TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 338

Thread: Cancel culture cancelled the thread on cancel culture

  1. #51
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by june gloom View Post
    correction: cis men do an incredible amount of damage to afabs and trans women every single day

    your entire position rests on gender essentialism and is therefore horseshit
    No, you're still missing the point. As I say, it's not really about genuine trans people. Allowing "cis" men to self-ID as trans, no questions asked, is where the potential problems lie.

  2. #52
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Ireland
    No one was actively calling for the first thread to be closed, people were just saying that it had degenerated into a toxic morass and was pointless.

    But, sure, I'll foolishly bite again.


    What exactly is this "cancel culture" you're referring to? It's just people deciding that they find some public figure unpleasant and that they want nothing to do with them.
    That's not anything new, people have been doing this for centuries. If someone behaves badly, you stop engaging with them, or at least become much more cautious in your dealings.
    If someone represents something that you find morally reprehensible, you disassociate yourself from them and take your business elsewhere.

    It could be simply because you don't want to support someone whose actions you are strongly opposed to (such as choosing not to buy from an artist that you believe to be a rapist), or it could be an attempt to enact change in the offending party (such, as for example, the boycott of South Africa during Apartheid.)

    The people arguing against it are usually the same ones who aggressively defend freedom of speech. What is a boycott other than the freedom to take your business elsewhere?
    Freedom of speech always needs to be combined with the freedom of others to react to that speech, and the freedom for your to accept those consequences.


    So, tl;dr #1: "cancel culture" is when people decide that they do not want to support some person or group of people, and often also share their reasoning with others who might be interested.



    Next, there's the question of why people choose to not support someone. There are two main flavours which are relevant here. The first is because of something that the person said or did (for example, J.K. Rowling's comments), and the second is because of something that another person accused them of doing (for example, people accused of rape.)

    The first one is fairly simple. A person says or does something that people strongly disagree with, and so they decide to distance themselves from that person. I don't see how anyone could consider this unreasonable or problematic. The person in question did whatever they did publicly (usually posting it to the world on social media), so they should not be surprised when the public responds. The fact that the said the thing which people object to is not in question, as it is publicly available for everyone to see.

    The second one is a little more complicated, because it's technically hearsay. If one person accuses another of a sex crime, and the second denies it, then people need to make up their own minds as to which party to believe.
    Of course, different people are free to believe different things. From the cases I've read about, it seems that mostly the accuser is far more believable, though there have also been a few cases where it just seemed that all parties involves acted foolishly but not criminally. The impression I've had is that people tend to come down much less favourably on the former than on the latter.

    There's also the question of when the thing in question happened. It seems to me that people are generally much more lenient of foolish actions from several years ago, but only if the person in question isn't obviously still acting in the same way in the present.


    So, tl;dr #2: when a piece of worrying information about a public figure comes to light, people tend to evaluate it based on how offensive it is, when it is is from, and how reliable the source is. This evaluation may cause people to change their perception of that public figure.



    Next up, we have false claims.
    I don't think anyone actually denies that false claims are a bad thing, or that the people who make false claims in bad faith shouldn't be punished.
    However, I've still seen no evidence that there are a large number of false claims being made, or that many peoples' lives are being ruined by these false claims.

    Yes, it's a real problem, but as far as I can tell it is a minor one.

    It seems extremely tone-deaf to make such a fuss over a very small number of lives being disrupted by e.g. false sexual assault claims, while ignoring the much larger problem of massive numbers of lives being ruined by actually being sexually assaulted, and by not being believed when they come forward, or of not even bothering to come forwards because they know they won't be believed.


    So, tl;dr #3: False claims happen occasionally and are bad, but we have no evidence that they are common.



    Finally, what is the proposal here? That people should be forbidden from making up their own minds about a public figure, that they shouldn't be allowed to decide if they want to support that person or not, because they might possibly be working on incomplete on inaccurate information?

    That you should be forced to e.g. support someone that you suspect is a rapist, just because it hasn't been legally proven yet? Because you might be wrong?
    That seems like a dangerous precedent to me.

    I'd rather people considered the available facts on a case-by-case basis and made up their own minds about how much or little they should change their opinions or actions regarding a person based on those facts.

  3. #53
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    ^all of that. I personally know a truly offensive number of people who have been assaulted (and that's just the ones who have come out about it, so probably much more). Not a single one of them have managed to bring their accuser to justice. Meanwhile, I don't know a single person who has been falsely accused and had their life ruined. Anecdotal? Sure, but all existing statistics support it. If my response seems 'overly emotional' to you, that's why - because this state of affairs is disgusting, and thoughts like the ones expressed in the OP serve to make it even harder to get traction behind something that's already close to impossible for most women.

    Most of the actual 'cancel culture' I'm seeing, on the other hand, is coming from infantile alt-righters who don't like that the protagonist of a movie or game is a brown women or gay. So excuse me if nothing in the argument appears to be rooted in reality.

    And yes, as mentioned, courts do not prove innocence. Proving a negative isn't really a thing.

  4. #54
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    In hindsight, I shouldn't have put the "rise of false claims" in the other title. At the time, after watching the video I linked in the OP, I meant by "rise" about how it now is a thing that I hear about on the news and online sources, where as before I practically never heard about it. Not a "rise" meaning massive increase like a daily occurrence. I put in the strong disclaimer about it not being leveled at the cases where a crime occurred. Purely at the times where it was a false claim, and that only.

    For those who have suffered sex crimes, my OP wasn't aimed at you at all, and if any way it sounded that way I apologize as that was not in any way my intent. Purely discussion on those making false claims, and that they should be punished, and about cancel culture which is a new thing in current times worth discussing.

  5. #55
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    No one said the courts prove innocence.

    Everyone is innocent, including the accused, until proven guilty.

  6. #56
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Oh, really?

    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    I'm not a lawyer, but your logic is flawed there. The point of going to court is prove ones innocence.
    And again, Icemann, where are these false claims you've been reading about that have ruined people's lives? You haven't produced a single example of someone's life being ruined. The problem that you're missing here is that you want to separate these two things into discreet issues, but they're inextricable in practice. You can't just leave victims out of the conversation at your leisure when they directly suffer from having the conversation. So go ahead and put all the disclaimers you want and try to steer the conversation all you want, but no one's going to go along with that engineered thought experiment because in real life these thought experiments have concrete effects in reinforcing the difficulty of prosecution. And that, in short, has been our issue with this entire exercise.
    Last edited by froghawk; 7th Jul 2020 at 10:46.

  7. #57
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Fair enough. I'm not saying that though. I mistakenly thought you were referring to my disagreement with Thirith.


    https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/social...al-revolution/

    That's just one article I found. There are loads. Google it.

  8. #58
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Oh, wow! An alarmist bit of propaganda from a Murdoch tabloid! I'm sold, you guys were right.

  9. #59
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by froghawk View Post
    And again, Icemann, where are these false claims you've been reading about that have ruined people's lives? You haven't produced a single example of someone's life being ruined.
    Go back to my response to Starker. Has examples with articles. If your of too low intelligence to click a page button to do this thing called reading which is required on a forum, then I can't help you. Perhaps it's time to go back to kindergarten.

  10. #60
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...your-opponents

    I suppose this is secretly an alt right rag

  11. #61
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    No, but that's an opinion piece? You guys really seem to have a tough time with this whole evidence thing. The onus isn't on us to prove your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Go back to my response to Starker. Has examples with articles. If your of too low intelligence to click a page button to do this thing called reading which is required on a forum, then I can't help you. Perhaps it's time to go back to kindergarten.
    Oh, we're above the personal attacks now, are we? No hypocrisy here whatsoever. You mean the post in which Starker thoroughly refuted every example? Yeah, I read that. By the way, if you're going to insult someone's intelligence, at least try using the correct form of 'you're' in the process.

    Note that the only thing I've said which could be construed as a personal attack against you was when I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you were simply ignorant rather than acting in bad faith. You've made it abundantly clear that I was being far too generous. I won't make that mistake again. You've now demonstrated that you're nothing but a troll, and thus there is no reason to further waste time engaging with you under the pretext of real discourse.
    Last edited by froghawk; 7th Jul 2020 at 11:42.

  12. #62
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by froghawk View Post
    You mean the post in which Starker thoroughly refuted every example? Yeah, I read that.
    Not Staker's post, the articles I linked. Evidence.

    To quote from the Rebel Wilson article:

    Last year, Wilson was awarded more than $4.7 million in compensation — the largest defamation damages payout ever ordered by an Australian court — after a jury found she missed out on film roles because the articles claimed she had lied about her age, real name and childhood.

    The John Jarrat evidence is in the video provided. Unless your saying, that the trauma he states he went through as a result of the court action is false? Or that what channel 9 questions about whether he'll be able to get an acting role ever again is also false?

    Checkmate.

  13. #63
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    No, I meant Starker had already refuted them and I didn't see a need to do it again. As already pointed out, the courts ruled in their favor and Wilson's career has gotten on just fine. Jarrett's will probably bounce back, just like countless others (Cee-lo, Louis CK, etc. - and both of them even admitted their guilt). If your whole argument is about the dangers of one-sided anonymity and the way it ruins people's lives, you might want to produce some cases where this so-called cancel culture actually ended people's careers (without merit - obviously guilty examples like Cosby and Weinstein notwithstanding). Meanwhile, the vast majority of sexual assault cases have not managed to make any legal progress. It wouldn't be difficult for you to engage with this argument if you were actually aiming for real discourse, but you keep either misunderstanding it or willfully ignoring it.

    Now, you said in the OP that you were going to quit posting and not engage in this debate - but you did anyway.
    You said you want to avoid personal attacks, but you stooped to those.
    You said you want a real discourse, but you've effectively ignored every point we've brought up and made no attempt to engage with them, instead just reiterating the same stuff over and over again after it's already been refuted, as if our counterarguments are magically going to change.
    And you expect us to keep taking you at your word?
    Last edited by froghawk; 7th Jul 2020 at 12:08.

  14. #64
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    In hindsight, I shouldn't have put the "rise of false claims" in the other title. At the time, after watching the video I linked in the OP, I meant by "rise" about how it now is a thing that I hear about on the news and online sources, where as before I practically never heard about it. Not a "rise" meaning massive increase like a daily occurrence. I put in the strong disclaimer about it not being leveled at the cases where a crime occurred. Purely at the times where it was a false claim, and that only.
    It's not just the title, it's also the post itself that was both inflammatory and accusatory, but okay, whatever. The salient point is that you are not a neutral observer in this. You are throwing out a mix of very different things that happened over the years, blaming them on some nebulous cancel culture, and in none of the cases have the accusers been proven to have knowingly made false claims. And in James Gunn's case the accused person himself admitted to doing what he was accused of and apologised for it. And was consequently rehired by a corporation who is extremely prissy about their image.

    Furthermore, you have also not shown that these people's lives "have been destroyed". In fact, as I said, all of them have won and won big and received a massive amount of support in the process. I'm sure being accused of doing something bad, especially when there is proof of wrongdoing, is very stressful, but, frankly, none of them seem to have had "their lives destroyed". Cliff Richard is still able to go on tours and release albums, James Gunn is still able to direct movies, Mr Angry still does Youtube videos and has millions of people in his "Angry Army" of subscribers, John Jarratt and Rebel Wilson are still getting roles, lead roles even.

    Finally, you ask whether there should be punishment for people making false claims of serious crimes as if they are getting off scot-free. People go to jail over false claims or have to pay damages for defamation or face other kinds of legal repercussions. And if the accused are wealthy celebrities, they have more than enough means to fight back against any accusation, true or not. In fact, you don't have to be a celebrity at all to receive a mountain of support in this. Just look at the uphill struggle ordinary everyday victims of sexual assault face in every step of the way, the blame and hate thrown their way for trying to "ruin a man's life for 20 minutes of action". Rape is by far the easiest violent crime to get away with, because there is an epidemic of disbelief. And yet here you are to muddle the issue and cast doubt on people coming forward and their motivations, lamenting the small possibility of men's lives being destroyed over the vast number of women's lives definitely getting destroyed.

  15. #65
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    This is the law, isn't it?

    Innocent until proven guilty. Or don't you believe that?
    It sounds nice, but it's a motivational poster. It's a movie of the week. It is *not* a law. At best, it's a legal principle that isn't adhered to with any consistency for a number of reasons.

    1) If you're accused of a violent crime, you may be put into prison anyway, perhaps with the possibility of bail. You may end up being in jail for months or longer before your trial. Is that what you'd consider "innocent until proven guilty"? As someone accused of a number of crimes, you will be treated like a criminal. This may actually make sense, if you're considered a clear security risk, though let's not assume that this is applied with any sense of justice or fairness, by and large.

    2) There are situations where it makes sense to treat someone accused of a crime as not innocent, but very often whether you are or not is entirely down to things such as how rich or poor you are, whether you're white or black, whether you're any other kind of minority, whether you have a police record or not (which you may have without ever having committed a crime). If you're poor, you may not be able to afford the legal process that, if it were fair, would decide that you're innocent, so you may go for a plea deal, and hey presto, you're a criminal, although you didn't do anything. Whereas, if you're privileged, your chances of getting off scot-free are much, much higher.

    3) So, innocent until proven guilty. Let's look at a concrete example. O.J. Simpson was pronounced 'not guilty'. Was he therefore innocent? If so, why the civil trial? When a civil suit was filed against Simpson for wrongful death, was that a case of hounding an innocent man? Is it perhaps the case that being pronounced not guilty in court isn't the be-all and end-all of justice, or even of the law? And why did the jury find Simpson responsible for the murders? Where does 'innocent until proven guilty' come into it? What would it even mean? Was the civil trial an injustice? Or can the outcomes of criminal trials have very little to do with actual justice? Is 'innocent until proven guilty' a neato slogan but one that in practice quickly begins to crumble?

    4) So, in practice the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' is often meaningless in the legal domain, but it may still sound like a nice principle. A legal principle, that is. (I'd go for 'equality before the law' before 'innocent until proven guilty'. Once we've got the former, I'm happy to talk about the latter.) It is not a law, and it is most definitely not a social principle that I adhere to, not as the absolute it is phrased as. If I hear from someone I trust that person X is a creep, that he doesn't respect personal boundaries, I will be wary. If I hear this from several people, I will be *very* wary. I will definitely not presume them innocent. I will try to be civil and fair, but I will treat them with suspicion, and I think that is not unwarranted. Let's say that a close friend of mine says they were sexually abused by that person. Do I still treat them as innocent? Should I do so? Do I go to my friend and say, "Sorry, until you present me with evidence, I will have to assume they're innocent." Much more so if you look at #metoo and so many cases, where the person who is accused of abuse, coercion etc. is often the person who has most of the institutional power. They have the money, they can give or take away jobs, they can ruin a person's career. The law often doesn't work in such a situation, because of the things I've already mentioned. So, if you're going to be serious about innocent until proven guilty, if you're going to be consistent, you will always decide in favour of the powerful, of the status quo, of the people who can afford to be assholes and against those who sometimes can't even afford to be model citizens.

    5) And what does any of this have to do with icemann's statements? In particular when he continues to point to his list of supposed gotcha! examples as if they were proof of anything, and when he continues to do so after Starker has presented him with pretty convincing rebuttals? And, quite honestly, do I have much cause to assume you're doing any of this in good faith when so many of your posts change the goalposts and provide little in the way of actual *response* to what's been said?

  16. #66
    Taking the Death Toll
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Location: they/them mayhem
    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    No, you're still missing the point. As I say, it's not really about genuine trans people. Allowing "cis" men to self-ID as trans, no questions asked, is where the potential problems lie.
    who the fuck are you, a straight dude who has no respect for trans people, to declare who is or is not trans? it's clear your whole argument is basically "men = rapists, trans women = men, therefore trans women = rapists" so what reason has anyone, really, to give you the time of day? i promise you, cis men have never needed a dress to violate a woman's private space or commit sexual assault

    it's really telling that you put cis in quotes like you don't think it's a real word, even though it's simply a latin root word that means "on this side of," i.e. it's the opposite meaning of trans ("on the other side of") which itself is a latin root word

    this thread sucks

  17. #67
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Dude, do you even know who SD is?

    You've completely misinterpreted everything he's said and made up so many strawmen Nic Cage is crapping himself.

  18. #68
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: The Plateaux Of Mirror
    This thread has more bathroom raping than a party in the executive suite at Trump Tower.

  19. #69
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    The whole "trans laws will make restroom rapes easier to commit" argument has always been so lame to me. If a bunch of rando dudes can manage to convincingly disguise themselves to the point that they can sneak into a women's restroom without anyone taking a second glance, then the pro-trans restroom laws wouldn't make any difference, since they could've done it just as easily before their implementation as after. And it's not like any potential rapist could cite the law to excuse their actions after the fact.

    ...so why the overt concern?

  20. #70
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Where I went to college, all the restrooms were gender neutral, including the multi-stalls with showers. There was never a single issue.

  21. #71
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    Dude, do you even know who SD is?

    You've completely misinterpreted everything he's said and made up so many strawmen Nic Cage is crapping himself.
    It's because he doesn't want to admit that making it easier for men to encroach into women-only spaces will increase the risk to women. Hence the copious appeals to emotion. Appeals to emotion are all that side have, after all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    The whole "trans laws will make restroom rapes easier to commit" argument has always been so lame to me.
    Which is why I specifically didn't employ it. It's a straw man. I referred only to changing rooms (locker rooms) and refuges.

    I've yet to see a persuasive argument for why women and girls at, for instance, a public swimming pool should be made to undress in front of naked people with dicks. There's not a shred of concern on the trans extremist side for women who would feel uncomfortable about that. How can we allow our womenfolk to be exposed, literally, to that and be comfortable with it? It's absolutely barking mad.

  22. #72
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    No no SD you must mean bathroom rapes.

    Don't you understand?

    DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND YOU STRAIGHT WHITE TERF

  23. #73
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: I think I've been here
    Quote Originally Posted by Nameless Voice View Post
    So, tl;dr #1: "cancel culture" is when people decide that they do not want to support some person or group of people, and often also share their reasoning with others who might be interested.
    Of course it's fine to take your business elsewhere, but if you make public accusations that you cannot back up in a court which damage someone's business or reputation, that is a crime called slander. And you act like you never heard of that because it befits your perspective.

    A lot of people are questioning the good faith of others here. I don't think that's it at all. I think we all mean well. But that isn't enough. There's a lack of thinking things through here to their logical conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nameless Voice View Post
    The second one is a little more complicated, because it's technically hearsay. If one person accuses another of a sex crime, and the second denies it, then people need to make up their own minds as to which party to believe.
    Why would they need to do that? Is acting like a decent person and admitting that you don't know all the facts not an option? Why can you not wait for a court to decide and then accept that decision? As a society, this is exactly why we have courts.

    What pressure is there for random people to make up their own mind about things they know nothing about and that won't change their life a single bit? It seems to me the only need here, is to confirm one's own bias, one way or another.

  24. #74
    El Shagmeister
    Registered: Jul 2000
    Location: Under your fingernails.
    *Scratches beard*

    Boy...the level of entrenchment in this thread would give a WW I soldier the biggest hard-on or send them shaking with PTSD-flashbacks.

    I'm with gloom: this thread sucks.
    Last edited by MrDuck; 8th Jul 2020 at 12:52. Reason: 'Cuz I felt like it.

  25. #75
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    SD,

    I don't see dethy misrepresenting you. You quite literally said that penises are the source of danger.

    Your concern about trans women assaulting cis women in bathrooms or changing rooms is the strawman. I'm not saying it can't happen, but how many cases have you ever heard of? Me - none. It's a made up hypothetical. On the other hand, there are LOTS of cases of trans women being assaulted by men. Now that is an actual problem, and a big contributor to it is homophobic men who don't understand gender assuming that trans women are just crossdressing sissies or straight perverts who want to stalk women in bathroom stalls.

    An even more absurd strawman is saying that "hetero men are called transphobic because they don't want to date a woman with a cock."

    Now you're saying the idea of a woman seeing a dick is barking mad. Are you serious? That's Islamic State thinking.

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •