-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Factorio Developer speaks out against cancel culture
- Thread starter Chessguy1
- Start date
- Status
If only some people would realize that the only ones screaming cancel culture are the ones with skeletons in their closet that they DON'T want revealed.
Lmao dude those are the types of people who don't like 'cancel culture'
User Banned (Permanent): Dismissing Concerns of Bigotry Over Several Posts; Account in Junior Phase.
By definition, a way to hold people accountable for their actions, but imo the way it's applied (especially on places like Twitter) is extremely harmful and causes more harm than good, or do you think that someone should face repercussions for something they did a decade ago when they were a dumb kid, or that a man should lose his job because a person wrongfully assumed he was doing a white supremacist symbol?
So every single individual who doesn't like cancel culture thinks diddling minors is fine? Idk about that
As long as we're hating made up boogeymen, I hate aliens. Nothing but probes and cattle mutilations, the lot of them!
Lol I didn't say that
But I bet most people who think statutory rape is 'sjw bullshit' also "hate cancel culture" so you may want to think about whether or not you wanna be associated with those sorts of people and opinions.
You sure seemed to imply that though.
That logic doesn't hold up to me, those are two different set of beliefs. If I had to think about each one of my opinions just to make sure I don't share them with some bad people (unless, you know, one of those is me saying I'm a literal nazi), that'd be a sad world go live in. Some opinions are just shared by the common public, doesn't matter if they're stupid or non stupid people. I can't complain about people witch hunting some guy who didn't even do anything wrong (not the dev being talked about in this thread) because that would somehow associate me with a group of people who think statutory rape is sjw bullshit?
So is it really that crazy to believe we're not the only sentient beings in the whole universe?
Can you point to any completely "innocent" people who have been outed as doing something a decade ago who did nothing else in a similar vein since then, who sincerely apologized once it came out and showed contrition for their actions who are now struggling to meet their basic needs since they got twittered a bunch?
I would like to see your scorecard when you're saying more harm than good when you consider all the scumbag people who have been outed on social media for being scumbags. Hell, I guarantee you just taking #MeToo as the only example, that did more good than all the harm of other "cancelings" on Twitter but again, interested to see how you came to that determination.
"feel free to continue going through my post history" they cry, having a post history a whole two pages long.
Man, some people really want to be accused of thinking that sexual abuse against minors if fine.
Really desperate to have that accusation thrown at them.
Not even just bringing up the idea of themselves being so accused before anyone else does, but abandoning a history of sparse posting activity to dive headfirst into a thread where they are apparently terrified of this accusation.
Lmao @ "cancel culture" there's always an f'n boogie man name applied to shit so it sticks in the media and people can get riled up about the boogie man name instead of what's really happening.
nobody is being "cancelled". If you said/did some dumb shit online and people noticed the dumb shit and you get to deal with the aftermath of it. There is no "cancel"
nobody is being "cancelled". If you said/did some dumb shit online and people noticed the dumb shit and you get to deal with the aftermath of it. There is no "cancel"
Jenna Marbles rings any bells?
Can you tell me anyone who was outed on social media for being a scumbag? This is a legitimate question. Recently I can only remember James Charles, but to think people's lives haven't been ruined or at least compromised is naivety, or do you think that Johnny Depp deserved what he got when Amber, who was arguably even more abusive, still has her career intact?
I have no gripes whatsoever with the #MeToo movement
What the hell are you on about? I mentioned the stupid dev thinks statutory rape is an sjw term, and some other user said that that is the type of person who doesn't like cancel culture. There's no one wanting an accusation being thrown at them because not only did I ask them a question, they were the ones that implied it.
I'm only terrified of this in your head. Also using post history as a way to ignore my points is just a bad faith argument.
It's less your post history and more that you're not the first person in this thread taking this sort of stance.
She chose to get off the internet and have a life? That's not "canceled". People were justifiably pissed, but not "Fuck off and die!" pissed. She'd have been fine but decided this just wasn't for her any more. A personal life choice is not being canceled. (About halfway down this article from a couple days back for a paragraph on it.)
Ah, I see then.
Well what does it matter if I'm the first or not? I'm saying what I think. If you think my opinion is faulty or something like that, it'd be better to have a discussion over throwing insults or accusations at each other.
I think it's fishy as hell that she decided to quit YT right as people were bullying her online, but alright, I'll concede this one.
- Someone made a very reasonable, non-agressive post about how Uncle Bob may be problematic.
- The dev answered to "shove it up your ass" and made people angry
How is this "cancel culture" in any way? "I don't want to give my money to assholes" is a very valid stance.
- The dev answered to "shove it up your ass" and made people angry
How is this "cancel culture" in any way? "I don't want to give my money to assholes" is a very valid stance.
Idk why anyone outed during MeToo is not enough for you but social media has helped bring to light the scumminess of JK Rowling, Harvey Weinstein, Gina Carano, Louis CK, Ellen Degeneres, Kirstie Alley, Brett Weinstein, Roseanne Barr, just about every Republican and Fox News employee, Permit Patty, BBQ Becky, Golfcart Gail and the rest of that cohort, Contrapoints, Jeffree Star, Bill Maher, there are legit so many people it would be near impossible to name them all.
The accusation I was making was kind of at the heart of the whole thing, though. What I was talking about is how people go into threads like these and reframe the conversation so that they themselves are the victim. The earlier two popped in with virtually no post counts and declared that Era was oppressing them, which leads one to wonder how that happens when they never post to begin with. Whenever there's an issue like this, no matter the severity, there's always some chowderhead who pops in to declare "the real victim here is me, somebody with no involvement in the situation whatsoever but who might get banned from a message board."
I didn't have a clue who Jenna Marbles is before you brought it up - I'm not that big into YouTube or steaming celebrities. But a quick check shows that she darkened her skin and pretended to be Nicki Minaj, who was claimed to be blackface, which of course has a long history of being used to deride and form narratives around Black people while also denying their voices in cultural mediums. She acknowledge this, as well as other videos where she engages in slut-shaming.
Here's the thing though. In those initial videos, she harming others or utilizing their identity for her own purposes. That's the initial point where the harm is done. It went ignored until they were brought up again. But when you discuss it, it's not that initial incident that causes harm, it's her being highlighted after having escaped accountability. Doesn't it seem strange that the person responsible for the initial issue is treated as the victim and not the people they target?
Often these cancel culture arguments are framed around celebrities - many of them are people so rich and successful that even if they were "cancelled" and never worked again, they may still be able to survive and have a fairly cushy life. People who aren't massively successful and wealthy don't have a defense force around them. If they do something harmful or incompetent, they can be held accountable and fired, and no one really cares. But we run on the idea that the celebrity is owned not just the basic means to survive, but a specific position that affords them a much higher degree of visibility and power than other people, and it's morally objectionable to harm them in a way that might threaten that position.
Streaming and YouTube content creation is a massively oversaturated job market. There are far more people who want to be these kinds of celebrities than the market can support, and so you'll have countless ones at the bottom of the pond trying to scrape up a following. Why does this person who has already made it to the top deserve to keep that seat when there are other people who haven't been causing harm who are struggling below and aren't treated as deserving success?
Now, trying to have some perspective, look at the fact that we're having a discussion about cancel culture in this discussion of the developer in OP. How is he the victim here? He's the one who instigated the incident through his initial disproportionately aggressive reply. He remained control of the situation in that he's in charge of the official response as far (if I'm not mistaken), he's the one who continued to make the arguments. No one forced him into this controversy.
Why are we at fault when he decided to make an fool of himself for the benefit of absolutely no one before we even got here?
Last edited:
Oh no, I guess you'll just have to engage in rational argument instead of trying dig up unrelated dirt in an attempt to invalidate anything I might say... On another note, I guess I'm not entitled to an opinion because of some bullshit gatekeeping regarding post count. Please sir, allow me a couple more years on this site so I can get my post count up to respectable levels.
Anyway, the issue has already been addressed. I guess you might have missed all the other posts where that took place.
that one guy with an actual question loves this
(Also fuck the "the main dev" rhetoric, I don't see anyone from the team speaking up or moderating anything, so I absolutely assume the entire team stands behind this shit)
Doesn't help his answer also called mansplaining as a newspeak term devised by the SJW to keep people in check:
At literally any point there are wide open windows for him to go 'oh I foudn this out, thats interesting - my bad for any upset caused, I didn't realise the original term' etc etc. But nope. Just a quick mention then brush it off and carry on with his core argument that seemingly everyone that disagrees with him is wrong or a woke SJW
he's still digging the hole just endlessly even now https://www.reddit.com/user/kovarex
how has no one on that team told him to quit while he still has any semblance of dignity left?
how has no one on that team told him to quit while he still has any semblance of dignity left?
Not sure how deep it goes, but the man quotes Trump and MAGAisms and seems to be against the "woke". The usual bullshit that preludes bigotry, dressed as "reason" against the frothing SJW hordes.
It's a pretty big red flag that they spend all their time drowning their brains in Ben Shapiro and other moronic reactionary right-wing shit.
like at best they're dupes, at worst they're cryptofascists.
People found some opinions of yours that shows a pattern of thinking that, to many of us, is the usual bullshit we hear while we're fighting for progress. This is all ingrained thinking behind all of your opinions here, and is valid to be brought up to show where you're coming from.
You decided to post here, openly, if you can't take that minimal heat then don't?
They're fine with it. I don't know how this is still in question. If there'd be any other explanation, they would have commented on it immediately, at least started to moderate their steam forums or posted anything in their subreddit or twitter. It's not the one guy, it's the studio.
Cancel Culture is a term peddled by those who want the right to say whatever offensive thing they feel like and to never be called out on it or questioned. That's the end of it.
If a person in the public eye says or does something that offends a section of their audience, and said audience vocally expresses that they aren't happy with them and that they are going to go elsewhere, is that not their right? How on earth is that something that can be criticised? How is that harmful?
I'm so fucking tired of Cancel Culture being used as if it's a bigger blight on society than racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. Anyone who thinks that can get fucked honestly and will immediately make me side-eye the person claiming it and make me think that they must be a piece of shit by default.
If a person in the public eye says or does something that offends a section of their audience, and said audience vocally expresses that they aren't happy with them and that they are going to go elsewhere, is that not their right? How on earth is that something that can be criticised? How is that harmful?
I'm so fucking tired of Cancel Culture being used as if it's a bigger blight on society than racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. Anyone who thinks that can get fucked honestly and will immediately make me side-eye the person claiming it and make me think that they must be a piece of shit by default.
Where exactly did I say that? Please don't stuff words in my mouth. I made it quite clear that encouraging the use of Uncle Bob's software design principles in a conversation surrounding clean code should be acceptable. That doesn't mean you have to subscribe to his political views. Additional replies went so far as to make it clear that I think Factorio dev was in the wrong.
I guess a nuanced position is hard to understand as a concept, but please try.
I think the thing in the UK that leads to a more robust.... veneer of respectability? Is that the term I want to use? - is that the Tories are pretty comfortable. They seem to have a fairly robust majority, it's a fair while before we'll see another general election - hopefully the recent byelection is a sign of a swing the other way, but we'll have to see. They don't *need* to do much to maintain the status quo.
The republicans, on the other hand, they're in trouble; demographics are moving against them significantly; there's a reason they have only won the popular vote once in, what, thirty years now? And in the light of that they had a choice to either adjust their policy viewpoints to become a broader church and try to entice the most centrist left-leaners to reconsider or double down on an increasingly angry base - and they did the latter. The consequence of which has been that they've had to make some more egregious tactical policy moves - not for the good of the country, but solely to lay the groundwork to keep the Republicans in power.
That, I think, is why it's *easier* to cast the Republicans as cartoonishly evil - their actions are more obviously, well, cartoonishly evil. The Tories, still deeply unpleasant, but they're in a position where they can safely afford to be more subtle about it.
Right here:
This is you dismissing clear and obvious concerns with bigotry.
And you keep going back off track: this thread isn't about Uncle Bob's software design principles. It is about the Factorio developer's absolutely insane response to someone calmly pointing out the bigotry involved.
And most importantly, you are writing off racism as a "political view."
Perfectly said and I couldn't agree more. It's hilarious how obvious the shit is too.
Imagine being afraid of the gazillions communism kills when conservative governments around the world fed disinformation and paranoia and are directly responsible for actual millions dead of Covid not in the far past of the cold war, but as we are speaking right now.
I should really not continue to follow this because nothing good can come out of it, but I think you were on the money:
This is a great depiction of the the Bigotry Catch-22.
* "I am not a bigot; I have valid reasons for my argument"
* "But your reasons only make sense if you are a bigot"
* "I draw your attention to the previous point"
I do feel that that's inherently how bigots justify it to themselves; they cite a 'fact' as a reason for their perfectly logical conclusion, and don't (or refuse to?) recognise that the 'fact' is *itself* hinging on bigotry, either in terms of how the research was done, or in the conclusions they're drawing from it.
But - in their minds - they can't be a bigot, because they're working from facts!
Well said, completely agree. Anyone complaining that "cancel culture" is the worst somehow thinks that people facing the consequences of their racism, homophobia etc is worse than the act itself and that's so ludicrous
My only take on the cancel culture war is that I think you should still be free to separate work from the worker in a pragmatic way. An expanded version of "death of the artist" if you will.
I had to read Uncle Bob stuff during my Computer Science degree and had no idea about his history outside of programming theory. I feel like people should still be free to use and discuss his work even if he's a shitty person. I would personally include a blurb about the things I don't like about him if I ever mentioned his stuff in writing. Focus on the work, not the creator.
Basically I think knowledge/utility remains useful even if the people behind it are shitty. People should be informed if something is bad, but I don't like the idea that someone's work is canceled alongside their public persona. People are smart enough to evaluate things and realize "this is a good programming technique to use and modify even if the guy who made it is terrible".
Nothing against calling people out for their actions, I just don't like the "voldemort" aspect that sometimes gets applied. Don't give these people awards or props, but don't throw away their harmless contributions.
I had to read Uncle Bob stuff during my Computer Science degree and had no idea about his history outside of programming theory. I feel like people should still be free to use and discuss his work even if he's a shitty person. I would personally include a blurb about the things I don't like about him if I ever mentioned his stuff in writing. Focus on the work, not the creator.
Basically I think knowledge/utility remains useful even if the people behind it are shitty. People should be informed if something is bad, but I don't like the idea that someone's work is canceled alongside their public persona. People are smart enough to evaluate things and realize "this is a good programming technique to use and modify even if the guy who made it is terrible".
Nothing against calling people out for their actions, I just don't like the "voldemort" aspect that sometimes gets applied. Don't give these people awards or props, but don't throw away their harmless contributions.
Wait, what?
There is a massive difference between informing others of a person's bigotry and saying let's ignore everything they did or contributed.
The latter is a personal decision that is only informed after being made aware, so it is good to share these things so people know who to support/signal boost etc...
- Status