Sexual harassment and rape allegations rapidly being fired off against various streamers

[CaitSeith]

The danger of such a sentiment is that you think only those that follow your own personal ideology will get to do so once it's declared that "laws don't matter".

Pretty much why is important to fix the process before that point is reached.

 

[Kae]

The danger of such a sentiment is that you think only those that follow your own personal ideology will get to do so once it's declared that "laws don't matter".

The same thing could be said of the opposite though, implying that the law is impartial and that we must place our trust in the system is as ideologically and politically charged, we must acknowledge that the system makes mistakes all the time, often on purpose and aim to correct those.

Admittedly it will never be perfect, there will always be holes but aligning with the system is just as dangerous as the opposite, there's not really such thing as true impartiality.

 

[happyninja42]

The same thing could be said of the opposite though, implying that the law is impartial and that we must place our trust in the system is as ideologically and politically charged, we must acknowledge that the system makes mistakes all the time, often on purpose and aim to correct those.

Admittedly it will never be perfect, there will always be holes but aligning with the system is just as dangerous as the opposite, there's not really such thing as true impartiality.

I don't think anyone just said "place your trust" in the system, implying it will just happen by itself. The system has to be maintained by the people that run it, and they have to be watched to make sure they aren't abusing the system. That's the whole point of the checks and balances concept to the government. And yeah it's really fucked up right now, but I don't think the answer is "fuck the system, let's just let Twitter sort it out with accusations."

 

[Specter Von Baren]

The same thing could be said of the opposite though, implying that the law is impartial and that we must place our trust in the system is as ideologically and politically charged, we must acknowledge that the system makes mistakes all the time, often on purpose and aim to correct those.

Admittedly it will never be perfect, there will always be holes but aligning with the system is just as dangerous as the opposite, there's not really such thing as true impartiality.

The point isn't that the law is perfect, it's that there are roads to changing laws in place already and this system is still giving you a hefty amount of protections now even if it's failing in places. Deliberately cast it all aside at your own peril and think about how strong your side really is when you decide laws don't matter.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Newest allegation: none other than Hassan Bokhari, to the surprise of absolutely no one.

 

[Kae]

I don't think anyone just said "place your trust" in the system, implying it will just happen by itself. The system has to be maintained by the people that run it, and they have to be watched to make sure they aren't abusing the system. That's the whole point of the checks and balances concept to the government. And yeah it's really fucked up right now, but I don't think the answer is "fuck the system, let's just let Twitter sort it out with accusations."

I see, it seems I'm missing part of the picture, I don't use twitter nor do I pay much attention to any news regarding it, so I have not idea what goes on in there.

However, what I do believe is that we should take both parties with a grain of salt, we should acknowledge that right now there's a possibility of either thing being true, and accept that we simply don't know and probably won't ever know.
Unfortunately most people are jumping to conclusions, but I don't think they should be considered guilty yet, but we shouldn't assume innocence and make excuses for them either.

The point isn't that the law is perfect, it's that there are roads to changing laws in place already and this system is still giving you a hefty amount of protections now even if it's failing in places. Deliberately cast it all aside at your own peril and think about how strong your side really is when you decide laws don't matter.

I live in México, I don't know how things exactly are up North, but I can assure you that no law has ever protected me, every theft, assault or other indiscretion I've ever reported has gone unsolved, in my experience the system does absolutely nothing at all, in fact I've been accused of committing crimes I didn't by the police and they have also stolen from me, so excuse me if I have 0 faith in the system but it's completely worthless.

I do acknowledge that things are different in the USA, but the system is similar enough I'm not saying dismiss it entirely but everything should be treated with skepticism, as a lot of things about it are suspect, BTW I have been detained in the USA too just for having a really crappy car and coming from México (I was visiting, I have no interest in living there.), and apparently that made me suspect for drug trafficking so my only experience with the USA system hasn't been positive either, so I'll at least acknowledge I'm extremely biased, as I have my suspicions that the corruption there isn't as different as it's cracked up to be and it's mostly that it has better PR.

But to bring it back to the topic at hand, I'm not really all that outraged, I just think that both defending these people and being extremely accusatory is not particularly helpful, but I also am aware as all we will ever get out of this discussion is opinions, since we'll never really know the objective truth, even after legal judgement has passed, so I guess it's more that I'm being very cynical about it.

 

[Trunkage]

I thought that "cancelling" someone and boycotting them were two different things, or rather, that there's an overlap.

Would you say that boycotting, say, Nestle, is 'cancel culture'?

To me, a cancellation involves a public shaming, a boycott, and also a desire to ruin one's career.

A boycott might just be "I don't support this action, but if you stop doing it, I'll buy your product again."

A cancellation is "He did something improper 5 years ago, let's ruin his career!

Sorry, but under the pump today. Have to be brief. I’ll try and pick up some of the ideas soon.

All boycotts require shaming. It wouldn’t work otherwise. You can definitely say things go too far. I think it goes too far regularly. The Star Wars boycotts were all about shaming. And they got Johnson fired. They definitely wanted to ruin his career. And that is seperate from the people who were just unhappy with Last Jedi and had criticism. This whole NASCAR / Confederate Flag thing is all about shaming, from both sides. The embargoes on Iran go with a bunch of shaming too.

I could agree there is overlap. Go watch some Quatering or No Bullshit videos. You could compare it to a Thor Skywalker specifically on Last Jedi. I’d love to know why the former isn’t counted as canceling. Because, I can tell you why the later is not cancelling but not the former. And the later is still all about shaming

Now, there is one problem I think people haven’t realised yet. So, some of these cancelling issues are old. But a lot of the people saying these things are in their 20s. So, the actual event probably happened when they were teenagers. You might not be aware of things that young. This Jimmy Kimmel stuff happened like 15 years ago. A lot of these cancellers probably didn’t see this at all.

So, let’s say you grew up watching Kimmel. Loved him but then found out he did edgy stuff when he was young, You might have a reaction because your mythological perception of Kimmel doesn’t match the real version. See also these statues people want pulled down. The statues are mythology that doesn’t match real life. So you have a reaction to your mythology being pulled down.

But, even if I can see this issue, I don’t know what to do about it. Young people will never have the same experience or context. You can’t expect them to. Having your heroes fail is distressing to lots of people (see Trump or Obama fans, who continually support them despite their crimes.) And I do think the cancellers are over reacting to lots of things.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

However, what I do believe is that we should take both parties with a grain of salt, we should acknowledge that right now there's a possibility of either thing being true, and accept that we simply don't know and probably won't ever know.

These are my feelings as well.

 

[tstorm823]

Now, there is one problem I think people haven’t realised yet. So, some of these cancelling issues are old. But a lot of the people saying these things are in their 20s. So, the actual event probably happened when they were teenagers. You might not be aware of things that young. This Jimmy Kimmel stuff happened like 15 years ago. A lot of these cancellers probably didn’t see this at all.

I think the age of incidents is an important distinction for a different reason. The purpose of a boycott is to try and change behavior, withholding your money from one place until they change the behavior you don't like or someone who doesn't exhibit that behavior steps in to replace them. There's no sense in boycotting someone for behavior they've already changed, that doesn't do anything. No amount of consumer activism can make Jimmy Kimmel wear less black face in 2020. But "cancelling" isn't about effecting change, it's about implementing justice, or at least the sense of justice that the cancellers personally feel.

 

[Agema]

When they said e-sports were the new football, I didn't expect that to mean sexual assaults.

 

[Eacaraxe]

When they said e-sports were the new football, I didn't expect that to mean sexual assaults.

We have no proof Alinity isn't running an underground dogfighting ring. Yet.

 

[Kae]

These are my feelings as well.

I think we disagreed because we have different approaches to this same conclusion, as I put no real stock on the system working and I believe is nothing more than a sham to give the illusion of order, even if you are skeptic of it you clearly see some benefit to it that I don't, and therefore we're not entirely on the same page.
Not to mention that I clearly have some personal biases, that despite my claim of wanting it to remain neutral clearly fall closer to the supposed victims rather than the people being accused, and as a result I don't find it particularly offensive that they are being judged even if I disagree with it.

Like I said nobody is truly impartial.

 

[Buyetyen]

When they said e-sports were the new football, I didn't expect that to mean sexual assaults.

We have no proof Alinity isn't running an underground dogfighting ring. Yet.

That went to a really dark place quickly. Well done.

 

[Trunkage]

I don't understand why you don't understand. This is all based on the idea of free speech. I don't know what country you come from but here in America people are allowed to say what they want; this means that X is free to say that carrots taste terrible just as Y is free to say X is an idiot and carrots are delicious and tell everyone else that they shouldn't bother listening to X. However, X is still free to say what they want and convince whoever is willing to listen to them that carrots taste terrible.

Cancel culture is a new term for an age old practice where Y would instead forcibly remove X's ability to tell anyone what they think, in other words, taking away their freedom of speech. If X and Y were in a town square then if Y were to forcibly move X out of the town square so he can't even attempt to make his message heard, then that would be cancelling.

Now, we can debate whether this is actually occurring when people say someone is getting cancelled, but if you believe it isn't then you should instead be saying that they are using the term incorrectly rather than conflating the term with boycotting.

Here’s what your not understanding. I’ll write it in big letters to make it extremely clear

EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO TRIES TO CANCEL SOMEONE ELSE HAS NO POWER TO CANCEL SAID PERSON

They can pretend they can cancel people but that’s platforms. If I say I I cancel Blackface Jimmy,’, what does that achieve? He’s not actually cancelled. A million people could say that and it wouldn’t make a difference. I don’t hold his contract. If whoever holds Kimmel contract fires Jimmy, that’s on them. It comes down to the Alex Jones issue. He lied about crisis actors in Sandy Hook. His viewers, seeing these people as evil, doxxed these victims. Other viewers them called them constantly to harass them. Then some committed suicide after being harassed so much. Alex Jones said that someone should get those ‘crisis actors’ but he never directed anyone to do it.

Also, what you are saying is that you want to impinge on the Cancellers Freedom of Speech. Which means, you are just as bad as the Cancellers. If you want Freedom of Speech you HAVE to let cancellers say whatever stupid thing they want. Your willingness to throw Freedom of Speech out the window once someone says something you don’t like just belies how much you don’t It.

Its that old adage. ‘I don’t defend what you say but I’ll defend your right to say it.’ I don’t like how Trump think the army should be used on protesters. That’s way worse than any Cancellers have every said. He still has the right to say it.

 

[Houseman]

EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO TRIES TO CANCEL SOMEONE ELSE HAS NO POWER TO CANCEL SAID PERSON

They can pretend they can cancel people but that’s platforms. If I say I I cancel Blackface Jimmy,’, what does that achieve? He’s not actually cancelled

If a person intends to get someone fired, and then they contact that person's boss, attempting to get them fired, and then that person gets fired... doesn't that mean that they really do have that power?

Or are you saying that it's really up to the boss, and it's entirely his responsibility?

If we think of it like blackmail, how much "power" does the blackmailer actually have.

 

[Gordon_4]

If a person intends to get someone fired, and then they contact that person's boss, attempting to get them fired, and then that person gets fired... doesn't that mean that they really do have that power?

Or are you saying that it's really up to the boss, and it's entirely his responsibility?

If we think of it like blackmail, how much "power" does the blackmailer actually have.

A blackmailer has as much power as the blackmailee is prepared to extend them.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

The same thing could be said of the opposite though, implying that the law is impartial and that we must place our trust in the system is as ideologically and politically charged, we must acknowledge that the system makes mistakes all the time, often on purpose and aim to correct those.

Admittedly it will never be perfect, there will always be holes but aligning with the system is just as dangerous as the opposite, there's not really such thing as true impartiality.

Before we had the system we had kangaroo courts and public lynchings or just plain old justice via the mob where people would have to round up a posse to survive.

 

[lil devils x]

Before we had the system we had kangaroo courts and public lynchings or just plain old justice via the mob where people would have to round up a posse to survive.

You act as if this has changed. In the US at least, we STILL have kangaroo courts, public lynchings, and plain old justice dispensed via the mob and people STILL have to round up a posse in order to survive. If Amaud Arbery had a posse, he would have likely survived the public lynching. If George Floyd had a posse, they would have been able to pull Derek Chauvin off his neck and he would be alive today. Who exactly are we supposed to turn to when the cops, DA, and judges are the criminals here? Where I live in the US, this is very much the case, and I live in the wealthiest per sq ft county in the state. So who do we turn to when this is our reality? ALso, if Kae lives in Mexcio, as stated above, the LAST thing you want to do is go to the cops. Most of them work for the cartels depending on where you live there. You want to do anything you can to avoid dealing with the cops in most regions there from my understanding, your life very well may depend on avoiding them.

 

[lil devils x]

The same thing could be said of the opposite though, implying that the law is impartial and that we must place our trust in the system is as ideologically and politically charged, we must acknowledge that the system makes mistakes all the time, often on purpose and aim to correct those.

Admittedly it will never be perfect, there will always be holes but aligning with the system is just as dangerous as the opposite, there's not really such thing as true impartiality.

I wouldn't go anywhere near the cops in Mexico either if I were you, depending on where you are they are either directly work for the cartels or are corrupt as hell and your life very well may depend on being able to avoid them at all costs. This is ALSO the reason why so much vigilante justice is still happening in Mexcio as well though, when people have no where to turn, they are forced to sort it out for themselves.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Abby Russel (Giant Bomb): It is also not for me, or anyone, to decide what is or is not abuse. Reddit threads, maybe, debating what is or is not abuse about specific allegations are actively harmful.

Excuse me?! Screw this kind of crap.