Sulphur on 7/7/2020 at 03:38
Quote Posted by driver
It was accurate, though. It's hilariously hypocritical to proclaim cancel culture doesn't exist in one breath, then demand a thread discussing it be locked with the next. If someone doesn't like a thread on a forum, they can just ignore it. Denying everyone else's right to reply is just going to make you look bad and give the impression you don't actually have a counter-argument.
Not the point. It was a bad faith thread intended to be shitty right from the OP. This one isn't any different. It's really just an embarrassment to the forum. You can pretend SubjEff's sealioning here is some attempt to get a 'discussion', but you can't do that without acknowledging that the odds are stacked against women in the first place. If you don't see that, you can't have an actual conversation, because you're essentially a blinkered idiot.
Quote Posted by june gloom
anyway back to subjeff's little tantrum, this is kind of my issue with TTLG, on literally any decent forum that isn't this one, seeing a thread being closed down and starting a
brand new one because you absolutely must give the world your hottest of takes would earn you at least a suspension
I don't always agree with dethtoll here, but this is it - you can't pretend this was a good faith thread. And if you're okay with this sort of shit, then let's just let other people start threads glorifying violence against women, why not?
froghawk on 7/7/2020 at 03:54
Sorry, you don't get to claim you want real discourse then accuse everyone who disagrees with your premise of being biased. Again, bad faith. If you truly meant that you said all you had to say in the OP (yes, i read it, nice baseless assumption there), then live up to your word.
Sulphur on 7/7/2020 at 03:55
We just had a woman's opinion on a thread that clearly needed one, but go ahead and call it a bias, icemann.
I've said this before, and I can't wait for SubjEff to jump on this again: anyone who wants to 'discuss' things about 50% of the population without inviting or acknowledging input from the population in question is just jerking off into a mirror.
Sulphur on 7/7/2020 at 04:34
So don't engage with me. I'm sorry, but no one's falling for your transparently disingenuous bullshit, and you can hide behind the cover of 'personal insult' as much as you like, it doesn't do anything for your argument.
So: can you answer the questions Starker put forward before you start to whinge about how everyone's huwting yow feewings? Can you answer what NV said about your previous thread? Or are you still going to pretend that you had a point?
Renzatic on 7/7/2020 at 05:09
Hey, guys! Let's do exactly what we did yesterday! We'll get all emotionally invested, and start condescending at each other. Some people will air their disgust, others will declare it a waste of time, and demand its closure, others still will insist it go on forever and ever more for the sake of CONTINUOUS DIALOGUE!
Listen, I can understand that we live in a time of stark political strife, and we're all suddenly finding out that some of the people we've known for years have secretly been kinda weird assholes all this time, and you never had the chance to realized it until now. I get it. It's shocking. Hell, my entire life has become an episode of the Twilight Zone, as if I woke up from a coma, only to discover that everyone around me has become a caricature 60's klan redneck who starts dropping n-bombs like they're beatboxing that David Allen Coe song the moment 3 white guys congregate together in a room. It's odd discovering that the world you thought you knew has been nothing but a thin veneer of forced civility draped atop a seething maelstrom of fuck.
So yeah, I can totally understand why we've all turned into such uptight assholes over the last few years, that every suspicious turn of phrase or off color quip can be construed as a casual way to excuse some of the heinous shit we've seen perpetuated since we had the gall to elect a black dude as president.
...not that anyone will ever admit to that, but we all know it to be true.
But that doesn't excuse it. Quit being so goddamn catty, people. Jesus. Ice. Learn to adapt to the various points of a conversation, and evolve your argument. Sulp. Turn down the self-righteousness a notch or two. Subjeff. You're a total cunt for doing this to me.
Sulphur on 7/7/2020 at 05:21
It's reeeeeally simple. If you want to discuss something fairly, you better believe you need to have a fair opening argument. If you're going to broadcast your level of ignorance and/or obnoxiousness right from the off, what exactly do you think you're going to get? Is everyone really just being randomly pissy for no reason or because they haven't hugged their dogs enough? (PSA: (
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/201604/the-data-says-dont-hug-the-dog) probably don't hug your dog too much.)
Starker on 7/7/2020 at 06:33
These are just anecdotal examples of very disparate things from over a number of years. Once again, where is your proof that there has been a significant rise of false claims, that this has been due to "cancel culture", and that they in fact constitute a serious problem worth talking about? Either show your work or stop throwing around accusations that you can't prove.
But okay, let's look at your examples.
The first example is journalists of BBC rushing to land what they thought was a "scoop", or, more accurately, a juicy celebrity scandal and ignoring good journalistic practices in the process. So why then are you not bemoaning yellow journalism and the rise of paparazzo culture in the BBC/UK?
Gunn was fired not because some woke misguided "cancel culture", but because of alt-right trolls successfully lobbying Disney, who's very concerned about their image as a family entertainment provider. And, in fact, Disney has rehired him meanwhile. Why are you not bemoaning corporate PR politics and the rise of alt-right troll culture, then?
As far as I can tell, a person deleting a post, most likely after receiving lots of unwelcome attention from Mr Angry's fans, is not an admission of guilt or proof that they were making it up. And the situation seems quite the opposite -- instead of Mr Angry's life being destroyed, he not only has the financial means and the platform to fully and completely defend himself against any such accusation, true or not, in addition to that a huge number of his fans and unrelated alt-right reactionaries immediately took his side and rose up to defend him and/or to attack the accuser. So why then are you not bemoaning blind parasocial relationships and the rise of misogynist reactionaries bullying women who dare to speak out about the mistreatment of women.
The fourth one is just a repeat of the first example of a publication not following good journalistic practices, as far as I can tell, and also settled in court in favour of the person.
All of these people, far from having their lives destroyed, are shown to be winning and winning quite big. So what exactly is the issue here? That they have legal and financial means available to them, not to mention an overwhelming support from their fans to squash any claim of misconduct against them, whether the claim justified or not?
Okay, it seems you added a fifth one about John Jarratt while I was reading your articles and typing. So, where is the proof that the woman had knowingly made a false claim? A criminal court does not judge a person's innocence, after all. It only determines whether it can be proven that they committed a crime.
SubJeff on 7/7/2020 at 06:57
See know Sulphur, SD has just gone into some detail about the JK Rowling issue that is interesting. I happen to agree with SD about "treating" children with gender issues in a way that can permanently affect their physiology and I can tell you that this is a big talking point in the medical world right now, natch, because doctors don't want to harm people who are just going though a difficult time because of puberty.
And Aja has provided an interesting counterpoint.
dethtoll's contribution... I'll leave you to decide.
It seem's it is possible to have a normal discussion (dethtoll aside) after all. I'm now interested to see SD's response to Aja. I'm undecided on this matter (I've said about JK Rowling's posting before) because I know I've not read enough about it and my opinion at the moment isn't fully informed.
Sulphur on 7/7/2020 at 07:19
Quote Posted by icemann
No. I created a topic for discussion. I've stated my opinion on the topic, which is designed around others discussing it if they so wish to. It was never based around myself wanting to be the sole focus of it all. If others don't want to discuss it then we'll just let it be. I said all I wanted to in the first post of the original thread.
Your thread literally has the words 'Rise of the False Claims' in it. You're going to need to provide some evidence that out of the many, many, many cases out there, there's been a statistical increase in false claims rather than them being a tiny portion of the bigger malestrom. If you assert that and fail to back it up, then shift the onus on to other people to do your work for you, why should anyone give you any credibility?
If your plan was to actually make this a conversation, then start by answering Starker's questions up there.
@SubjEff: I am not a trans person, so I'm not going to be able to answer the JKR thing in a real, qualified capacity. But her position definitely reeks of a transphobic mindset dressed up in strawmanning: viz., (
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-stephen-king-trans-women-row-delete-tweet-a9590536.html) deleting a post praising Stephen King after he declared that trans women are women.
