Optimus Lime]

last time I checked, farting in a cinema wouldn't get a mob of bellends frantically searching through you internet history to try and find something to use against you to make you homeless.

Don't worry, they're working on it.

 

[mckmas8808]

last time I checked, farting in a cinema wouldn't get a mob of bellends frantically searching through you internet history to try and find something to use against you to make you homeless.

Should we or should we not hold these corporations equally or more accountable for firing people that are on the wrong end of the stick on these things? Me personally, I almost always blame the corporations more for the person being fired or contract not renewed. Because it's not like the people on Twitter are holding a gun to any executive's head.

 

[EviLore]

Everyone shares some blame. Twitter mobs are a problem, corporations bending over backwards in appeasement is a problem, and society turning a blind eye to resulting injustices is another problem. Western culture has become increasingly divisive and dysfunctional over the past decade, mostly as a result of social media platforms subsuming a non-trivial percentage of our lives.

 

[laynelane]

Should we or should we not hold these corporations equally or more accountable for firing people that are on the wrong end of the stick on these things? Me personally, I almost always blame the corporations more for the person being fired or contract not renewed. Because it's not like the people on Twitter are holding a gun to any executive's head.

People losing their livelihoods due to Twitter allegations is a consequence of cancel culture. Personally, I hold all parties involved accountable. To be frank, though, playing the blame game is not helpful. What concerns me, and has for some time, is how normalized this has become. I don't know how much worse things have to get before we start seeing a shift to a more moderate situation, but I hope it's soon.

 

[mckmas8808]

Everyone shares some blame. Twitter mobs are a problem, corporations bending over backwards in appeasement is a problem, and society turning a blind eye to resulting injustices is another problem. Western culture has become increasingly divisive and dysfunctional over the past decade, mostly as a result of social media platforms subsuming a non-trivial percentage of our lives.

It's as if you jumped into my brain and typed my exact overall thoughts on the matter. Like word for word.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Your examples are people putting themselves at risk for others. Cancel culture is more akin to sociopaths reaping that sweet, sweet dopamine that floods the brain when they hurt others.

I agree with you 96.73%.

The problem is that a given amount of people are working on a strict diet of counter reaction and they've become more or less what the SJW had to go full conspiracy theorist to claim that these people existed before... It's almost like a self fulfilling profecy.

Scare people off with your constant ideological bickering, double standards, lies, violence, manipulations, etc. That eventually a sizeable group of people will just run in the arms of anybody who claims to be against you. (And who can blame them?)

I absolutely think you should just shut up and not say anything when something is happening in your country or anywhere else in the world that you don't like. Just shut up. For five minutes, just shut the fuck up. You're not 'helping', you're not important. Just shut up.

I think that you should show the way by leading.

 

[DragoonKain]

There is an air of entitlement and narcissism that exists today that I think is greater than any time I've been alive. And society's response to it is making it even worse by capitulating to it.

Throughout most of my life, people disagreed on things, even things they considered very important and learned to co-exist with one another anyway. Now, it's "people who feel a certain way about something are a danger to society and they should not be allowed to exist with us." The narcissism that someone's opinion can be the only right one, and the entitlement that they're entitled to have society cater to their every whim.

Many of these people, but not all, are young and naive. They haven't been through life and learned valuable lessons of life. However, large institutions are pandering to those people so they aren't learning their lessons. They think it's ok to think this way and not only ok, but it's a necessity to think this way.

Contrary to belief, strong disagreements on key things is healthy discourse, not unhealthy. And having offensive beliefs is also healthy discourse. You can't form relationships in life without saying or believing things that offend people. It's impossible. Once that ceases to exist, you know people are simply afraid to speak anymore or are adopting false beliefs out of fear. Which is no good for anyone.

 

[Optimus Lime]

I think that you should show the way by leading.

I do. I'm not spewing my stupid opinions across the internet. Suggesting that you guys do the same isn't the autowin you think it is.

 

[Boss Mog]

Is the game journalist in question a biologist?

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[Dr. Claus]

I've literally seen every one of those arguments happen on GAF and on general Twitter. They happen every day. It's not a strawman argument just because you've ignored the conversation. My personal intent is to NEVER shut people up. Regardless if I believe in what they say or not. I like these type of conversations.

But there's a new trend in our culture that have some on both sides wanting to shut people up and it will always be weird to me.

Hand waving away my request and doubling down on disingenuous claims and strawman arguments. Not surprised coming from you, mckmas. You claim you are all for these conversations, but you are usually the first person who comes in and purposefully misconstrues arguments to push your sad little false narratives.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

I do. I'm not spewing my stupid opinions across the internet. Suggesting that you guys do the same isn't the autowin you think it is.

I'm not sure who "you guys" is, and you will need to tell me what you mean by autowin because you lost me completely.

 

[Optimus Lime]

I'm not sure who "you guys" is, and you will need to tell me what you mean by autowin because you lost me completely.

I mean, I'm not even sure how to respond to this. Have you actually been reading the thread, or did you just wake up and post this or something?

 

[alabtrosMyster]

I mean, I'm not even sure how to respond to this. Have you actually been reading the thread, or did you just wake up and post this or something?

I mean, I'm not even sure how to respond to this. Have you actually been reading the thread, or did you just wake up and post this or something?

You said you were above whatever you thought was going on here.

 

[Optimus Lime]

You said you were above whatever you thought was going on here.

It's increasingly clear that you haven't read the thread and you're arguing for the sake of it, so why don't we just leave it here, and you can get back to whatever it is that you do when you're not doing this.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

It's increasingly clear that you haven't read the thread and you're arguing for the sake of it, so why don't we just leave it here, and you can get back to whatever it is that you do when you're not doing this.

No, tell us about it.