|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jan 21, 2021 18:26:58 GMT -5
Everyone is coming across as hostile and combative I hope I'm not, because “having a casual conversation” and “being interested in both getting movie trivia and hearing out his opinion” was what I was actually looking for. |
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jan 21, 2021 18:27:54 GMT -5
So the Terry Pratchett discussion was not about him getting cancelled but rather about him doing something controversial and then not getting canceled? The Terry Pratchett discussion was indeed about him doing something controversial. Period. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jan 21, 2021 18:30:31 GMT -5
Everyone is coming across as hostile and combative I hope I'm not, because “having a casual conversation” and “being interested in both getting movie trivia and hearing out his opinion” was what I was actually looking for. It depends on how Baron reads it I guess. I'm a bit fired up, but I'm not trying to offend him. I don't even entirely disagree that there can be excesses, what I disagree with is him seemingly making it a binary choice and it being bad otherwise, i.e. you either tackle the entire industry at once or you do nothing (like call for removal of problematic directors/actors/etc). |
|
|
|
Post by bobtheinquisitor on Jan 21, 2021 18:32:05 GMT -5
I’m hostile because Baron came in hostile, spewing some weird what about bullshit. If he could show some group of people actually trying to cancel the Mandalorian over one actress, I’d have had less scorn. Especially just weeks after we have seen how dangerous unsupported bullshit can be.
I do have to apologize for misunderstanding the Terry Pratchett side discussion, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jan 21, 2021 18:35:51 GMT -5
6. Baron, post some fucking evidence. Links to what you say has happened that demonstrates it as being more than a literal handful of cranks or stans. You accuse me of acting like despic here, but you are more closely echoing posting style right now. Devoid of proof, spurious claim after spurious claim. Wolf, let me make a point then:
Me: Nazism is bad. Despic: Prove it. Me: They killed millions of people. Despic: I want to see a link. If this doesn't explain my level of frustration with you guys at the moment, I'm not sure what will. Because, as I see it, this is the point we are at.
Bob has managed to earn my utter scorn, but you wolf have put me in a position I honestly really never thought I'd find myself in.
Because now *I* owe despic an apology. Have fun with your echo chamber.
That is a false analogy, you made a claim about an incredibly rare or unknown event and are now comparing it to an event that literally spanned 6 years and impacted the entire world that is still taught in schools today. I said I've seen ZERO proof of the claim you made when searching for it on my own, and asked you to present some. You have refused to present ANY. So, do you understand why that frustrates me? Do you understand why it frustrates me when I've asked you three or four times now to provide LITERALLY ANYTHING to back up your claim? Do you understand why it frustrates me when you ignore it and instead make another claim, which you provide no proof of and others call you on it? Do you understand why it frustrates me when you ignore everyone asking for evidence or clarification? Seriously. I just want you to back up your claim so we can discuss the claim further or admit it was a bad claim to make and clarify or restate your position if you have no evidence to support it. The only reason you think this is an echo chamber is because none of us are accepting your claim at face value and want. Hell, we're not even all echoing the same sentiment. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jan 21, 2021 18:35:58 GMT -5
The opening lines of Baron starting this argument felt unnecessarily hostile, which fired me up enough to dive in myself. Maybe cooler heads should have prevailed, but he shouldn't turn this around on us and then walk away because our responses to his demeanour created an "echo chamber".
I don't want to drive him off and apologize if I crossed the line. But vehemently disagreeing with him doesn't make this an echo chamber because I'm not accepting his arguments as the prevailing truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jan 21, 2021 18:39:08 GMT -5
It depends on how Baron reads it I guess. Yeah, it seems to be a hot button issue for him. That's why I added stuff like “Not a rhetorical question. This is interesting.”, to make it clear I wasn't asking him to prove something, but that I was interested by what he had to say. i.e. you either tackle the entire industry at once or you do nothing I don't think “tackle the entire industry” is a fair assessment of what he said. He wrote about systemic changes rather and focusing on individual cases, as far as I understood. Now I'm not familiar enough with kind of change that would mean in the case of the movie industry, but I can totally imagine how different Actor's Union rules could make it easier for new and upcoming actors and actresses to report abusive behavior from established actors/directors/producers and not suffer negative consequences for their careers, which would likely be indeed better than just a few of them being cancelled while others slips between the cracks. |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jan 21, 2021 18:41:54 GMT -5
So, because I'm not always objective when it comes to how others interpret my tone, if I came off as hostile I apologize because that was not my intent. My intent was that I wanted actual proof because like I said I couldn't find any.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jan 21, 2021 18:43:01 GMT -5
i.e. you either tackle the entire industry at once or you do nothing I don't think “tackle the entire industry” is a fair assessment of what he said. He wrote about systemic changes rather and focusing on individual cases, as far as I understood. Now I'm not familiar enough with kind of change that would mean in the case of the movie industry, but I can totally imagine how different Actor's Union rules could make it easier for new and upcoming actors and actresses to report abusive behavior from established actors/directors/producers and not suffer negative consequences for their careers, which would likely be indeed better than just a few of them being cancelled while others slips between the cracks. See this is where I disagree. Systemic change is a significant shift that you achieve with little steps. Removing toxic actors that are the face of the institution is such a small step in my eyes. Of course systemic changes are also needed on a massive scale, but why not also eject the little rotten saplings as you try to cut down the rotten tree? To take a bit of a leap. Removing Weinstein doesn't yet indicate a systemic change, but it was a needed change nonetheless. Where do we draw the line on what kind of despicable behaviour is acceptable by the smaller cogs that should not 'fall prey' to 'cancel culture'? And how small should those cogs get? |
|
|
|
Post by tannhauser42 on Jan 21, 2021 18:44:13 GMT -5
So, because I'm not always objective when it comes to how others interpret my tone, if I came off as hostile I apologize because that was not my intent. My intent was that I wanted actual proof because like I said I couldn't find any. Have you considered the possibility that the proof you seek has since been deleted and is thus no longer accessable? |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jan 21, 2021 18:49:47 GMT -5
I don't think “tackle the entire industry” is a fair assessment of what he said. He wrote about systemic changes rather and focusing on individual cases, as far as I understood. Now I'm not familiar enough with kind of change that would mean in the case of the movie industry, but I can totally imagine how different Actor's Union rules could make it easier for new and upcoming actors and actresses to report abusive behavior from established actors/directors/producers and not suffer negative consequences for their careers, which would likely be indeed better than just a few of them being cancelled while others slips between the cracks. See this is where I disagree. Systemic change is a significant shift that you achieve with little steps. Removing toxic actors that are the face of the institution is such a small step in my eyes. Of course systemic changes are also needed on a massive scale, but why not also eject the little rotten saplings as you try to cut down the rotten tree? Even if the actors are only removed for a little while, it's an improvement over them not being removed, which means in the future there is room for more positive change. Something I have noticed with conservatives in general and not specific to any one person is that if they can't totally fix a problem the first time, you shouldn't bother. I've noticed it most commonly with gun reform and policies that would merely make it harder (and not impossible) for felons or the mentally unfit to get guns legally. And in my experience, when thinking about things through this perspective, a lot of their positions make more sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jan 21, 2021 18:51:11 GMT -5
So, because I'm not always objective when it comes to how others interpret my tone, if I came off as hostile I apologize because that was not my intent. My intent was that I wanted actual proof because like I said I couldn't find any. Have you considered the possibility that the proof you seek has since been deleted and is thus no longer accessable? If he had said such, that would be one thing where we could move on to talking about unsupported claims or using something like the wayback machine to see if there was an archived record of it. But that wasn't what happened. |
|
|
|
Post by bobtheinquisitor on Jan 21, 2021 18:51:22 GMT -5
So, because I'm not always objective when it comes to how others interpret my tone, if I came off as hostile I apologize because that was not my intent. My intent was that I wanted actual proof because like I said I couldn't find any. Have you considered the possibility that the proof you seek has since been deleted and is thus no longer accessable? If it was so easy to delete all traces, doesn’t that make it a poor indication that cancel culture is a toxic juggernaut? |
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jan 21, 2021 18:53:54 GMT -5
Systemic change is a significant shift that you achieve with little steps. Removing toxic actors that are the face of the institution is such a small step in my eyes. It's a change, and a good one, but by definition not a systemic one, as far as I can tell. The difference between systemic change and removal of bad actors change is not a difference of degree, it's a difference of nature. Where do we draw the line on what kind of despicable behavior is acceptable by the smaller cogs that should not 'fall prey' to 'cancel culture'? Well, I presented my line a bit above. I think not only having being put through a fair trial and found guilty of an actual horrible crime, but also having voluntarily avoided your punishment deprives you of any of the forgiveness that actually serving your time would give you, so no forgiveness. Baron isn't there, so I cannot speak for him, but I think he would agree that “cancelling” people for something they did, as opposed to just an opinion they hold, if that something is actually criminal, AND established beyond doubt, is fair. It's when it comes to cancelling people for opinions or tweets that things get a bit iffier. |
|
|
|
Post by tannhauser42 on Jan 21, 2021 18:55:11 GMT -5
Have you considered the possibility that the proof you seek has since been deleted and is thus no longer accessable? If it was so easy to delete all traces, doesn’t that make it a poor indication that cancel culture is a toxic juggernaut? Given that the Mandalorian has not, in fact, been cancelled, I would say that the attempt to do so was very slimly supported at best. Even I remember seeing some random news bit awhile ago about people boycotting the show for some reason or another, and I don't even follow the show. |
|
