International Skeptics Forum
Page 58 of 64 « First  <  8 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64  > 
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Continuation Cancel culture IRL Part 2 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=354396)

johnny karate 3rd February 2023 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 14001142)
Do you think it's okay to try to get people fired for *checks notes* doing their job?
I'm not sure why you think asking for my opinion is a valid response to being asked to explain yours. On its face, it seems to be nothing more than a dodge.

johnny karate 3rd February 2023 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 14001235)
He asked for an "objective basis" for calling something "wrong." Would you rather call that metaethics?
I'd call it "asking someone to provide a rational basis for their opinion". Calling something "unfair" or "immoral" is easy. Ignorant and dishonest people do it all the time. Providing a rationale for those claims seems to be a little more difficult.

johnny karate 3rd February 2023 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 14001277)
Well, here's something that I'm hard pressed to find anything "good" about, in any school of ethics philosophy: recently one of the biggest names in streaming in Germany caused an internet $#°& storm from the local chapter of the wailing woke wankers (yeah, it's spreading like disease outside of the USA too), like he was personally murdering the trans or something. Try to guess what heinous statement he made to cause that reaction.

Actually all he said was that he's not interested in J. K. Rowling either way, he just plays games. That's it. He just didn't want his channel to be about the political posturing around Hogwarts Legacy. Note that he wasn't even streaming playing it or anything, since it's not out yet. Just didn't want that flame war on his channel.

So... yeah... while it's fun to pretend it only happens to actual nazis or whatnot, we've apparently moved well past that point. Nowadays even just not being actively on their side is enough to get the brainless braying buffoon brigade to do their thing. You don't even have to be actively against them. Just not being on their side already makes you the enemy.

I'm sorry, but this is just about as much about either "morality" or "accountability" as it was when the brown shirts were doing the same schtick more up-close and personal in the 30's. Because yeah, THAT was the last time around here that a political side tried to use the mob and intimidation to silence everyone else. The only difference is that now everyone can do it on the internet, from the safety of their mom's basement.


And yes, I know, freedom of speech, people just expressing their opinion, can't stop them, etc. Sure, but then it goes both ways. I'm also free to have a very low opinion of them.

At this point, let's just say, if an flat-earther in a MAGA hat and one of these 'woke' activists were drowning and I couldn't save more than one... well, I'd probably let them both drown. But if I HAD to, I'd probably save the former. Those seem to be actually less likely to try to ruin your life for just not taking either side. If you told one of those "dude, the only planet whose shape I'm interested in is Azeroth, and the only immigration I deal with is Night Elves running straight to Stormwind like someone made an Islamic state in their own country :p" (the World Of Warcraft) they wouldn't take it as your being some kind of short-stache goose-stepping card-carrying literal nazi to save the world from.
I always find these source-free, dramatized accounts told with an obvious bias so informative.

johnny karate 3rd February 2023 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 14001409)
:rolleyes: Yep. People saying you should be fired for doing a bad thing on the job are just like the Nazis and the Taliban!
And also the Inquisition and McCarthyism and probably the bubonic plague.

catsmate 3rd February 2023 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stout (Post 14000135)
Whoa! A typo! Good catch, I feel duly chastised and embarrassed. While we're on the topic of corrections Staddon was talking about biological sex, actual real world facts on the ground stuff, not this feelz before reelz gender stuff some people are so enamored with.
:rolleyes:

HansMustermann 3rd February 2023 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 14001564)
I always find these source-free, dramatized accounts told with an obvious bias so informative.
Considering that I gave sources, quotes and translations in message #2839... yeah, keep telling yourself it's just some fake news, by someone with an obvious bias. We wouldn't want reality leaking intp your echo chamber, would we? Reality is complex and depressing after all. Loser puppies only listening to and getting their validation from other puppies reassuring each other that, verily, the postman is some evil monster and they saved the world by barking at him, is much more of a comforting delusion, isn't it? :p

HansMustermann 3rd February 2023 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 14001566)
And also the Inquisition and McCarthyism and probably the bubonic plague.
Ya know, I'm not even against a bit of snark AFTER you've properly made and supported your point. Not INSTEAD of. It just being a comfort blanket to dismiss everything that challenges your rationalizations and generally avoid using your brain is still, at the end of the brain, exactly the kind of not using your brain that is my problem in the first place :p

Stout 3rd February 2023 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 14001277)
Well, here's something that I'm hard pressed to find anything "good" about, in any school of ethics philosophy: recently one of the biggest names in streaming in Germany caused an internet $#°& storm from the local chapter of the wailing woke wankers (yeah, it's spreading like disease outside of the USA too), like he was personally murdering the trans or something. Try to guess what heinous statement he made to cause that reaction.

Actually all he said was that he's not interested in J. K. Rowling either way, he just plays games. That's it. He just didn't want his channel to be about the political posturing around Hogwarts Legacy. Note that he wasn't even streaming playing it or anything, since it's not out yet. Just didn't want that flame war on his channel.
Gronkh should have known that trying to remain neutral would bring the full force of the tranninsh inquisition down on him. He couldn't have not known. I knew it and I don't even play games. The whole trans thing revolves around that thought terminating cliché...you are either with us, or against us. There's been all sorts of weirdness around this game as the woke try to reconcile their desire to remain in the Potter universe by playing this game with justifications like only play a pirated copy, or play it, but don't talk about it. It's rather hilarious like buying those Potter books from that Toronto bookseller who rebinds copies of the book with Rowling's name removed.

I suppose a streamer could hate play it, make all sorts of anti-Rowling comments while whifflpilfering the wafflesnuffers, or whatever you do in that game but we've seen enough examples to prove that cancel culture, like cancer, can be beaten.

HansMustermann 3rd February 2023 05:54 PM
Well, sure. Sorta in the same way it would have been obvious to everyone that saying you're not converting to the Islam would get a bunch of the Islamists butthurt.

Still sad to see it play out though. I mean, compare the two:

1. Islamists march with signs asking to behead some guy who was disagreeing with them. A whole bunch of imams and whatnot, don't just pay lip respect to "no, see, it's actually a religion of peace", but actually condemn it.

And not just some lukewarm secular guys living in America. There were actually respected Islamic scholars in Egypt and whatnot condemning, say, the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, and saying that's not the intended use of a fatwa. Or looking for Quran-conform loopholes to allow women to work, when the Taliban deny that. Like, actually saying, effectively, "no, those guys are wrong. Don't be like them. It's not supposed to work that way."

2. Some "woke" folks march with signs asking to behead feminists, or even just trying to cancel anyone who's just bought a flippin' video game that's six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon associated with one, and... the other "woke" gang just handwaves that, yeah, that doesn't count, those were just... going after the wrong targets. But otherwise trying to scare anyone who disagrees into submission is apparently still good. It's "culture of accountability", yo! (Accountability to the screaming mob, that is.)

It's like watching a muslim condemning the attack on Salman Rushdie because... you should ask for the death of the guy who burned a Quran in Sweden instead. Focus on the priority targets, yo! Not exactly convincing that it's not an extremist anti-democratic movement, is all I'm saying.

tyr_13 3rd February 2023 07:21 PM
The staggering lack of self-awareness, and overwhelming sense of entitlement it stems from, in the anti-woke is never not hilarious. Case in point...

Quote:
Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 14001413)
The NORMAL way things are supposed to run in a democracy and rule of the law setup is: if you don't like something, you write your congressperson/mp/whatever to change the law. Not the least so anyone can know in advance if they're allowed to do something or not. Trying to replace that with whatever one particular mob is braying against at the moment, is just not it.
Utterly bankrupt comparisons to the Nazis aside, this line of reasoning would mean that you're writing your congressperson to the law changed to stop people from being 'cancelled', right? Not that I support the idea that people should be legally limited in their ability to advocate that others not support a product or personality, but by your argument that's what you'd need to do.

If, you know, you applied the same standards to your own words and actions as you do to the evil 'woke nazis'. You don't because you feel entitled to the same powers you deride others for exercising. It isn't the actions you are opposed to, it's who is doing them and what they target. It's exactly that you disagree with them that you think they shouldn't have the same recourse you do. You're doing what they are, but your arguments shouldn't apply to you?

There really isn't any way around how laughably hypocritical your suggestions are and anything to the contrary are unambiguously,

Quote:
delusional rationalizations

d4m10n 3rd February 2023 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 14001562)
I'd call it "asking someone to provide a rational basis for their opinion". Calling something "unfair" or "immoral" is easy. Ignorant and dishonest people do it all the time. Providing a rationale for those claims seems to be a little more difficult.
I'd say the burden of providing a rationale should be upon those who earnestly hope to put someone else out of work in a nation without a robust social safety net.

You do you, though.

d4m10n 3rd February 2023 09:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 14001459)
Well, at least this guy thinks firing someone who shouldn't have been fired was a mistake.
Any and all mistakes are firing offenses, got it.

Totally not cancel culture.

d4m10n 3rd February 2023 10:04 PM
In late breaking cancellation news, a couple more of my fav podcasts are on the chopping block.

https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenArgs/co...andrew_torrez/

smartcooky 3rd February 2023 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 14001847)
In late breaking cancellation news, a couple more of my fav podcasts are on the chopping block.

https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenArgs/co...andrew_torrez/
Interesting....the statement in the link is an image, not text (usually, this is highly suspicious) and there is no link back to the source statement (even more suspicious) MSW Media's website makes no mention of this, and still has him listed alongside Alison Gill.

https://mswmedia.com/show/clean-up-on-aisle-45/


Oh, and Torrez' podcasts "Opening Arguments" and "Clean up on Aisle 45" are both still listed in their show ticker.

That's a bit strange considering they were "...severing ties EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY" two days ago!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f9zojnqwp0...1%29.png?raw=1



NOTE: Not saying you're wrong, its just that I do not regard Reddit, Twitter, Facebook or any social media places inhabited mostly by morons, to be news sources. I do NOT believe anything I read there unless or until it is second-sourced by a real news source.

johnny karate 4th February 2023 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 14001688)
Considering that I gave sources, quotes and translations in message #2839... yeah, keep telling yourself it's just some fake news, by someone with an obvious bias. We wouldn't want reality leaking intp your echo chamber, would we? Reality is complex and depressing after all. Loser puppies only listening to and getting their validation from other puppies reassuring each other that, verily, the postman is some evil monster and they saved the world by barking at him, is much more of a comforting delusion, isn't it? :p
There were no sources in the post to which I was responding, and you only provided a source after you were prompted by another poster. By then, I had lost interest. If your starting point is a sensationalized, biased account, I don't have a lot of confidence in the reliability of the underlying claims. People with strong arguments tend to open with a strong argument.

johnny karate 4th February 2023 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 14001729)
Ya know, I'm not even against a bit of snark AFTER you've properly made and supported your point. Not INSTEAD of. It just being a comfort blanket to dismiss everything that challenges your rationalizations and generally avoid using your brain is still, at the end of the brain, exactly the kind of not using your brain that is my problem in the first place :p
That's terrific. In the meantime, I will continue to dismiss claims presented in a biased, anecdotal form, and feel perfectly comfortable doing so.

johnny karate 4th February 2023 11:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 14001838)
I'd say the burden of providing a rationale should be upon those who earnestly hope to put someone else out of work in a nation without a robust social safety net.

You do you, though.
Considering that you champion millionaire MMA fighters who lose acting gigs due to their own behavior and ignore the plight of thousands of teachers in Florida having their academic freedom and careers threatened, your self-righteous "worker's rights" stance rings laughably hollow.

johnny karate 4th February 2023 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 14001839)
Any and all mistakes are firing offenses, got it.

Totally not cancel culture.
Or... and hear me out here... some are and some aren't, and private organizations should be allowed to make those decisions within the law.

If you think that employee legal protections should be strengthened, you won't get any argument from me. But since the people you choose to present as examples of "cancel culture" are rarely, if ever, members of the down-trodden working class, your claim to such a postion doesn't pass the sniff test.

johnny karate 4th February 2023 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 14001847)
In late breaking cancellation news, a couple more of my fav podcasts are on the chopping block.

https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenArgs/co...andrew_torrez/
My instinct is to laugh at this, but maybe we should be concerned. If we don't take a stand to protect our podcasts, our iced mocha frappuccinos could be next.

HansMustermann 4th February 2023 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 14001806)
Utterly bankrupt comparisons to the Nazis aside, this line of reasoning would mean that you're writing your congressperson to the law changed to stop people from being 'cancelled', right? Not that I support the idea that people should be legally limited in their ability to advocate that others not support a product or personality, but by your argument that's what you'd need to do.

If, you know, you applied the same standards to your own words and actions as you do to the evil 'woke nazis'. You don't because you feel entitled to the same powers you deride others for exercising. It isn't the actions you are opposed to, it's who is doing them and what they target. It's exactly that you disagree with them that you think they shouldn't have the same recourse you do. You're doing what they are, but your arguments shouldn't apply to you?

There really isn't any way around how laughably hypocritical your suggestions are and anything to the contrary are unambiguously,
That's just about the most stupid thing I've read on this board, and that's including Emre's apologetics and Pixie Of Key's pseudoscience.

Really? If some cretins use mob intimidation tactics, it's somehow MY fault if I don't stop them? Like, if someone tries to bypass freedom of speech and freedom of the press, it's MY fault if I don't also try to subvert basic human rights? That actually makes any sense to you? Doesn't strike you as on par with claiming that someone can't be against, say, murder without also personally resorting to murder? REALLY?

Oh wait, of course it does to the kind of guy trying to fit in with the loudest barking gang, and getting their validation from barking together with the popular pack of clueless puppies. That's how cognitive dissonance works, right? It can't be your fault for arguing for online bullying, it's whoever fails to stop that bullying that are in the wrong, right? :P

Not entirely surprising, given your posting history, mind you :p

HansMustermann 4th February 2023 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 14002071)
That's terrific. In the meantime, I will continue to dismiss claims presented in a biased, anecdotal form, and feel perfectly comfortable doing so.
... claims which, just to make it clear, were supported with actual evidence, including actual links and translations. But hey, if wilful ignorance works for the religious apologists, it must work for you too, right? No need to actually address reality, when you could just deny that it exists, amirite? Just go back to your own imaginary "reality", any you can be back at imagining you're the good guy, amirite? I mean, it may not have worked for literally a hundred religious apologists, but surely it must work for YOU about your own delusions, just because it's YOU, amirite? :p

HansMustermann 4th February 2023 03:49 PM
Also, just to clarify, in case it wasn't clear: the issue isn't whether or not they cancel Gronkh. Yeah, the one they're trying to cancel in Rowling. The problem is that by now it spills into harassing other people and trying to bully them into submission for as little as not actively taking the brainless braying brigade's side. It spilled well out of whether you're pro- or anti-trans, and generally WAY out of having anything to do with accountability for what you've actually said or done and whatnot. It spilled well out of even the association fallacy of whether you defend someone associated with either side. It's up to just being the enemy if you're not actively for them.

And THAT is what I find to be WAY out of line, and not "good" in any ethics system.

Any objections to THAT idea?

smartcooky 4th February 2023 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 14002260)
That's just about the most stupid thing I've read on this board, and that's including Emre's apologetics and Pixie Of Key's pseudoscience.
Actually, I find tyr's comments both intelligent and erudite. Your calling people who object to others' repugnant behaviour "Nazis", on the other hand, IS just about the most stupid thing have I read on this board.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 14002260)
Really? If some cretins use mob intimidation tactics, it's somehow MY fault if I don't stop them? That actually makes any sense to you?
You're mistaking public pressure campaigns to bring accountability to those who exhibit bigoted behaviour "mob intimidation tactics" ? Seriously?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 14002263)
... claims which, just to make it clear, were supported with actual evidence, including actual links and translations.
Just to make it clear, the post to which johnny was referring - this one...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2837

...was nothing more that a biased rant, full of anecdotal BS and NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

- NO quotes
- NO links
- NO sources

HansMustermann 4th February 2023 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 14002287)
You're mistaking public pressure campaigns to bring accountability to those who exhibit bigoted behaviour "mob intimidation tactics" ? Seriously?
Just to make it clear, the "accountability" and "bigotted behaviour" in this case was just refusing to take a side. That's it.

So to quote you: "Seriously?"

That's what you see as just bringing accountability to/from? Just being neutral about your pet peeve? Not even taking the opposite side, not even the degrees-of-association defending someone on the other side, just refusing to take any side is what you'd hold someone accountable for? THAT is what you'd see as justifiable reason to try to ruin someone's life over? And you genuinely don't see how that's mob intimidation tactics? REALLY? Cognitive dissonance that bad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 14002287)
Just to make it clear, the post to which johnny was referring - this one...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2837

...was nothing more that a biased rant, full of anecdotal BS and NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

- NO quotes
- NO links
- NO sources
Just to make it clear, message #2839, a mere 2 messages later and on the same page, did include those.

So you're saying, what? That one can ignore everything else, even messages on the same page, if that's what it takes for one's cognitive dissonance to work? Like, what, that Pixie Of Key is right, if it took all of 2 messages for one to post an actual GR link? THAT kind of justification? :p

smartcooky 4th February 2023 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 14002297)
Just to make it clear, the "accountability" and "bigotted behaviour" in this case was just refusing to take a side. That's it.

That's what you see as just bringing accountability to/from? Just being neutral about your pet peeve? Not even taking the opposite side, not even the degrees-of-association defending someone on the other side, just refusing to take any side is what you'd hold someone accountable for? THAT is what you'd see as justifiable reason to try to ruin someone's life over? And you genuinely don't see how that's mob intimidation tactics? REALLY? Cognitive dissonance that bad?
Oh, did someone here or at Hamline University "refuse to take a side and got cancelled for doing so"?... because its Hamline University, and incidents like it that we are talking about at this time. If you want to rant about JK Rowling and World of Warcraft, go make your own thread about it, and stop trying to derail this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 14002297)
Just to make it clear, message #2839, a mere 2 messages later and on the same page, did include those.
Too late by then.

HansMustermann 4th February 2023 04:48 PM
Right. So scrolling down 2 messages on the same page, plus like literally the first answer to someone asking for evidence, plus it was BEFORE he wrote his message, is too late for you, justifying your cognitive dissonance dismissing it and pretending it's just some unsupported rant? Like, not actually being unsupported, just taking a whole 2 messages for the actual support? Like, if a GR link was posted a whole 2 messages after someone said Pixie Of Key was wrong, it no longer counts? So to quote myself: Cognitive dissonance that bad?

Because that's not about skepticism or anything. At that point you're just chasing your tail about why it's acceptable to ignore actual evidence, if it lets you keep your silly preconceptions. Like, yeah, there was evidence, but not in the FIRST message, so it doesn't count for you. THAT nonsensical.

tyr_13 4th February 2023 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 14002260)
That's just about the most stupid thing I've read on this board, and that's including Emre's apologetics and Pixie Of Key's pseudoscience.
Taken as a compliment; you're not a reasonable commentator on this topic.

Quote:
Really? If some cretins use mob intimidation tactics, it's somehow MY fault if I don't stop them? Like, if someone tries to bypass freedom of speech and freedom of the press, it's MY fault if I don't also try to subvert basic human rights? That actually makes any sense to you? Doesn't strike you as on par with claiming that someone can't be against, say, murder without also personally resorting to murder? REALLY?
You calling them 'mob intimidation tactics' and 'bullying' is meaningless when they are not those things. Your argument was that people should get the laws changed so everyone would know 'what is allowed' before *checks again* they could use their freedom of speech to try to convince others to not support a product or personality.

But you're also using your freedom of speech to try to convince others not to support the personalities arguing that others shouldn't support a product. Your argument applies to you.

You're either unwilling or incapable of applying your own reason to yourself and your in group because you feel so entitled to it that you think their free speech is Nazi tactics that should require a change in law to engage in while yours is akin to refusing to murder.

Quote:
Oh wait, of course it does to the kind of guy trying to fit in with the loudest barking gang, and getting their validation from barking together with the popular pack of clueless puppies. That's how cognitive dissonance works, right? It can't be your fault for arguing for online bullying, it's whoever fails to stop that bullying that are in the wrong, right? :P

Not entirely surprising, given your posting history, mind you :p
You're the one so offended that people point out the implications of using some products that you think they shouldn't do that without changing the damn laws. Hel's bells, it's hard to be more of a crybully than that. Your personalization is returned in kind; you're being performative and your reasoning is clearly motivated by feeling bad people think poorly of you online. Really, being called immoral online needs new laws to be allowed and it's me trying to 'fit in'?

You really, truly, just hate people being able to voice disagreement with you that much. Grow up. Your attempt at bullying is as weak as it is hypocritical considering the subject.

smartcooky 4th February 2023 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 14002349)
You really, truly, just hate people being able to voice disagreement with you that much. Grow up. Your attempt at bullying is as weak as it is hypocritical considering the subject.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kofbct3kd0...ayne.gif?raw=1

johnny karate 5th February 2023 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 14002263)
... claims which, just to make it clear, were supported with actual evidence, including actual links and translations. But hey, if wilful ignorance works for the religious apologists, it must work for you too, right? No need to actually address reality, when you could just deny that it exists, amirite? Just go back to your own imaginary "reality", any you can be back at imagining you're the good guy, amirite? I mean, it may not have worked for literally a hundred religious apologists, but surely it must work for YOU about your own delusions, just because it's YOU, amirite? :p
What’s funny is that I haven’t disputed or denied any of your claims. I’ve just ignored them because of how poorly they were presented.

And for some reason, this really upsets you.

smartcooky 5th February 2023 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 14002634)
What’s funny is that I haven’t disputed or denied any of your claims. I’ve just ignored them because of how poorly they were presented.

And for some reason, this really upsets you.
See tyr_13's post #2877... especially the last line!

Stout 5th February 2023 04:12 PM
Oh crap. Despite all the "harm" it's supposed to cause the attempted cancellation of Hogwart's Legacy appears to have faltered, sputtered, died by the side of the road, and hauled off to be crushed.

Forbes

wareyin 6th February 2023 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 14001839)
Any and all mistakes are firing offenses, got it.

Totally not cancel culture.
Even by your normal standards, that was a hilariously bad bait and switch. You asked how the thing you yourself said was a mistake could have possibly been a bad look, I pointed out how you had tripped over your own argument, and you jumped to this strawman of my arguments that <spoiler> already applies to everyone not in your ivory tower anyway.

As already pointed out, if you wish to argue that worker protections should be strengthened, or the social safety net, we agree. But when your only concerns are for the already protected people well off enough that they don't need a safety net, it gets obvious that the safety net or worker protections are not your real concerns.

wareyin 6th February 2023 06:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stout (Post 14002787)
Oh crap. Despite all the "harm" it's supposed to cause the attempted cancellation of Hogwart's Legacy appears to have faltered, sputtered, died by the side of the road, and hauled off to be crushed.

Forbes
Oh noes, another cancellation that wasn't. This continued braying of examples that disprove your belief in cancel culture while being apparently oblivious to how they do so continues to amuse.

wareyin 6th February 2023 06:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansMustermann (Post 14001324)
Not entirely sure what Google shows over there, tbh.

Though I'm now also not sure what would you define as "cancel culture." At the end of the day that's what it boils down to: some numpties are whining about how X is a horrible person because he/she/it disagrees with them. Or as in this case just isn't interested in validating their pet peeve. Usually without any kind of success when it comes to cancelling them (especially when it comes to a self-employed streamer, WHO would fire him?:p) But just because a bully isn't actually successful in silencing someone, doesn't mean that the intent wasn't there.
As someone who has been in this thread whining about how people who dislike what you like are horrible people/the Taliban/literal Nazis, you might want to look in the mirror.

Stout 6th February 2023 08:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 14002968)
Oh noes, another cancellation that wasn't. This continued braying of examples that disprove your belief in cancel culture while being apparently oblivious to how they do so continues to amuse.
Agreed, it is highly amusing watching the attempted cancellation of the Harry Potter series getting kicked squarely in the gonads by the boot of public opinion yet again. After the runaway success of my first novel Harry Potter vs the Pissed Off Christians, keep your eyes peeled for my forthcoming follow up work Harry Potter vs the Pissed Off Trannies.

wareyin 6th February 2023 08:58 AM
As even one of the most fervent believers in "cancel culture" now agrees that his own examples disprove his claims, I maintain hope that other reactionaries will stop whining about their privileged icons ever possibly facing watered down consequences of their own choices. Or the 'podcasts should be made forever even if those making them no longer want to do it' thing.

But I'm not going to hold my breath.

johnny karate 6th February 2023 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stout (Post 14003023)
Agreed, it is highly amusing watching the attempted cancellation of the Harry Potter series getting kicked squarely in the gonads by the boot of public opinion yet again. After the runaway success of my first novel Harry Potter vs the Pissed Off Christians, keep your eyes peeled for my forthcoming follow up work Harry Potter vs the Pissed Off Trannies.
Thank you for once again confirming that, for the most part, the system works and there is nothing problematic happening on a significant enough level to call it a “culture”.

smartcooky 10th February 2023 01:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 14001847)
In late breaking cancellation news, a couple more of my fav podcasts are on the chopping block.

https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenArgs/co...andrew_torrez/
So "Opening Arguments" was for the chopping block, and Andrew Torrez was "cancelled" by MSW Media...

Coulda fooled me...

https://openargs.com/oa688-oh-no-the-privilege-is-mine/

So much for cancel culture eh d4m10n

d4m10n 10th February 2023 09:03 AM
1 Attachment(s)
He was indeed cancelled from his co-hosting role at MSW, to be replaced soon. The replacement pick is experienced and erudite, so this might not be so bad.

I stand corrected on whether the Opening Arguments podcast will go on...for now. There is at least some reason to believe it will have to rebuild from scratch given a very sharp decline in financial support.

ETA:

wareyin 10th February 2023 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 14006080)
He was indeed cancelled from his co-hosting role at MSW, to be replaced soon. The replacement pick is experienced and erudite, so this might not be so bad.

I stand corrected on whether the Opening Arguments podcast will go on...for now. There is at least some reason to believe it will have to rebuild from scratch given a very sharp decline in financial support.

ETA:
OMG, people are no longer giving money to the podcast you like? How very dare they! Why, there should be a law forcing people to pay for what d4m10n likes! Otherwise it's cancel culture!

d4m10n 10th February 2023 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 14006105)
Why, there should be a law forcing people to pay for what d4m10n likes!
Every time you pull out this trope I ask you the same question: Who said anything about lawmaking?

wareyin 10th February 2023 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 14006116)
Every time you pull out this trope I ask you the same question: Who said anything about lawmaking?
Ok. What is your proposal to force people to pay for the content you like when they no longer wish to pay for it?

d4m10n 10th February 2023 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 14006123)
What is your proposal to force people to pay for the content you like when they no longer wish to pay for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13834712)
Who threatened to use force?
Seems we're stuck in a do loop. :boxedin:

wareyin 10th February 2023 10:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 14006159)
Seems we're stuck in a do loop. :boxedin:
Yep. The one where you pretend force has only one meaning while you whine that people not paying for content they don't want is "cancel culture".

d4m10n 10th February 2023 10:26 AM
Here (once again) is the definition of cancel culture:
Quote:
Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.
People are demonstrably withdrawing support from the show, after the main host did and/or said something objectionable or offensive.

wareyin 10th February 2023 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 14006166)
Here (once again) is the definition of cancel culture:
People are demonstrably withdrawing support from the show, after the main host did and/or said something objectionable or offensive.
And to fix this, d4m10n proposes...?

You want people to be compelled in some way to continue to support what you like. Here's a better idea: why don't you complain about the main host doing the bad thing that drove away his supporters, rather than complaining that people don't like it when someone does a bad thing.

d4m10n 10th February 2023 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 14006171)
You want people to be compelled in some way to continue to support what you like.
What have I ever written that gave you this idea?


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Darat 10th February 2023 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 14006166)
Here (once again) is the definition of cancel culture:
People are demonstrably withdrawing support from the show, after the main host did and/or said something objectionable or offensive.
That’s called boycotting - a term in use since the 19th century - Interesting etymology: “the name of Captain Charles C. Boycott (1832–97), an Irish land agent so treated in 1880, in an attempt instigated by the Irish Land League to get rents reduced…”

JoeMorgue 10th February 2023 11:12 AM
Yeah. It's giving something that always been a thing a new, scary name when its used against you. We established 73 pages ago and nobody has argued differently.

wareyin 10th February 2023 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 14006205)
What have I ever written that gave you this idea?


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
Pretty much every time you complain that your preferred content isn't making enough money and that's Cancel culture ooooooh.

Let's circle back to my suggestion that you snipped for some (totally obvious) reason: Why don't you complain about the hosts of your shows doing the bad things, rather than the fact that people don't want to pay for the bad things they don't like?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:16 AM.
Page 58 of 64 « First  <  8 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64  > 
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.