Rowling, Blow & Co. - Does Buying Someone's Game Mean You Endorse Their Bullshit? - The Bear and Badger

Roujin

Its okay to play Canis Canem Cadavara fyi. At this point in time after it's been brought to people's attention that people asked not to support the game it just means that you heard a request from a decent sized chunk of the trans community and you didn't accept on this occasion.

Brooks

At a certain point people are just going to need to make peace with the fairly blatant fact that they cannot consume any media insulated from discussions said media generates in 202X, or else turn into fuming megakooks themselves.

It's why I think I might mostly only consume old shit that no-one cares about, it's just quieter back there.

acemuzzy

I don't think I can get away with rouj's purity of stance cos, while not buying hp, I suck at so much other stuff. Whereas he is began and doesn't for so can legit white knight it. FML.

(I do agree that the personal appeal of the community makes it more persuasive, though I'm not sure it necessarily should cos the kid in the lithium photo doesn't have quite the reach etc)

kneecap

High Quality uncanny valley NPC faces.

8.4/10

JonB

Vela wrote:

Question for those complaining about cancelling or cancel culture being a thing, on either side: What if any consequences should there be for people who say things that are discriminatory, bigoted, harassing and targeting specific groups etc?

To begin with, criticism. If we're talking a one-off incident, unless it's especially vile, the person in question should have the chance to re-evaluate what they've said in the face of criticism, perhaps apologise if it seems necessary. What seems to happens quite a lot though is that the person doubles down defensively against the harsher, less measured criticism, and before you know it they've gone full bigot. At that point, I don't think it's unreasonable to highlight their toxicity and boycott their work (if we're talking about a public figure, or the head of a business). And that's generally what 'cancellation' means - people rejecting a person's work in large numbers, or their brand becoming tainted enough that they lose corporate backing, or even their job.

If 'cancel culture' is anything here, it's a tendency for people to go too far too soon - demanding a person is fired, for example, for a minor infringement. But that's something you get from a minority on every side, and as an actual effective force it's most prevalent in the right-wing media tradition of the 'moral panic'.

Vela

I like that, Jon.

I'm also disappointed that the discussion on freedom of speech rarely seems to delve into the topic of responsibility about what you say, and the ability to cause harm or hurt with words.

People who are outspoken on an issue such as Shapiro, Rowling, Jordan Peterson etc are all certainly entitled to their views, but how often do they stop and think about the harm that their words might be causing?

Language is incredibly powerful at inspiring and inciting acts across the spectrum of good and evil. But rarely do the louder voices in society ever seem to express an apology for expressing something that might have had unintended consequences. And I would assume these people don't believe they are 100% correct all the time.

At least I hope not.

tigersgogrrr

Does anyone partake in the Cormoran Strike TV show or books? I've never seen a boycott of those mentioned. Just the size difference in the IPs?

Frosty

I'd never heard of them but seeing who they're by I wouldn't bother

Vela

tigersgogrrr wrote:

Does anyone partake in the Cormoran Strike TV show or books? I've never seen a boycott of those mentioned. Just the size difference in the IPs?

Is it a boycott if no-one gives a damn?

drumbeg

Vela wrote:

I'm also disappointed that the discussion on freedom of speech rarely seems to delve into the topic of responsibility about what you say, and the ability to cause harm or hurt with words.

Freedom of speech and freedom from consequence are often confused. Some take freedom of speech to mean they can say anything without consequence. Particularly evident over the last few years online.

Vela wrote:

People who are outspoken on an issue such as Shapiro, Rowling, Jordan Peterson etc are all certainly entitled to their views, but how often do they stop and think about the harm that their words might be causing?

Shapiro is a prick and actually dangerous (his Last of Us TV show review is hilarious btw). Don't think it's helpful to bung everyone you see as "right-wing" into the same boat. Rowling is just defending one particular position for example.

tigersgogrrr

Vela wrote:

tigersgogrrr wrote:

Does anyone partake in the Cormoran Strike TV show or books? I've never seen a boycott of those mentioned. Just the size difference in the IPs?

Is it a boycott if no-one gives a damn?

I dare say Rowling would care.

b0r1s

I don’t really know Shapiro, other than he’s a right winger, but both Rowling and Peterson, as writers would know exactly the harm their words cause and I think they do stop and think, but decide its what they want to say anyway.

drumbeg

b0r1s wrote:

I don’t really know Shapiro, other than he’s a right winger, but both Rowling and Peterson, as writers would know exactly the harm their words cause and I think they do stop and think, but decide its what they want to say anyway.

Peterson makes a good point in that Channel 4 interview about how in order to think critically, you must be prepared to offend.

Edit: Great TV. There's only one person being rational here...

acemuzzy

I'm not sure the reverse applies tho

drumbeg

acemuzzy wrote:

I'm not sure the reverse applies tho

You mean, in order to offend you must think critically?

davyK

Vela wrote:

davyK wrote:

Vela wrote:

Question for those complaining about cancelling or cancel culture being a thing, on either side: What if any consequences should there be for people who say things that are discriminatory, bigoted, harassing and targeting specific groups etc?

I don't think we will ever solve that in a society that values freedom of speech. A proper education system, empowering us to see little angry grifters for what they really are would help though. They are symptoms of poor governance. So have a better country maybe?

Is it equally right for people not to listen?

Not sure I catch your drift. If we are armed with critical thinking and information then we can listen to any old tosh and judge it for what it is. Demotes the demagogues to Hyde Park corner.

davyK

Incidentally, critical thinking and information - key pillars of competency required by all actors in any market - that's what makes wisdom of crowds work.

It isn't wisdom of clowns.

So the Tories, while being accolytes at the altar of the free market, do not support a proper market as they want information to be withheld - which prevents the market from setting a correct price.

acemuzzy

drumbeg wrote:

acemuzzy wrote:

I'm not sure the reverse applies tho

You mean, in order to offend you must think critically?

I was meaning the opposite - it's easy to offend by not thinking critically.

So "one must be willing to offend to think critically" sounds like somebody seeking intellectual cover, not necessarily justifiably.

drumbeg

acemuzzy wrote:

drumbeg wrote:

acemuzzy wrote:

I'm not sure the reverse applies tho

You mean, in order to offend you must think critically?

I was meaning the opposite - it's easy to offend by not thinking critically. So "one must be willing to offend to think critically" sounds like somebody seeking intellectual cover, not necessarily justifiably.

But it's obvious that if one forms opinion based purely off available evidence, then some people are going to be offended. It's also easy to offend with no thought whatsoever.

These two things aren't mutually exclusive.

drumbeg

davyK wrote:

Incidentally, critical thinking and information - key pillars of competency required by all actors in any market - that's what makes wisdom of crowds work. It isn't wisdom of clowns. So the Tories, while being accolytes at the altar of the free market, do not support a proper market as they want information to be withheld - which prevents the market from setting a correct price.

Absolutely. See the housing market for an easy example.

JonB

Vela wrote:

I'm also disappointed that the discussion on freedom of speech rarely seems to delve into the topic of responsibility about what you say, and the ability to cause harm or hurt with words.

Yeah, a lot of the people who bang on about freedom of speech these days don't really get the spirit of the concept at all. I mean, many don't even understand it at a basic level, that it applies to legality and whether the government/law actually ban certain ideas being expressed. But even those that do seem to think it's a right to simply go around shouting whatever the hell you want, rather than (in theory) a mechanism to allow marginalised voices to be heard and listened to. Free speech absolutely implies that responsibility.

RedDave2

Not to start a huge argument but can someone fill me in on the worst stuff from Rowling?

I read this article - https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy. and followed it up with her piece that seemed to really spark things off (https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/)

Aside from the bone headed notion behind 2 of her (I assume for adults) crime books which really seem like unnecessary fanning of flames, I'm not seeing Westboro Baptists Church levels of comments from her, or even Shapiro style baiting. Indeed there are tweets of supports from other celebs in the Glamour link and I dont recall them being targeted in the same way. Why does this JK get this level of pile on. I'm not saying she is right and her critics are wrong - more the level of response to what she is saying feels out of wack. (see the tweet in the glamour article from Tess Fowler)

Fair to disagree with her and Fair to say she should realise she might be encouraging those with a much worse opinion with her comments but is this the level of it? The 2 books aside, I'm not seeing much that is that offensive. The main trip up is she views trans women and women as seperate (and I get thats a big issue) but like I said, I've seen far worse things said from others without the level of response.

Also just in the wider context of this thread, not saying that this means people shouldnt boycott the game based on her opinions or ask others to. Fine with that.

Paul the sparky

This covers a lot of it

drumbeg

"her slide into open fascism has been horrifying" is a bit strong!

Must be some more reasoned take-downs of JK around?

Like RedDave, I'm happy to change my mind on her based on more evidence.

RedDave2

Cheers Paul - was a bit worried with the first 5 minutes it would be all bad jokes. Very enlightening.

Vela

davyK wrote:

Vela wrote:

davyK wrote:

Vela wrote:

Question for those complaining about cancelling or cancel culture being a thing, on either side: What if any consequences should there be for people who say things that are discriminatory, bigoted, harassing and targeting specific groups etc?

I don't think we will ever solve that in a society that values freedom of speech. A proper education system, empowering us to see little angry grifters for what they really are would help though. They are symptoms of poor governance. So have a better country maybe?

Is it equally right for people not to listen?

Not sure I catch your drift. If we are armed with critical thinking and information then we can listen to any old tosh and judge it for what it is. Demotes the demagogues to Hyde Park corner.

My drift is thus:

People can say what they like.

But if they are a loudmouth bigot, for example, everyone else is allowed to ignore them and state equally loudly that they are now ignoring the bigoted loudmouth.

The bigot might call it cancelling. Everyone else will call it a sensible consequence.

Vela

tigersgogrrr wrote:

Vela wrote:

tigersgogrrr wrote:

Does anyone partake in the Cormoran Strike TV show or books? I've never seen a boycott of those mentioned. Just the size difference in the IPs?

Is it a boycott if no-one gives a damn?

I dare say Rowling would care.

Very well, what do you think is the main factor here?

Is it people boycotting Harry Potter because of the content of the books, or people boycotting Harry Potter because of the expressed views of the author?

GooberTheHat

drumbeg wrote:

acemuzzy wrote:

drumbeg wrote:

acemuzzy wrote:

I'm not sure the reverse applies tho

You mean, in order to offend you must think critically?

I was meaning the opposite - it's easy to offend by not thinking critically. So "one must be willing to offend to think critically" sounds like somebody seeking intellectual cover, not necessarily justifiably.

But it's obvious that if one forms opinion based purely off available evidence, then some people are going to be offended. It's also easy to offend with no thought whatsoever.

These two things aren't mutually exclusive.

But then you also have grifters deliberately causing offence, not because their argument is rational or empirical, but because they want to offend because that's the easiest way to get attention (and guess what, not get cancelled), and then go on the right wing pseudoscience talking circuit to earn money.

acemuzzy

Yeah saying "to think critically you have to risk offending people" sounds to me like it's trying to imply the offence is due to the critical thinking, which is far from airways the case. I get it sometimes is, but the argument risks implying it always is.

Armitage_Shankburn

JK Rowling open fascism made me lol.

You wot m8?

Sterling's lost the plot. Lord above.

I'm not even joking. He is voice overing perfectly fine tweets. He just lambasted JK Rowling for supporting Maya Forstater.

Er, that would be the person who successfully sued and was found to be discriminated against. It's one of the most shocking judgments I've read recently.

Total blinker. Utterly partial. Shrill.

I've long thought this issue is some kind of psi op. Both sides utterly fucko-brained

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories