150 writers, scholars sign letter to cancel cancel culture

Post Reply New Topic

Good luck w this.

We've always had cancel culture in some form or other.

The worst kind is state censorship. Closest we've come to that recently is Section 28 and not letting Adams' voice on the TV and Count Duckula. I agree that the Count Duckula thing was ridiculous.

Second most severe is having big outlets be only place you can get strangers to hear you. Then being banned from them.

We now live in the age of the internet. If someone's cancelled? So what? Someone won't listen to their works. If they're banned off twitter? Go to Perler. Small platform right now but if it was a massive problem on Twitter, it would take off!

I'm prob pretty far left on social stuff & even I listen to some 'cancelled' people. Contrapoints is cancelled. Still like her, still follow her, still watch her videos.

It doesn't do anything except raise awareness of what someone has said or done. Then sensible people make up their own minds, silly people on the far right flock to them and silly people on the far left let the fact they're cancelled determine everything & never listen to 'cancelled' people. But those silly people on both sides? They're a minority.

Pretty much everyone will be 'cancelled' at some point, even though the right don't call it that. Don't like it? Stay apolitical/aphilosophical/never take a position. Most big thinkers can't do that.

Cancelling isn't censorship.

It isn't even denying someone the only platforms where strangers will be able to listen to them.

It's just awareness and disapproval.

Yeah, that is a very skewed representation of Gamergate. Right at about the 7 second mark, the very beginning of what starts Gamergate it mentions that evidence comes up that a game reviewer gave a game favourable coverage because of a relationship he had. Do you know what that evidence was? It was a shitpost by the ex-boyfriend of the game developer who seemed to want to get back at his ex by making up accusations that she slept with the reviewer, as well as several other people, he never gave any actual evidence other than his words. The whole thing started out as an attack on this woman and few others, making claims about their promiscuity in trying to get ahead in the industry. This was the basis of claims about ethics in game journalism.

While indeed there were several claims about problems with game journalism that would be worth getting addressed, large focuses of protests were against women in the industry, amount to harassment. Which meant you had people actually concerned about journalism being used as shields by the very base of the movement largely just wanting to s**t against women. I was in the comment sections during those whole events, especially on YouTube, and although some were warranted criticisms, a good deal were anti-woman stuff that was super gross.

Out of curiosity, who made that video? I somewhat suspect that he was one of the people during Gamer Gate that may have taken part in the targeted harassment and or has incentive to portray it in a certain way. His claims that the anti-gamer gate crowd were saying all gamers were sexist is kind of super skewed, and his claim of fundraising for women as evidence to his side as taking credit by gamers, seems pretty gross since I got a good look first hand at the amount of misogynists that were part of the movement. Acting as if the people criticising a lot of what Gamer Gate was being used for were not gamers themselves.

Contrapoints was an actual example of Cancel Culture run amok, due to the fact a lot of people just presumed her opinion based on a guest she had read a line in her video, and people wrongfully reading into her opinion while talking about an experience she had from a space that required giving pronouns. As opposed to someone like Rowling, she was pretty clear that she held no negative opinions on non-binary people, her history of content certainly said otherwise, and wanted to still pay respect to a trans activist even if he may or may not have had some problematic opinions. That was a case of people trying to cancel her because she would not cancel another.

I can presume that Natalie would not be okay with Rowling spreading her awful beliefs. Although, happened to in a quick search that points that her next video will be on what holding someone accountable means, which makes me wonder if it might be topic relevant.

So: If a group that had smaller membership than the LGB... crusade (making them the minority in this situation) were to cancel LGB... members, you'd have no issue with this? Nice to know.



My mistake, not being a console peasant...The point, however, still stands, that the backlash was due to the demise of a character from the original and being forced to play as the character who was the casue of the demise, despite advertising\promotional materials implying you played as that character from the previous game throughout the new one.




The thing is: How many games require this to be added, compared to those where it has no impact on gameplay/story, and so isn't indicated one way or another, leaving the player to insert\imply as they wish? Maybe the "doom guy" is LGB... The point is that it has no impact on the game\story, so it isn't included. For all we know, 90% of the "neutral" characters are LGB...

As to the rarity of "non binary" choices: What percentage of the potential playerbase (not population) would want that, and why should a developer be required to expend more money on adding to a product (to silence the "whiney woke") when that same group aren't likley to buy the final product? Of course, you could always try a game where you don't play as a person (like "universe sandbox", where you can be "god", or "Heliborne", where you can play as an inanimate object such as an attack helicopter).



I'm just sick of wokescolds whining about being "victims of bullying" while bullying others into following the "cult of woke", or submitting to their demands...but maybe that's how "woke" culture works - antagonise people then claim victimhood. Sadly, much more antagonism, and they lose any support from me.

She was cancelled before that though. For saying she liked it when people presumed pronouns rather than asking her pronouns. As they're generally correct and she likes that she passes. This was seen as transphobic to non-binary and non-passing trans people.

I think it's a silly reason to cancel her, it's her own preference and plenty of cis people can live their whole lives without being asked. All she really said was 'would you be doing this if I wasn't here?'

So I carry on listening to her.

JKR on the other hand is clearly transphobic, has been long before the latest controversy & people need to be aware of it. If anything, it saves time following her for her to repeat the cycle over and over.

Terfs who aren't religious types are still free to follow her.

Religious types would have a problem with her as she was (incorrectly in my view) cancelled in the 90s for 'promoting magic' .

If they were causing harm to the minority. And indeed I do, with the example of the T wing of LGBT, against a group known as the LGB alliance, which is an anti-trans group made up of lesbians, gays and bisexuals that do not like transgender people or their cause. The LGB Alliance use their platform as a minority group not for further the rights of LGB(T) but to mostly attack the rights of trans people. It is why I am a little uncomfortable with you only using "LGB", since leaving the "T" out has a bit of history now in being anti-trans.




Hey, all gamers are valid, let's not have any elitism here. I don't remember any material implying that one would play as Joel, and the backlash was increased when people wrongfully thought that Abby was transgender. You yourself seemed to be under the incorrect assumption that she was a lesbian. Can we really trust your information on the whole thing?




I agree that any character where it is not stated could mean a character could conceivably be LGBT. There are things like Fallout 4 puts no restrictions on what gender romanceable companions could enter a relationship with, so everyone is conceivably bi. Although I honestly have a special place for Arcade and Veronica from New Vegas who are specifically gay and lesbian respectfully, rather than feeling a little inauthentic that absolutely everyone is bi. As I do with Sera and Dorian from Dragon Age Inquisition being lesbian and gay.

But let's also be real that a lot of people also end up upset when LGBT people read queerness into what straight cis people presume are also straight cis, since that is often considered the standard. People get really upset if people theorise that Madeline from Celeste might be a trans girl, or Frisk from Undertale is nonbinary. I am sure a lot of people got upset at the idea of She-Ra being a lesbian.




I am not saying game companies should be forced include things, but that it could be nice for some options, maybe just some changes of being called they/them and other gender androgynos options, since a lot of character customisation can be difficult to get there. I am really looking forward to Cyberpunk 2077 that promises to remove the gender divide in character customisation so that the player can pick and choose the parts of gender they want. It is noticeable in something like Skyrim where clothes are different depending on the gender of the character wearing it. New Horizons has been good for never even having a choose gender in favor of styles and no negative comments on mixing gendered items.




Wokescolds can be a bit of a problem, when they bully people because of perceived problems. But I also think that it is fair to say that a lot of LGBT people do find themselves the victims of bullying, the mere fact that characters like them get included in things like culture is treated as something political, where concerned mothers complain about the influence on their children while not caring at all by hetero characters.

May I ask what the "cult of woke" is? How is there unwarranted bullying? Are they being more antagonistic than the people calling them disgusting and freaks?

I believe that it was actually a comment she made that being in a space where she had to give pronouns, a space opened up for non-binary people, activated her dysphoria a bit in that hers were not presumed. She admitted that it was a small inconvenience over all to the benefit it gives those who benefit from the environment, but also it should be fair that her feelings be considered even if it was not a call to change that environment, which it was not.

The controversy happened as I was coming into my acknowledgment as non-binary, which I looked up how other people were taking it and noted that I could see people reading too far into things. There was a particular NB YouTuber I liked on the matter called Luxander, who after Natalie explained herself they did like a literal 10 second video calling their opinion that Natalie was in their eyes free from being accused of being a Truscum since the accusations were pretty baseless.

She is still around so not everyone cancelled her. I am with her on pronouns. It would look silly if everyone went around asking for pronouns when its obvious 99.99999% of the time. Hopefilly this thought isn't common among trans people.

If their known pronouns are so important and they would rather try to not look it, wear a sign or get a custom tag with your pronoun.

The world is too divided for universal cancelation.

No, it's not that simple. What you are failing to grasp is that the cancel culture has gone off the rails, batshit crazy. Not all targets are bigots.

Here's a perfect example: A couple of years ago, somebody posted a still from 'A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving' on Twitter. It showed the character Franklin, a person of color, sitting by himself on one side of the table where the Peanuts cherubs where about to enjoy a Thanksgiving feast. People went ape s**t, declaring Charles Schultz was a racist, who approved of segregation. Nuts!

The real racists were the heads of the network, who didn't even want black character in the show. Schultz said he wouldn't do it unless Franklin was included.

Your above quote reminds me of the the post 9/11 US, just after they passed the Patriot Act. I remember right wingers telling liberals opposed the legislation, that "If you don't have anything to hide, then why worry?"

Kind of a stupid argument, isn't it?

So a real racism happened, Charles Schultz just needed to point to the real racists that were behind the decision that left what I am guessing was a half way compromise.

This sounds a little familiar to how there has been some talk about including LGBT characters in cartoons even for kids, that there was a some annoyance that it would end up relegated to the last episode rather than given the representation it deserved during the run, like In The Legend of Korra and I think Gravity Falls. Some interviews with creators has revealed that it was not their decision to only do so in the last episode, but that they had to fight to include it at all against the executive's wishes. There was Steven Universe that has had some controversy around how it ended, and interviews have revealed that it was partially because the executives warned them that if they included the LGBT themes that they wanted there was a strong likelihood that international sources of funds would drop out and they would not be able to fully finish their vision, but they stuck to their morals in doing it anyway.

At least my little insight has revealed that open dialogues from creators has revealed that all of these little half steps of fighting against network or company executives telling them not to include gay stuff has led to how something like She-Ra and the Princesses of Power able to be as gay as it was. And that only happens when creators can make it known that they fought for what was.

The issue is that the "whiney woke" in this case would cancel Mr Schultz without any chance to explain, leaping to judgement based on minimal facts (as presented from one side) and ignoring any evidence he may attempt to present, in order to assert their "superiority", when it only shows a lack of intelectual capacity and no capacity for critical thinking.

I will say this, though, "cancel culture" (aloing with the "whiney woke" cult in general) is certainly leading me to the opinion that "if it isn't woke, don't 'fix' it".

Kind of feels like you are building a strawman, which I won't say does not exist at all, but I think in general is a relative minority compared to most who would take a stand against apparent racism. And now there are plenty of ways to be able to release a statement that if done authentically can deflect criticism.

I don't think that the majority of those that cancel are themselves the unreasonable kind. It is why I would say that the Left can be its own worst enemy where that minority that is unreasonable has a larger impact as a bigger percentage and accusations that the Left finds more alarming. I think someone like ProJared would have been more fine it he was part of a culture that was more blasé certain behaviours, that were totally untrue.

I think that you have a bit of a twisted idea of those that cancel that they have necessarily have a lack of ability for critical thinking and just want to virtue signal some idea of superiority. Lots of people on the Right excuse all of Donald Trump's problematic characteristics because they lack critical thinking abilities.

Should note - the “LGB Alliance” has a very dodgy record on gay rights, including criticising the availability of AIDS treatment, LGBT clubs in schools, and drag queens.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/04/03/l ... ommission/


I think the more pertinent point is that the journalist she slept with (and I believe she admits sleeping with him) never actually reviewed her game. He made one passing reference to it being nominated for an award in an article he wrote months earlier.

GamerGate was founded on lies and never amounted to anything more than an attempt by some angry misogynistic fans to push women out of the industry. One would have to be very gullible to swallow the other excuses.

This is not a contest. The left doesn't get to do bad things because the right once did. The left's is much more vicious in the social media age as well.

We're going to disagree on everything here, so let's keep it to the mechanics. This isn't the same at all. This "right cancelling" only takes the form of trying to encourage people to vote with their wallets. Though I'll accept it can produce harassment too. But they're not trying to get people ripped off social media, games ripped off shelves, harassing investors and sponsors to withdraw support, shut down fundraisers, paint people as "ists" or get people fired from their jobs.

I will actually fix if you opinion is just that the Right's version of canceling is just voting with wallet, because actually it is much more nefarious. In fact, it is acts like terrorism that come from the Right's idea of canceling "the enemy". It is some guy going to a mosque to shoot it up, some white supremacists lynching a couple black men, it is barely stopping short from calling people to arms if they infringe on "muh freedom", It is Alex Jones accusing people of being actual demons, it is the sort of harassment that you have to look up someone like Anita Sarkeesian to see the sort of personal attacks that can be levied because she dared criticised bits of game culture.

The Left might band together to shut down someone from saying bad things on social media, the Right is far more likely to have some guy go out with a gun and threaten to kill them, if not just a show that they can by creating an effigy that they shoot instead. Just look at the sort of thing where Right wingers were destroying Nike shoes or blowing up coffee makers after they pulled sponsorship from a conservative show that said racist things. Do you think the Left do those sorts of actual violent thing that the Left does?