Quote (thundercock @ Jul 8 2020 12:42pm)

I was just asking him to have a little bit of empathy. I think it's wrong to hunt down people to try and take away their livelihood. Without a job, you are likely to lose your healthcare, most of your income, etc. We don't have a strong welfare system so you're REALLY punishing people. IMO, the punishment should always fit the crime.

Granted, there seems to be a bit of confusion here regarding the term "cancel culture."

Are we talking about boycotting companies? Are we talking about ignoring certain content? Or are we talking about what I'm talking about?

EDIT: Also, snipa hit the nail on the head. A lot of pe. Personally, I have stopped making political posts all together on FB because it does far more harm than good. There are far more negative consequences of expressing ANY political opinion. I'd rather stay low and I imagine a lot of people feel this way too. That's not healthy for society.

Quote (excellence @ Jul 8 2020 01:34pm)

you said scarlet johansson “played a japanese woman” in ghost in the shell, which isnt correct. if you’re a long standing fan how did this basic fact get mixed up by you.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Jul 8 2020 10:46am)

That's the best thing about right wing talking points. They can mean whatever you want! Want to criticize somebody for being socialist but don't want to do the reading to understand socialism? Congratulations! It just means "bad thing" so use it whenever! Is the government doing something you like? That's not socialism because it's not bad because it helps you! Don't want your favorite show cancelled? "Cancel Culture" is all the rage! Oh no, conservatives started a boycott of a video game you don't like? That's not cancel culture, because they made it political!

Quote (thundercock @ Jul 8 2020 01:01pm)

So I have thresholds of what is acceptable and what is not.

1) Content is the most acceptable thing to boycott IMO. If you don't like an individual due to their content, then you have every right to not listen to it. That's a no-brainer. What I don't like is when people start threatening the content distributor i.e. HBO, NY Times, etc. To me, the viewership data should be sufficient to determine if content is unacceptable or not. Distributors don't need to be bludgeoned over the head.

2) Going after advertisers is something I'm against but it's not particularly outrageous either. Companies have been engaging in various forms of pink capitalism and/or wedge politics for several years now. Facing boycotts due to that is one possibility when you engage with the public on social issues. IMO, you should only boycott a company if their product sucks or if they are engaging in something that's pretty heinous (i.e. blood diamonds or something like that). However, not everyone has my view and I'm okay with that. I just think these types of boycotts are misguided and subject to the "hot" political issue which results in moral inconsistency (i.e. boycotting Russian vodka but not Middle Eastern products).

3) Targeting ordinary individuals is unacceptable in almost all circumstances. One case that would be ok is if some Grand Wizard Dragon of the KKK was unmasked but that's extraordinarily rare.

All three scenarios have one common goal though. To silence an opposing view. That's not something we should support.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Jul 8 2020 11:13am)

One of the big disagreements I suspect we have is that I don't see societies tightening their standards as anything but normal. This behavior is how societies clarify social boundaries. It's basically always existed, and our current form is not an aberration like the Salem witch trials were. Part of living in a society is bending, and I haven't seen an unreasonable bending being required to succeed in the current marketplace.

I think targeting ordinary individuals is unacceptable, but I also don't see many cases where ordinary individuals have been targeted. In fact, I suspect that 'ordinary' people don't have the clout to even get in the spotlight without doing something heinous. But we might have a different definition of ordinary. I don't see a CEO as ordinary.

Quote (Skinned @ 8 Jul 2020 13:51)

Major Motoko Kusanagi wasn't a japanese character?

Even with cybernetics she doesn't change ethnicity.

And as long as there is a ghost there is still a person.

Quote (thesnipa @ 8 Jul 2020 13:13)

lol idiot posts human centepede meme clearly breaking the rules of the site then cries censorship

Quote (excellence @ Jul 8 2020 12:29pm)

yes hollywood sucks and those losers have worshipped Weinstein and protected Polanski for decades. hope it all falls down

as for the bold: this is false. she played a cyborg. based on her looks in the film and body structure she looks quite similar to the anime character (which frequently do not look like Japanese people)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DhoBuU1Dtc

Japanese people when interviewed had little to no issue with the casting. it’s the privileged lefty voyeurs who worry about this.

Quote (Skinned @ Jul 8 2020 01:01pm)

What makes you think I'm worried about this? I just wish the movie was good as a long standing fan if this IP.

Quote (excellence @ Jul 8 2020 02:43pm)

you said scarlett johanssen played “a japanese woman” which is false, she played Major, who in the anime is a cyborg
now you are saying Major is a “japanese character” which is an entirely different concept.

anyways you will continue to wordplay around on this so knock yourself out



lmfao!! it’s a huge reich-wing conspiracy against fender aka heinrich of course! his ancestor joseph and his buddy adolf had a conspiracy that Jewish people were the source of all the reich’s troubles and were “out to get them” which resulted in one-way train trips, unfortunately.

Quote (Helloween7 @ Jul 8 2020 02:57pm)

I know you're just doing your shtick, but Mokoto is canon a Japanese person.
I mean, Section 9 is a Japanese task force that answers directly to the President of Japan and you can be damn sure superior Nippon leaders will not work with filthy gaijins because gaijins are the reason for crime in Japan anyway. The pure blood Yamato people are a race that do not commit crime. I mean, beside gropping high school girls on train.

And the reason for Japanese people not giving a flying fuck for whitewashing and whatnot is because they're an insular country and when they adapt shit, everyone is Japanese because it's way easier for them to just get a bunch of japanese actors instead of casting appropriate raced people for their parts. Sometimes they get some Australian white guy that speaks Japanese when they feel inspired. A big factor of that is because most actors and other talents are all managed by giant companies and everyone knows everyone. You can't just "break out" in their system. Even worst in the anime industry where you literally see the same 12 voice actors voicing a character in a bunch of shows every single season. So yeah, they don't cast anything else than Japanese actors.

Although, to be fair. Same shit happens in vidya games for English. Literally every game has Nolan North, Troy Baker and Laura Bailey. I swear if I hear their voices one my god damn time :cry:

So most Japanese viewers don't see a problem with that since they do the same on a bigger scale. One funny recent example was the live action movie of Fullmetal Alchemist, where literally everyone is supposed to be either of European descent or in the middle eastern folks when it comes to the province of Ishval. Seeing a young japanese guy with an obvious blonde ass wig will never not be funny to me. Sure "Elric"... :rofl:






Have you managed to watch the newest Netflix TV show "Ghost in the Shell: SAC_2045"? What a shame...

Quote (Skinned @ Jul 8 2020 04:24am)

I'm still not totally clear what cancel culture is.

It really seems like a function of commodity fetishism in advanced capitalism.

JK Rowling for example. I'm not sure how she can be judged liberal, she wrote books about elitist white families having secret schools and special powers, with literally no representation in her stories.

She is a shitty writer and it is crazy to me an entite (lame) generation thinks hufflepuff is a personality trait.

I'm sympathetic to the TERF argument that being a woman is just another thing men can take from females in terms of creating safe spaces.

Problem is trans women face the same problems just magnified in scope as other women and need to use those spaces legitimately.

Some might tell me how cancel culture is different than other classic boycotting and diversion tactics. I'm ignorant here.

JK Rowling fot example isn't in trouble for saying transwomen aren't women, she is advocating for them to be harmed by being excluded by spaces for them that they need. It isn't a different of opinion when one party seeks to harm another.