As someone whose been deep in this issue for a long time im impressed u added a point that id never considered before... allieship being a two-way street. Thanks for your insights!
Great video. Really put to words a lot of things I've struggled with. Allyship always annoyed me, but I didn't fully realise the coercive abusive component that's behind it. Online speech especially tends to be intent on destroying the neutral response. The general tendency online is the "you're either with us or against us" mentality and the allyship rationale perfectly fits in with that. Either you repeat what we say or you're not an ally and therefore an enemy, erasing the fact that not being an ally should still leave a collection of otherwise supportive and neutral positions.
@@holdontoyourwig I didn't realize it was a children's game. Since most adults 40 or younger play videos games, many tiles are not intend for children, or not only for children. Similar to board games.
Fantastic point about the one-way relationship required by the ideologues not being true allyship. Will they have your back on another issue? Don't count on it!
@@noelplum99 He seemed to disappear precisely around the same time Carl Benjamin was questioned by the police for what he said on Justicar's podcast regarding ephebophilia.
I agree with you 100% on the use of the term 'ally', and made similar comments on a video by a youtuber named Sarah Michel (a trans woman who seems to be a good thinker, and very reasonable). I don't like the use of the word ally in this way. I think it is dishonest and manipulative. I reject it entirely. I am against discrimination because that is the position that my own personal system of reasoning and ethics has led me to. This leads to another conversation which I think needs to be had. There is an implicit assumption of subject matter expertise (and therefore authority) which underlies a lot of activist thinking. This assumption does not hold up to examination. I would give equal weight to a feminist lecturing on gender discrimination as I would to a catholic priest lecturing on morality. I would start with an immediate, subconscious rejection of the idea that these people are authorities or experts on the topics, and would listen within a (hopefully) objective framework to evaluate what they were saying. However, with the society we live in, at various times these "authorities" have been kind of assumed, and people haven't always been aware that they can (and should) be questioned. The catholic priest giving their lecture would be doing so with the complete assumption that they were an authority figure. The feminist academic would be doing the same thing during their lectures. The church has been assumed to be an expert on morality, feminism has been assumed to be an expert on gender issues, trans activists have been assumed to be the authority on issues related to trans discrimination. The concept of allyship is underpinned by the belief in the authority in these movements, in the acceptance that they are experts in the areas which they claim expertise. But when you dig down into these claims of authority or of expertise, you just find ideology, dogma and faith. I reject them entirely, and would hope that others do the same. I reject many of the supposedly self-evident truths that have been espoused over the years. This would certainly get me labelled in many different ways by the activists or true believers. The church might call me a heretic or a sinner, feminists might call me a sexist (or these days an incel or whatever) and the trans community might call me a transphobe. I don't care. I reject the activists self-appointed position of expertise, and so their judgement is meaningless. I don't believe that Rowling has any problems with trans people, but I do think she rejects aspects of the trans activist's dogma. So she gets the label of transphobe. I do believe that there is a trap that people can fall into though, when they get attacked and labelled. That trap is to (perhaps subconsciously) become less sympathetic to the underlying social issues that the activists claim to represent. The constant attacks on Rowling, for example, may shift her position. This is basic, predictable psychology. So when I say that I reject entirely the concept of allyship, and I reject entirely the claims of authority of various activists and their movements, I would also affirm that I am totally against discrimination, and am aware of prejudice and injustices that groups face. I try to fight against things like discrimination and prejudice on my own terms, to do good in this world on my terms, because that is what I believe to be right and correct, and I won't be shifted from that position by people who are abusive, manipulative, or unreasonable. I'll listen to points made, and thinks things through as fairly as I can, which is all that can be expected.
Some very good points. When I watched Walsh's "What is a woman?" film one of the most interesting parts was a person on the street who remarked that they cannot define a woman because they aren't one. "Try asking a woman" they remark, as if identifying as something somehow gives you some miraculous insight. We would never suggest a tax payer is automatically an expert at the complexities of tax legislation.
*Roseanne Barr* Kicked off of her eponymous, top viewed TV show, and social media apps, never heard from since. The only argument needed against the "cancel culture isn't real" argument.
Right! In the penal system there has to be a combination of Justice & Mercy. The Mercy is the fluffy Howard League 'make them a better person' bit, but the Justice is the vengeance.
I’ve never seen the distinction tbh. I’ve always thought the form of punitive justice we practice today is just socially-acceptable vengeance. When I hear people say,”That’s not justice. That’s revenge!”, I just think they’re talking about the same thing by a different name.
Then again, sometimes there are distinctions: Justice: The formation of Israel post-WW2 & specifically tailored hate-speech/crime laws implemented. Vengeance: Post-millennium trials of Nazi war criminals. Even then, you have to honestly question how just is the justice when you see the knock-on effects, and how vengeful is the vengeance when said war criminals are more or less at death’s door after living long, full, happy lives.
@@stevecass7575 Is it though? I mean, even the mercy part isn’t really mercy; rehabilitation is supposed to be for society’s benefit, not the inmates. If vengeance+mercy=justice, we wouldn’t have guys like Joe Arpaio as popular as he -is- was.
Love this, @TJump you need to have your scheduler set up an interview about these issues with Noel, I think you have similar views or at a minimum similar ways to communicate and it would be a great convo!!
I really can't believe the statement by the university. Whoever is in charge there should take a lesson of "what is free speech and why is it important". I feel that the person who wrote the statement has no clue what the free speech is all about.
I heard they really fixed No Man's Sky over the following years. I think they were worried about their reputation. I haven't been back to it, myself, just going by what I heard.
Two of the reasons I'd prefer not to have retribution be part of justice systems: 1) Errors of justice (wherein innocent people get convicted of crimes they did not commit) are common. When the risk is high that innocent people will be subjected to the penal system, it's more important to me to remove the retributive element from the justice they'll be exposed to than to add the retributive element to the justice that the guilty will be exposed to. 2) I don't believe in libertarian free will. Within this absence of belief, I don't buy into the idea that those guilty of crimes could have done differently than they did. In this sense, as far as I can tell, they are already victims of fate. I have no desire to further antagonize and victimize them beyond the bad hand the universe has already dealt them. P.S. I agree with you about the rest.
I preordered because I loved Harry Potter books and my husband began reading for the first time in his life after I gave him Harry Potter books on tape in 2002. We both loved the books. I preordered because I knew my current game was almost over and I didn't want 5 days of no games and I was excited realizing the game was releasing. I hadn't paid attention to the release schedule or anything about it, just saw a little preview months before and thought it looked fantastic. I hadn't forgotten about the accusations against JKR but I had forgotten what Contrapoints had said and my conclusions that she was right, JKR was transphobic and trolling the trans community very deliberately. HP is so big, has so much emotional connection to so many people that I didn't pay attention since I hadn't seen any other boycotts. Not after movies. Not at theme parks. Maybe there was boycotting and I wasn't aware. I was shocked after i downloaded the game and played for a day and checked a few things online. I didn't know how to feel or what to do. I watched Jesse Genders and she was very articulate about her pain in this. I dislike JKR very much and wish she just shut up or supported something I could stand behind.
Great point about some folk believing that what they want trumps everyone else. The great dictators are of of course the prime examples of this through history and that's why people like that should be kept from positions of power & influence if at all possible.
Sorry, Noel. I couldn't get passed the insult of you giving me the middle finger, every time you pushed up your glasses, I shall now try to cancel you. Otherwise, great video.
I haven't preordered a game since Cyberpunk: 2077, but I pre-ordered Hogwarts Legacy, not because I wanted to spite TRAs, but because I'm genuinely excited to play it based on all the previews of the game I've seen and have enjoyed the developer's previous games. Also, by pre-ordering it I get to play the game 3 days early and the pre-order was discounted.
I'm reading a book right now, Getting Past No, a negotiation book (for my business dealings), and this video and that book teased out why I don't like SJW: they don't negotiate, they DEMAND, and their answer is ALWAYS no, or yes, whichever they start with. It's actually pretty puerile and sad...and irrational even given their own goals...
i'm not planning on Hogwarts Legacy, only because i'm more interested in watching other play rather than myself... but some of the online takes i've seen are insane, like "devs have already been paid" which is so incredibly ignorant and short-sighted about how business and finance work. For example, Elden Ring exceeded From's expectations, to the extent that they're expanding their business and projects and have been hiring new staff. And of course the inverse is true too, if a studio under-performs, and or does so consistently, then layoffs result. Ironic that this argument is coming from a camp that also largely professes to be for workers 555 :))
9:33 I don't understand how being "a perfectly normal human attitude" can be an argument for anything. Using it looks like a naturalistic fallacy to me. After all, being tribal and racist is also a perfectly normal human attitude.
@@toby9999 when I heard (perfectly) "normal human attitude" I didn't understand this to be read as "socially accepted attitude". What is socially excepted has been changing quickly in human history and revenge is on the brink to become socially unacceptable too (which is to my understanding the reason why Noel made his remark in the first place). Revenge is on the exact same path as racism, the path from a natural human impulse (that has killed many people) to a socially unacceptable attitude. Acting on revenge is already illegal in most cases and the social norms will follow too, at least, that is what I suspect will happen sooner or later.
Sadly, you see a lot of this coercive, 'you say your supporting my position but you're not doing it enough' stuff from elements of the feminist movement towards supportive men.
If it was the same conversation with Destiny as the one I watched with Null from KiwiFarms, then it was quite interesting. Null, regardless of how you feel about him, is basically the trump card to throw out against people who claim cancel culture isn't a thing. Someone who is doing nothing illegal, yet people use illegal means to try and take down his operations and prevent him earning money in legitimate ways. Yet cancel culture isn't a thing, and that is exactly why made up claims of "death threats" on a forum which are deleted within 20 minutes can have major firms decide to go against their stated principles to get you off of the internet.
Gotta remember that a good chunk of the preorders are probably just normal people and fans who don't give a shit about the politics. The old Harry Potter games were some of the best selling games on their respective consoles. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was the sixth highest selling PlayStation game of all time for instance. Personally I'll wait and see if it's any good because I don't preorder games for exactly the sorts of reasons you stated.
The oddest thing to me is that JK Rowling ever bothered to get in this debate at all. Why? I remember the moment I lost respect of her was when she made one of those "men will be able to enter women's restrooms" arguments, as if anyone is policing and crotch checking people who walk into bathrooms in the first place. Too many celebrities want to express their (usually dumb) opinions for seemingly no reason. I guess it's the trap we all fall into: we think all our opinions are *good* opinions when they are usually not. That said - I did pre-order Hogwarts Legacy. I just made a donation of an equal amount to the Transgender Law Center to hopefully balance that karmic scales. As for the whole pre-ordering games thing... yes, it's a bad idea. Nobody should do it. Wait 'til the game comes out with reviews. This comes from experience. I got burned by Cyberpunk, and I might very well get burned by Hogwarts Legacy too (I hope not). And I'll probably get burned again. I can't help myself.
Quite right on labels not content, Noel. Also, why so many people seem to be influenced on socio-political matters by 'celebrities', I don't know. Do your own thinking. The idea that you decide what to think based on whether you like or dislike a particular celebrity or their views is mind-numbing to me.
OK. But what if they’re not being influenced and either find they agree with the ‘celebrity’ or discover that the ‘celebrity’ agrees with a belief or beliefs they’ve held all along?
@@hibernopithecus7500 As long as they do their own thinking, that's fine. BUT for some, aprticularly the younger & imperssionable, if their favourite pop start or sports star makes a socio-political comment that unduly influences them to agree without much thought. And if that wasn't true, why do so many political parties and brands and causes go to such lengths to get the endorsement of celebrities?
I usually refer to myself as a sympathiser rather than an ally, however, it's starting to get to the point where I am losing any sympathetic feelings I have for a cause where the advocates for such cause employ cancel culture tactics. I'm writing this comment over a month after this video was published and during that time various live-streamers have been viciously bullied and harassed for playing the game. Some live streamers have even quit because of the abuse they received. For me this does not help the cause in any way, in fact it helps turn me off supporting or sympathising with their cause.
Considering how most licensing/merchandising deals are written and made, J.K. probably made every penny she will ever get from the game before the game was coded.
Cancel culture isn't about how much the target suffered. It's about the fact that someone thought it acceptable to even TRY to make someone else suffer for "offending" them. The mere ATTEMPT is the "culture" of "canceling". Karens, the lot of them.
I hold the same position on Hogwarts Legacy as I do for every other AAA game: Buying it at release is paying the most money for the worst version. All this screaming about Rowling means nothing to me. A small group of really loud mad people wants *their* priorities to influence the spending habits of the majority. I'm not going to change mine one way or the other just because those mad people got some media attention. I'll be buying it in a year. Like usual for games I'm interested in playing.
It's not even worth asking the facetious questions of "is the game going to try to sell Rowling's political opinions" or "will this game effect Rowling's financial success". We haven't learned of anything new since the game's announcement that would shift anyone's purchasing decision based on their personal priorities. It was based on Rowling's IP from the start and Rowling has been, vocally, a TERF, since before the game was announced. Why start boycotting it now? The only question is if you allow the loud opinions of someone else to effect your spending habits. And that includes buying the game (when you weren't planning to) *because* mad people are loudly yelling for a boycott. Doing that is *just* as pathetic as those who avoid buying the game (when they were planning to) because mad people are loudly yelling for a boycott.
I find the issue on cancel culture quite interesting - On an individual level it seems obvious that if you don't like a particular person, or their business, or their product, and it's important enough for you to make a stand on it then not giving them any of your money is about as fair a position that you could take. Beyond that, I think even with interactions with friends or family, if I had a particularly bad interaction or opinion of some proprietor, and I know that I'm quite close with this friend or family member, I'd feel like a bit of a twat allowing them to discover that themselves. As a result, it strikes me that at this level, it feels like there's actually a duty that I have to those individuals (beyond enjoying a solid gripe to a friend) to tell them about it in advance so that they similarly are spared from emptying their wallet into the pockets of someone they would dislike, or from a negative experience they might have. On the cultural level, it seems quite on the contrary to me, in which the destruction of a person's character, reputation or business because some people don't like them (any takers wanting to accuse me of using minimizing language here can stuff it), and the rest distancing themselves as far as they can to avoid getting caught in the collateral damage is grotesque to me. I often wonder what the end goal that they're aiming for in engaging in such behavior - should the person be out starving in the street with all their friends and family having abandoned them before there's satisfaction the lesson is well taken? Maybe it's enough that they lose just a few jobs or just a few relationships? It's a bizarre accounting in and of itself when I hear calls from certain people to have empathy and argue for release and rehabilitation for persons in the criminal justice system (something I'm not necessarily opposed to in general, though certainly there's always specifics to turn over), and then turn around and ask that a person socially and professionally wear an irredeemable black mark for the rest of their life because of some foul expression. Maybe it's more of an academic point, but I've wondered where the level the two crossover - if I tell even 10 people I know that I hated the food at a local restaurant, or that the vietnamese lady who, while serving us, hurled entirely colourful and racist insults at me at the table in her native tongue (that my companion understood but I didn't) - 10 people isn't going to break anyone, but 50? 100? 1000? I have no idea. As well, at some point it has the capacity to grow well beyond our own statements to do real damage, but is that now the responsibility of that one individual, or of the individuals within the group, or the group itself? Accountability becomes difficult when it's spreading like wildfire across social media, where the problem may well lie. I like the framing of the topic of ally abuse, I have to think on what you've said more. Where the groups to which you can be an ally may not necessarily agree and overlap, it may become a task shopping around for the best suzerain overlord for your opinions. Glad to have you posting more frequently again Noel.
Just Kidding Rowling must be shaking in her multi-million dollar mansion right now. This is going to totally leave her penniless as her net worth is only 1 billion dollars. How will she survive! D:
Re: Hogwarts Legacy and hurting JK Rowling financially, I think there is one way the boycott could have been genuinely impactful that you didn't mention (but in fairness I don't think I've actually seen it mentioned anywhere). If the backlash/boycott was effective enough that the game had tanked, it might have made the Harry Potter franchise/IP unpalatable to other companies considering what media to produce in the future. Companies and investors are risk averse, so if it looked like media tied to Harry Potter and/or Rowling was likely to fail because of Rowling being a 'persona non grata', they would likely steer clear of the franchise. In other words, the boycott/backlash had the potential to indirectly hit Rowling financially (by deterring the creation of future Harry Potter franchise media), rather than directly (by reducing Rowling's cut from game sales). I'm somewhat surprised I haven't seen this argument before (though I haven't been looking very hard in fairness) because it seems more plausible than the two common lines trotted out (ie the two you dealt with in this video). Anyway, interesting video as always!
There was an all-ages drag show held in my town and it was horribly inappropriately sexual. The organizers spoke with performers and removed the overtly sexual aspects from subsequent performances. We all seem to agree that not all books are appropriate for children, we do not all agree on which books are inappropriate.
2:30 - IDK, couldn't you make the same argument about voting in political elections? I'm not happy with my one vote, so I'm going to campaign for my preferred candidate in order to create even more votes for them?
I think that is a little bit different to what I meant though. Using the example Destiny gave of his "cancellation attempt", they effectively did what you say here and a group of them stopped watching his streams. I think that far is within the bounds of "one person, one vote" (if you convince 1000 people to stop watching then it takes 1000 people stopping watching to have 1000 persons worth of impact still) and a canvassing for more support analogy but when you move beyond that to measures whereupon one person can have a highly disproportionate impact (contacting sponsors, false flagging legit material, etc) then I think that is where it becomes unreasonable and an element of self-importance creeps in.
@@noelplum99 - I see, that makes sense, and certainly the Muslim student who waited to be offended is just a troublemaker. Now, I suppose the next thought might be (pardon the extreme analogy), well, what if the "thing we want to put a stop to" was something we viewed as really really bad, like say, slavery of African people in England and the US, instead of simply showing a picture of Mohammed? If the thing we were trying to stop was slavery, and if it was so easy to stop one particular instance of it, then I could understand such bullying/troublemaking tactics. If you and I woke up in 1800, and we saw the terrible abuse of African people in slavery conditions, and we discovered that simply waiting to be offended by it at an opportune moment had the power to free some slaves... I personally hope we would both choose to do that. So perhaps these types of bullies either truly believe that the thing they're trying to stop is as bad as you and I would consider slavery to be (or thereabouts), or these people simply have no sense of scale, and the worst thing that they experience is simply remembered as the worst thing on the planet. Either way, I think this could help to explain these types of bullying tactics.
I watched a bit of a video recently called "Is Harry Potter Bad?" and the thumbnail was some gender-thing and it said "Yes". Most of their complaints wasn't the story, but that effectively that Harry Potter does not really live up to their sensibilities. Making hay out of the fact that there was only a single magic school in Africa, and other trivial bits of lore that actually in no way effect the overall story. What I find funny about this, is that it is exactly why I never really liked Harry Potter that much as a child - I always found that the world seems to be this ad hoc creation, and therefore a lot of the lore does not really make sense. As if J K Rowling was making things up on the fly... However, this is strangely quite a good defence for the stories - maybe don't think too deeply about some silly books about a boy who lives under the stairs with magical powers, who goes to a magical boarding school and has magical adventures. Not every bit of fiction is some powerful allegory, steeped in meta-narratives - maybe it quite literally is just a story about a boy who lives under the stairs who discovers he has magic powers. Just a bin of fun.
It does looks really good, but until it launches no way of knowing if it is a technical mess. We've seen many games like that, such as Cyberpunk 2077. CDPR have a history of doing right by their games and were always going to fix Cyberpunk. Don't know how much time and money WB Games will throw at Legacy if broken though. It is the central fantasy of being a teenager waving a stick about that doesn't really grab me though.
Are complaints about this game actually a thing? Or is it just some minor social media accounts? Because I for one have barely heard anything about this. In fact, the things I have heard about this, is that people want to buy/pre-order this game because people are (apparently) complaining -- which honestly is just as stupid as the complaining itself. Meanwhile I haven't heard or seen anyone actually complain about this. This self created problem is so stupid that I just don't feel like putting any real mental effort into it. It's a big: "*shug*, who cares", for me.
She's a super lefty on every other topic. Total acceptance of the message is a sign of cults or authoritarian governance. It's off putting. People are getting tired of it.
I think people just don't like being told what to do and maybe even more so what not to do. I didn't really have interest in the game. Harry Potter is fine and all, but I have more games than I can play in a life time. But then I was told that I am not to buy that game because if I do I am a fascist, whatever that means nowadays. So I now find myself with some desire to buy the game. This might be a brilliant marketing strategy.
They do not know what an ally is, to them it means someone who is 100% on board with their ideas and values them as highly as they do, which the rest of us would not call an ally so much as a comrade. A real alliance is about people putting aside differences in the face of a greater threat, the USSR and the USA did not share any values at all beyond Antinazism but that was enough for them to ally. The idea that someone who is their ally on one issue might not be on another is simply intolerable to these new cryptofascists on the left, they take it as an absolute betrayal.
I love and support my children, BUT I do not support everything they do. I am not going to show greater support for a group that I have less of a stake in. I can be supportive of anything or anyone, but I do not need to be in lockstep with their thoughts and actions. The “ally” game is truly a way to falsely claim support for the most controversial of a groups thoughts and actions. My idea of where rights start and end may differ greatly from others, but it doesn’t mean I think anyone should have none. It is not black and white.
The socio-political pendulum is starting to swing back, and I believe it will get uglier before it makes it back to somewhere in the middle again. I think the pushback against the far left crowd, and feelings over facts zealots is spawning more of the far right feelings over facts zealots. Unfortunately, our modes of disseminating information now favor the fringe, rather than the moderate. If there were a way to better teach critical thinking, we may be able to overcome the misinformation being pushed from both sides.
I preordered Hogwarts Legacy for my girlfriend because she loves Harry Potter. I didn't get it for myself because I thought the Harry Potter movies sucked. I've never read the books. My girlfriend has. So, maybe I messed up by watching the movies first. I just thought the movies were terrible. lol. I don't pay cancel culture any mind and I couldn't care less about what people think of JK Rolling. If the game looks good when my girlfriend starts playing it, I may pick it up for myself as well. I know a lot of my friends are looking to pick it up after some post-release reviews. They are very anti-preorder. I don't blame them. I also preordered No Man's Sky and was very disappointed. They've redeemed themselves and then some at this point though. No Man's Sky is really good now - really good. Some bugs here and there though.
Whatever you think of it, cancel culture is a feature of modern society. Whatever the moral implications of it, it's something people will do. Given a vector for attack, some people will take it. Take the lies told about trans people these days, such as the forced transition nonsense - same thing. When you have social media, you'll get individuals and groups capitalising on it for their own ends, good, or bad. As for the whole 'ally' thing. I've always thought it was both uncomfortable and pointless. A person's opinions are that individual's. I've unsubbed TH-camrs for expressing certain viewpoints - that's a reflection of my own opinions. If enough people unsub, they lose - smallest violin plays etc... I'm not going to try to mobilise an army of people to boycot them, but some might (back to cancel culture). It's the currency of the realm these days. By the same token, I've subscribed to TH-camrs because I admire their content. That's how this works. No-one here is owed support.
If someone being an "ally" of the trans community means it is only a one way relationship and not really an alliance because allyiship requires a bilateral aid and there is no bilateral aid in that kind of relationship, what terms do I use instead of ally that would satisfy you? If I am a rich successful person and I give someone who is in poverty 100k to get out of poverty, I am not being their "ally" by your definition because that person can do nothing for me. It's perfectly clear to me that ally is just another word for "supporter" and there need not be mutual support required for their to be an alliance just because that person or community is not in a position to help me. Maybe what I get out of my alliance is simple verbal gratitude from that person and community. And the personal satisfaction of being ethically and historically on the right side of the issue.
In your example, as you say, supporter wpuld be one term. Patron, or benefactor, would be better terms ina financial context. Aside from financial support, champion or advocate would be useful terms for someone asymmetrically supporting a group with no reciprocity. However, please be clear here, I am generally fairly cool with other people using words as they wish, so this is more about why *I* wouldn't use the term in that context. There are SO MANY words in english for one -sided support but "ally" and "alliance" are words usually used for something that has far less linguistic alternatives, which makes it seem a somewhat suspicious choice to have arisen, as if the intent is to dress the relationship up as somewhat more balanced than it is. However, by all means use the term for your own support of causes if you like using it in that context.
The woke crowd weaponize labels. Their terminology is deceptive. The most obvious example and seemingly most overused is their redefinition of the term "rascism".
It is very much a case of cutting your nose to spite your face, when it comes to supporting or not J. K. Rowling. I imagine there was a large investment in money and manpower, in the production of this game. I doubt any of J. K. Rowling‘s money was invested in it. I imagine it was produced by an independent games studio, with little in the way of input from J. K. Rowling. All they needed was her permission and perhaps signed off by her. Like you said, she will obviously get royalties, as it is a brand, that she owns. At the end of the day, all you are really hurting by not buying the game, are the little people, who invested the time, money, and effort, into the production of the game. You don’t have to like J. K. Rowling because of her personal views, but there’s nothing to stop you liking what she has created. Her creation is not her. Just saying.
Ironically enough leftists use “death of the author” arguments like these to defend bad leftist takes all the time, especially when it comes queering characters that authors know to be straight simply because they want their gay ship to cannon.
Gay romanian at work came out as trans. I like the guy and in the past gave him an 8tb WD red HDD that was too loud for my media PC in exchange for a 3d print, and he currently has my old oculus rift on long term loan. That said, i wont call him his new girls name, nor will i use female pronouns. For that game to make him happy, it has to be single player. His happiness cant be based on other people playing along. I just avoid talking to him now or just jump into conversation without addressing him.
You should make a judgement on Rowling. It is clear she is one of these feminists that in the end has a double standard when it comes to the sexes and genders.
I do agree that cancel culture exists. I also hold the view that there are no successful cancellations. I don't think we're in disagreement, really. You yourself pointed out that this game is making money hand over fist in preorders. JK Rowling is not significantly harmed by her cancellation. Celebrity and wealth protect people from the consequences of this kind of thing. The Jordan Peterson example is very relevant because it shows the intersection between cancel culture and professional victimhood. Jordan Peterson is a gender-swapped Anita Sarkeesian. He exists as a magnet of hate with some level of deniability so he can call his followers to his own defense with impunity. The constant conflict gets him a lot of attention and that has turned into a deal with the Daily Wire. Now, the paradox of cancel culture as a culture war talking point is that the people who are significantly harmed by cancellation are people nobody cares about. But that's a double edged sword: If all cancellations were of these people who languish in obscurity and can't "fight back", the conservative side of the war wouldn't care either. What moves them to action isn't sympathy for the little guys getting ended by controversy, it's the idea that their favorite talking head with millions in the bank might be targeted.
*Jordan Peterson is a gender-swapped Anita Sarkeesian* Quite an interesting comparison there. Yes, certainly insofar as they both had a period whereupon their main media selling point was "what it is like to be me" and both of them milked that for all it was worth then that is a very good observation. Odd bedfellows though, nevertheless 🤣🤣
I'd say JK it's pretty transphobic, but at the same time, when you're making *any* purchase you have to acknowledge that the company your buying it from has done some level of unethical things. I mean you've got Nestle with their human rights violations, the mass production of any common household goods which come from a factory in another country without labor standards where workers are extremely exploited. For the case of JK, it's like the bible verse "don't point out the splinter in your neighbor while ignoring the log in your own eye" (who would have thought Sunday school actually comes in handy sometimes lol). In terms of cancel culture, I think any sort of mob justice has the same problems where there isn't any accountability and the wrong person can (and does) get strung up on the noose. The idea behind it is intoxicating as way of getting justice against otherwise famous people who managed to evade the law for issues like domestic abuse/sexual assault (seems all to common in the entertainment industry sometimes). But that same blade gets turned on otherwise innocent people like the professor you mentioned in your video. Rather then try and use mob justice we should turn the focus towards understanding and fixing the justice system itself. Finally, in terms of ally abuse, I'll disagree with you somewhat on the point of never calling yourself an ally, being an ally doesn't mean foregoing your autonomy as a person nor blindly following others. If that's what someone is asking of you then they want a cult member. Being an ally, like you said, is about mutual support. Maybe the better phrase is that if you're an ally make sure to set boundaries, and if you have an instance where you need help and they don't give it, then it's probably not a good alliance to be in. Honestly it's like being in any relationship, just because there are some assholes out there who would abuse you doesn't mean you should avoid relationships.
First of all i think you assume people who buy this video game have some kind of insight into The J.K R situation. 99% of people simply buy this game for their 12 year old kid....because they like H.Potter.
Jk Rowling is a goddam hero. I don't play video games, and have even less interest in Harry Potter, but I kinda wanna buy the game, just because of the butthurt about her. But I deeply admire her standing up against the insane bullying aimed at her (despite the fact she's never said anything REMOTELY "transphobic"- ask an accuser for any SPECIFIC "transphobic" quote from her, and you'll get cricket-noises, or unrelated accusations, or guilt-by-distant-association, or ghosted entirely.... But the one thing you WON'T get, is any legit, specific "transphobic" quote by JK Rowling)
@@monkeykingeater I think her point was more that there's zero concern for the outcomes of these policies. Allowing any man to declare himself a woman on a whim and enter into women's spaces is just asking for a disaster. And we can't even have a discussion about how to possibly mitigate the risk, because anything but 100% blind support is "transphobic." Rowling is indisputably right, and it's just too bad if having that discussion hurts some feelings.
@@monkeykingeater transwomen aren't women, and this whole thing of demanding everyone pretend they are is ridiculous and, frankly, inhuman. Someone needs to say it.
Fantastic point about being an ally. You don't know what you sign up for. I am however a bit thrown that you refrain from calling J. K. Rowling transphobic. Her initial comments about trans people having an agenda to pretend biological sex doesn't exist is seems especially damning on it's own, let alone everything that followed. Still giving this video a like for it's comments on allyship though.
But that’s an actual issue coming from the trans community especially when it comes to sport, sex segregated spaces and even just common sense. For example all of the trans women claiming to “get a period” from taking estrogen when 1.) taking estrogen should not have the effect even in males and if it does you need to see a doctor about possible complications 2.) it would not be a period because a period is the expulsion of the uterine lining out of the vagina. Trans women don’t have uterus’s and therefore no uterine lining to expel from the neo-vagina and that’s IF they have a neo vagina. A fully in tact male can never experience a period. Also trying to “normalize” a “bulge” in a trans woman’s pelvis area as a “female bulge” is just insane. You can’t be female and have a penile bulge. That’s not how biology works. I could go on and on about the rejection of biology via the trans community as well as the denial of science. I support trans people on the basis of it being a severe psychological condition that’s only known treatment is social and medical transition. I would never fault someone for a condition they cannot control and a treatment they must have in order to live functional normal lives. I would never chastise a diabetic or someone with depression from getting the legitimate help they need and trans people should be treated with no more stigma than them which should be none. I also don’t condemn people who try to express themselves in unconventional ways including body modification. Some women want high boobs, some want double mastectomies, some women are hyper masculine and some feminine. Same for men. Drag and cross dressing are all well and Dandy. But to fight against common sense and force people to tell you what you want to hear under threat of law or threat of violence isn’t okay but is widely accepted in the community. Hell, trans women tried to go to Rowlings HOUSE and talked about ASSAULTING HER ON SIGHT. How can you look at that and not see Rowling has a point? That trans people are crossing a line and we need to stop letting it happen over fear of being bigot. I am more than willing to listen to what they have to say but I also don’t believe everything I hear and use logic and reason. I also don’t listen to people who whose only course of action is violence and verbal abuse. That seems pretty reasonable doesn’t it???
@@kimmiewise1044 I have never heard of either of the issues that you brought up. Can't comment on them at all. Also, I never denied that trans activists can be overzealous. Plenty of prominent cancel culture hysteria has been trans related. I'm not denying that. But really? It's still in question as to whether J. K Rowling is Transphobic? She's also compared the possibility of a woman with a penis to 1984 hasn't she? She said something to the effect of 'Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, the penised Individual who raped you is a woman.' When she talked about biological sex being erased it sounded like transphobia to me because I personally heard the dog whistle of 'those people have their insidious agenda.' Maybe you didn't hear that because of these...er... issues that you have familiarity with. But if you're saying that people who have penises can never be women that's the definition of transphobia, and SURELY J. K Rowling has tried to communicate that. Not buying into ingroup-outgroup hatred like you seem to assume I do. But I'm still REALLY surprised that it's still controversial as to whether J. K. Rowling is transphobic.
@@kimmiewise1044 One more thing I want to say. I am not trans. But if I were, your issues of whether or not a period is valid, or whether or not I have a bulge and can still be female would not be important. The only thing that would matter would be 'am I similar enough to women to be considered a woman?' And if you don't think I am, I would try to make a better argument. And by taking issue with a law as to whether a rapist with a penis might be a woman, J. K. Rowling was trying to undermine that identity. And issues of trans identity do not inevitably lead to biological sex being erased. I do not know what news you listen to, but I have never even heard of trans identity leading to that. I'm sure that it COULD, because trans right can be overzealous as I said, but I don't think those things should be linked implicitly.
@Sam Martina Nothing is the 'definition of transphobia" because it's not a real word. But the suffix "phobia" would imply a fear or hatred. You can say somebody isn't a woman without hating or fearing them.
@@markpostgate2551 Google definitions doesn't agree with you. It says that transphobia is 'dislike or strong prejudice against transgender people.' My phone also recognises the word 'transphobia' as I am typing. It is also just plain unhelpful to assume transphobia isn't a word, or that it has the definition you gave it based on the facts of the world we live in. You can never know for sure how much fear an individual is feeling, but you can see when a person gets combative on the issues of accepting trans people's identity. Some people like J. K. Rowling get really combative when it comes to accepting trans people.
I don't understand your take on boycotts here. The idea that you should only boycott things yourself as an individual otherwise you're saying that your vote should count for more than one? That's absurd. When people go leafleting for a political party, nobody thinks that they don't believe in democracy. The fact is that many people don't know or care about issues that some people find important. Maybe boycotting Hogwarts Legacy is a drop in the ocean but everyone who believes in the boycott is advocating for a full boycott of Rowling. If only TERFs were willing to buy anything Rowling puts out, that would be a big deal. Will that happen? No. But the idea that we don't get to advocate for anything approaching that seems absurd.
I have no issue with you canvassing others to try and convince them to follow your lead (for a boycott). If you convince 100 people then 100 people gave made a volitional choice and will have the impact of 100 people. The issue is when the tactics get more grubby, such as trying to sabotage a person's economic relationships or, in this Hogwarts example, trying to emotionally and morally coerce people into siding with you. There is a world of difference between "here is why I am boycotting this game, you may consider doing the same" and "if you don't do the same as me then you are immoral, siding with transphobia etc etc".
@@noelplum99 the economic relationships thing I can 100% agree with you on but I don't understand what the problem is with the moral "coercion". I really think it's an argument that only works if it's granted that the individual's boycott was invalid. If we take an uncontroversial example like buying from Germany during WWII, I don't think anyone would have a problem with people explaining what the Holocaust victims are going through to make people take a stand.
People in Scotland hated J.K.Rowling before it was fashionable to do so elsewhere. I smiled when you said that it was uncomfortable for one person to have more than their fair share of say over others. During the referendum arguments for Scottish independence, Rowling did exactly that. One person one vote... unless you're a rich children's author, in which case you can hold a lot of influence amongst your fans. And hey, if the fame-factor wasn't enough, Rowling contributed towards the anti-independence campaign. I forget the sum, but it included the word "million". Rowling is Scotland's Benedict Arnold. TLDR: Fuck her.
Not buying the game because of the views of one person involved in creating it seems like trying to get the gold medal in the virtue signal Olympics and it is yet another example of the hypocrisy of some people. It's a very slippery slope. Most things are produced in factories with hundreds of workers. What if one of those workers was a racist? In reality, it seems very likely that most factories have people working there that don't agree with your political views. It seems very hypocritical to use any product whatsoever if you agree with the cancelation, because you can never know how many "nazis" were involved in producing those products. It's just such a nonsensical idea that just doesn't make any sense when you start thinking about it and yet people just spew it out as if it's making them a "better person". It isn't. It's just showing people how hypocritical you are and how little you actually think about the issues you claim to be so invested in.
I expect this whole argument going away because I expect Hogwarts Legacy to suck. I don't see the game being released without tons of technical issues and the game being broken and unfinished in general. Why? Because most games that are licensed are bad, the developer who gets the license is the one which is most willing to pay the highest amount for the license which leaves them with less money to devote to actually making the game good and they tend to put in a low amount effort and instead trading on the name recognition of the license. Specifically, let's look at Avalanche Software's track record of game development in the last 10 years: 2014 Disney Infinity 2.0 2015 Disney Infinity 3.0 2017 Cars 3: Driven to Win All these games licensed from known franchises and if you go back even further, that's what Avalanche Software does, they make licensed games from known Disney franchises. Hogwars Legacy is the first time since 2005 that Avalanche Software is independent of Disney however, now working under the Warner Brothers umbrella. Now it's true that it's entirely possible that while working under Warner Brothers they acquired the talent and the ability to put in the effort to make a high quality open world Harry Potter game. However the scope of the platform they are releasing on is massive. They are releasing on last generation consoles PS4 and Xbox One as well and are also developing a Switch version as well as PC and current generation consoles. If you know anything about game development, targeting last generation consoles is usually the kiss of death, especially the Switch because you have to develop for the lowest common denominator that the inferior hardware (especially the Switch's) represent. It's really difficult to develop an open world game for every single platform without making compromises. The amount of quality assurance necessary to test things is astronomical with all these platforms. Much bigger and wealthier studios have failed to do this successfully like CD Projekt Red and Cyberpunk being the biggest example. Lastly Hogwarts Legacy has already been delayed twice. That does not bode well at all, that's another red flag when you set a date and realize the game is not ready to meet that date. So for all these reason, If I'm playing the odds, they are likely to fail hard and that is why this whole cancel culture discussion won't matter if the game sucks.
I only read the first paragraph since I didn't need to know your whole argument behind prediction. But I just wanted to point out, you were wrong. It was a terrific game and relatively bug free. It also was a crappy game because running around as a student killing a bunch of people and magical creatures eventually took me out of the Hogwarts world. I've killed hundreds of thousands in my time gaming but HP world should not be a part of that.
Eh, if people don't want to get the game for whatever reason its a valid reason for them. Its only when people try to convince others to act based on that reason that really matters or makes any difference. I don't feel comfortable getting the game, not only because of her views but for the smugness she has while holding those views. Its more her attitude about it then her views themselves, I think her views are wrong but if she wasn't just a smug jerk about her views then it wouldn't bother me that one rich person holds a view I disagree with. Cancel culture has always existed, if people don't like a thing they try to convince others to not like it as well, that is really all it is. Real harmful cancel culture to me is more what the right does where they try to ban things from existing or preventing other people from being able to get something through the law or government actions, which is completely different then saying.. I don't like x because the creator has views i disagree with so I will try to convince others to not support the creator due to the views they have (or due to the views the art or product itself supports). Its all about just having consequences for people's beliefs/views, they can have those views but it doesn't mean they don't face consequences for those views.
You say the right-wing does it in a bad way, but then you haven't really differntiated beyond that. So seemingly it boils down to cancel culture is fine as long as I agree with the people doing it. Besides that politics is actually the proper avenue to get certain behaviors out of existence. An obvious example of the left wing banning things out of existence would be laws regarding environmental issues (e.g Industrial pollution, protected species, taxes on fossil fuels). Surely you are fine with those even though it's the left-wing trying to ban something out of existence? Fundamentally though a belief or view shouldn't have a consequence. Only actions carry a consequence. Merely holding or debating a view should hold no consequence as there is no harm done. What I find scary about people who have no issue talking about consequences is that they never seem to clarify what those consequences should entail. Meanwhile the consequences in practice tend to be horribly cruel and unfairly distributed.
They don't look for allies. They look for henchmen
And I'll be found dead before I put myself in one of those minion suits
"Henchman" is a good word. Will steal.
I am so very tired of the authoritarian thought police on both the left and right.
Unfortunately they are the most vocal and the news media has perverse financial incentives for amplifying the most extreme voices.
As someone whose been deep in this issue for a long time im impressed u added a point that id never considered before... allieship being a two-way street.
Thanks for your insights!
Great video. Really put to words a lot of things I've struggled with. Allyship always annoyed me, but I didn't fully realise the coercive abusive component that's behind it. Online speech especially tends to be intent on destroying the neutral response. The general tendency online is the "you're either with us or against us" mentality and the allyship rationale perfectly fits in with that. Either you repeat what we say or you're not an ally and therefore an enemy, erasing the fact that not being an ally should still leave a collection of otherwise supportive and neutral positions.
They probably cannot distinguish apathy from malice.
14:05 How loud should we have the dramatic sound effect?
Noel Plum: "Yes"
You say "rambly" but I really enjoyed this format, great vid!
So, anyone interested in an "I'm a Noel Plum Ally" T-shirt?
Only if it features a hand grenade.
I have no plans to purchase the game but now have a strong desire to see Noel streaming Hogwarts Legacy on Twitch.
Not a gamer or do you not expect it to be a good game?
@@vids595 Or they don't have a 12 year old child who would play it ?
@@holdontoyourwig I didn't realize it was a children's game. Since most adults 40 or younger play videos games, many tiles are not intend for children, or not only for children. Similar to board games.
@@vids595 It's Harry Potter so i am guessing it's designed for children. Who knows.
@@holdontoyourwig Turns out it is not. Like many games is is made for both older children and adults.
'Warning: SHIT-STIRRER!' 🤣
No excuses needed, Noel. It's a great video and you explain your views clearly & cogently. Thanks as ever.
You got me chuckling at the badges.
"WARNING! Shit Stirrer"
Fantastic point about the one-way relationship required by the ideologues not being true allyship. Will they have your back on another issue? Don't count on it!
Thumbnail looks as if Noel randomly said wingardium leviosa and it worked
I'm so glad to hear from you. I really value your insight. Thanks Noel.
(Now to get The Justicar to post)
I haven't seen anything from him for ages. I hope he is OK!!
@@noelplum99 Me Too! (and no he didn't harrass me)
@@noelplum99 He seemed to disappear precisely around the same time Carl Benjamin was questioned by the police for what he said on Justicar's podcast regarding ephebophilia.
I agree with you 100% on the use of the term 'ally', and made similar comments on a video by a youtuber named Sarah Michel (a trans woman who seems to be a good thinker, and very reasonable).
I don't like the use of the word ally in this way. I think it is dishonest and manipulative. I reject it entirely. I am against discrimination because that is the position that my own personal system of reasoning and ethics has led me to.
This leads to another conversation which I think needs to be had. There is an implicit assumption of subject matter expertise (and therefore authority) which underlies a lot of activist thinking. This assumption does not hold up to examination. I would give equal weight to a feminist lecturing on gender discrimination as I would to a catholic priest lecturing on morality. I would start with an immediate, subconscious rejection of the idea that these people are authorities or experts on the topics, and would listen within a (hopefully) objective framework to evaluate what they were saying.
However, with the society we live in, at various times these "authorities" have been kind of assumed, and people haven't always been aware that they can (and should) be questioned. The catholic priest giving their lecture would be doing so with the complete assumption that they were an authority figure. The feminist academic would be doing the same thing during their lectures. The church has been assumed to be an expert on morality, feminism has been assumed to be an expert on gender issues, trans activists have been assumed to be the authority on issues related to trans discrimination. The concept of allyship is underpinned by the belief in the authority in these movements, in the acceptance that they are experts in the areas which they claim expertise.
But when you dig down into these claims of authority or of expertise, you just find ideology, dogma and faith. I reject them entirely, and would hope that others do the same. I reject many of the supposedly self-evident truths that have been espoused over the years. This would certainly get me labelled in many different ways by the activists or true believers. The church might call me a heretic or a sinner, feminists might call me a sexist (or these days an incel or whatever) and the trans community might call me a transphobe. I don't care. I reject the activists self-appointed position of expertise, and so their judgement is meaningless.
I don't believe that Rowling has any problems with trans people, but I do think she rejects aspects of the trans activist's dogma. So she gets the label of transphobe.
I do believe that there is a trap that people can fall into though, when they get attacked and labelled. That trap is to (perhaps subconsciously) become less sympathetic to the underlying social issues that the activists claim to represent. The constant attacks on Rowling, for example, may shift her position. This is basic, predictable psychology. So when I say that I reject entirely the concept of allyship, and I reject entirely the claims of authority of various activists and their movements, I would also affirm that I am totally against discrimination, and am aware of prejudice and injustices that groups face.
I try to fight against things like discrimination and prejudice on my own terms, to do good in this world on my terms, because that is what I believe to be right and correct, and I won't be shifted from that position by people who are abusive, manipulative, or unreasonable. I'll listen to points made, and thinks things through as fairly as I can, which is all that can be expected.
Some very good points.
When I watched Walsh's "What is a woman?" film one of the most interesting parts was a person on the street who remarked that they cannot define a woman because they aren't one. "Try asking a woman" they remark, as if identifying as something somehow gives you some miraculous insight. We would never suggest a tax payer is automatically an expert at the complexities of tax legislation.
*Roseanne Barr*
Kicked off of her eponymous, top viewed TV show, and social media apps, never heard from since.
The only argument needed against the "cancel culture isn't real" argument.
Brilliant. Really enjoyed that.
Excellent as always. Thanks Jim!
Right! In the penal system there has to be a combination of Justice & Mercy. The Mercy is the fluffy Howard League 'make them a better person' bit, but the Justice is the vengeance.
I’ve never seen the distinction tbh. I’ve always thought the form of punitive justice we practice today is just socially-acceptable vengeance. When I hear people say,”That’s not justice. That’s revenge!”, I just think they’re talking about the same thing by a different name.
Then again, sometimes there are distinctions:
Justice: The formation of Israel post-WW2 & specifically tailored hate-speech/crime laws implemented.
Vengeance: Post-millennium trials of Nazi war criminals.
Even then, you have to honestly question how just is the justice when you see the knock-on effects, and how vengeful is the vengeance when said war criminals are more or less at death’s door after living long, full, happy lives.
@@hibernopithecus7500 Justice balanced with Mercy is a very long-standing tradition.
@@stevecass7575 Is it though? I mean, even the mercy part isn’t really mercy; rehabilitation is supposed to be for society’s benefit, not the inmates.
If vengeance+mercy=justice, we wouldn’t have guys like Joe Arpaio as popular as he -is- was.
The vengeance is also the deterrent. To be made an example of. It's really at the core of what keeps social animals civil.
Love this, @TJump you need to have your scheduler set up an interview about these issues with Noel, I think you have similar views or at a minimum similar ways to communicate and it would be a great convo!!
Thanks for the video. It was great.
I am not altogether on anybody’s side, because nobody is altogether on my side!
Treebeard.
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Two Towers
I'm not very, hmm, bendable.
The same.
I really can't believe the statement by the university. Whoever is in charge there should take a lesson of "what is free speech and why is it important". I feel that the person who wrote the statement has no clue what the free speech is all about.
I heard they really fixed No Man's Sky over the following years. I think they were worried about their reputation.
I haven't been back to it, myself, just going by what I heard.
Two of the reasons I'd prefer not to have retribution be part of justice systems:
1) Errors of justice (wherein innocent people get convicted of crimes they did not commit) are common. When the risk is high that innocent people will be subjected to the penal system, it's more important to me to remove the retributive element from the justice they'll be exposed to than to add the retributive element to the justice that the guilty will be exposed to.
2) I don't believe in libertarian free will. Within this absence of belief, I don't buy into the idea that those guilty of crimes could have done differently than they did. In this sense, as far as I can tell, they are already victims of fate. I have no desire to further antagonize and victimize them beyond the bad hand the universe has already dealt them.
P.S. I agree with you about the rest.
Any thoughts on the Triggernometry interview with the woman with the blurry face?
I preordered because I loved Harry Potter books and my husband began reading for the first time in his life after I gave him Harry Potter books on tape in 2002. We both loved the books. I preordered because I knew my current game was almost over and I didn't want 5 days of no games and I was excited realizing the game was releasing. I hadn't paid attention to the release schedule or anything about it, just saw a little preview months before and thought it looked fantastic. I hadn't forgotten about the accusations against JKR but I had forgotten what Contrapoints had said and my conclusions that she was right, JKR was transphobic and trolling the trans community very deliberately. HP is so big, has so much emotional connection to so many people that I didn't pay attention since I hadn't seen any other boycotts. Not after movies. Not at theme parks. Maybe there was boycotting and I wasn't aware. I was shocked after i downloaded the game and played for a day and checked a few things online. I didn't know how to feel or what to do. I watched Jesse Genders and she was very articulate about her pain in this. I dislike JKR very much and wish she just shut up or supported something I could stand behind.
Great point about some folk believing that what they want trumps everyone else. The great dictators are of of course the prime examples of this through history and that's why people like that should be kept from positions of power & influence if at all possible.
Sorry, Noel. I couldn't get passed the insult of you giving me the middle finger, every time you pushed up your glasses, I shall now try to cancel you. Otherwise, great video.
Have you seen the Jordon Walker Project Veritas videos? Any thoughts on them?
I haven't preordered a game since Cyberpunk: 2077, but I pre-ordered Hogwarts Legacy, not because I wanted to spite TRAs, but because I'm genuinely excited to play it based on all the previews of the game I've seen and have enjoyed the developer's previous games. Also, by pre-ordering it I get to play the game 3 days early and the pre-order was discounted.
Go to bed early.....school tomorrow.
I'm reading a book right now, Getting Past No, a negotiation book (for my business dealings), and this video and that book teased out why I don't like SJW: they don't negotiate, they DEMAND, and their answer is ALWAYS no, or yes, whichever they start with. It's actually pretty puerile and sad...and irrational even given their own goals...
i'm not planning on Hogwarts Legacy, only because i'm more interested in watching other play rather than myself... but some of the online takes i've seen are insane, like "devs have already been paid" which is so incredibly ignorant and short-sighted about how business and finance work.
For example, Elden Ring exceeded From's expectations, to the extent that they're expanding their business and projects and have been hiring new staff. And of course the inverse is true too, if a studio under-performs, and or does so consistently, then layoffs result.
Ironic that this argument is coming from a camp that also largely professes to be for workers 555 :))
Ha HA! yes, I'm bloody minded when people try to tell me what to do or not as well.
9:33 I don't understand how being "a perfectly normal human attitude" can be an argument for anything. Using it looks like a naturalistic fallacy to me. After all, being tribal and racist is also a perfectly normal human attitude.
I don't believe racism is accepted as a social norm, therefore racists are not normal.
@@toby9999 when I heard (perfectly) "normal human attitude" I didn't understand this to be read as "socially accepted attitude". What is socially excepted has been changing quickly in human history and revenge is on the brink to become socially unacceptable too (which is to my understanding the reason why Noel made his remark in the first place).
Revenge is on the exact same path as racism, the path from a natural human impulse (that has killed many people) to a socially unacceptable attitude. Acting on revenge is already illegal in most cases and the social norms will follow too, at least, that is what I suspect will happen sooner or later.
Sadly, you see a lot of this coercive, 'you say your supporting my position but you're not doing it enough' stuff from elements of the feminist movement towards supportive men.
Saying buying anything Harry Potter is transphobic is like saying someone is antisemetic for having a dog because Hitler had a dog
If it was the same conversation with Destiny as the one I watched with Null from KiwiFarms, then it was quite interesting. Null, regardless of how you feel about him, is basically the trump card to throw out against people who claim cancel culture isn't a thing. Someone who is doing nothing illegal, yet people use illegal means to try and take down his operations and prevent him earning money in legitimate ways. Yet cancel culture isn't a thing, and that is exactly why made up claims of "death threats" on a forum which are deleted within 20 minutes can have major firms decide to go against their stated principles to get you off of the internet.
Gotta remember that a good chunk of the preorders are probably just normal people and fans who don't give a shit about the politics. The old Harry Potter games were some of the best selling games on their respective consoles. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was the sixth highest selling PlayStation game of all time for instance.
Personally I'll wait and see if it's any good because I don't preorder games for exactly the sorts of reasons you stated.
I was abused in diagon alley, its what made me turn trans.
Preordering is almost always a bad idea. Doing it in reaction to the outrage (which might not even be substantial) is even worse.
The oddest thing to me is that JK Rowling ever bothered to get in this debate at all. Why? I remember the moment I lost respect of her was when she made one of those "men will be able to enter women's restrooms" arguments, as if anyone is policing and crotch checking people who walk into bathrooms in the first place. Too many celebrities want to express their (usually dumb) opinions for seemingly no reason. I guess it's the trap we all fall into: we think all our opinions are *good* opinions when they are usually not.
That said - I did pre-order Hogwarts Legacy. I just made a donation of an equal amount to the Transgender Law Center to hopefully balance that karmic scales. As for the whole pre-ordering games thing... yes, it's a bad idea. Nobody should do it. Wait 'til the game comes out with reviews. This comes from experience. I got burned by Cyberpunk, and I might very well get burned by Hogwarts Legacy too (I hope not). And I'll probably get burned again. I can't help myself.
Quite right on labels not content, Noel. Also, why so many people seem to be influenced on socio-political matters by 'celebrities', I don't know. Do your own thinking. The idea that you decide what to think based on whether you like or dislike a particular celebrity or their views is mind-numbing to me.
OK. But what if they’re not being influenced and either find they agree with the ‘celebrity’ or discover that the ‘celebrity’ agrees with a belief or beliefs they’ve held all along?
@@hibernopithecus7500 As long as they do their own thinking, that's fine. BUT for some, aprticularly the younger & imperssionable, if their favourite pop start or sports star makes a socio-political comment that unduly influences them to agree without much thought. And if that wasn't true, why do so many political parties and brands and causes go to such lengths to get the endorsement of celebrities?
I usually refer to myself as a sympathiser rather than an ally, however, it's starting to get to the point where I am losing any sympathetic feelings I have for a cause where the advocates for such cause employ cancel culture tactics. I'm writing this comment over a month after this video was published and during that time various live-streamers have been viciously bullied and harassed for playing the game. Some live streamers have even quit because of the abuse they received. For me this does not help the cause in any way, in fact it helps turn me off supporting or sympathising with their cause.
Considering how most licensing/merchandising deals are written and made, J.K. probably made every penny she will ever get from the game before the game was coded.
I can't believe you call yourself an ally of brevity, but would release a video as rambling as this, Noel. :)
He's a brevityphobe, is what he is , the bastard.
Cancel culture isn't about how much the target suffered.
It's about the fact that someone thought it acceptable to even TRY to make someone else suffer for "offending" them.
The mere ATTEMPT is the "culture" of "canceling".
Karens, the lot of them.
I won't be buying the game but I sincerely hope that it gets reviewed on Zero Punctuation.
I only ever pre-ordered Dead Cells, and that was because it was champing at the bit in its beta. I doubt I'll ever pre-order a game again.
Great rant
I am considering pre-ordering but I'm not sure how good the game will be.
I hold the same position on Hogwarts Legacy as I do for every other AAA game: Buying it at release is paying the most money for the worst version.
All this screaming about Rowling means nothing to me. A small group of really loud mad people wants *their* priorities to influence the spending habits of the majority. I'm not going to change mine one way or the other just because those mad people got some media attention.
I'll be buying it in a year. Like usual for games I'm interested in playing.
It's not even worth asking the facetious questions of "is the game going to try to sell Rowling's political opinions" or "will this game effect Rowling's financial success". We haven't learned of anything new since the game's announcement that would shift anyone's purchasing decision based on their personal priorities. It was based on Rowling's IP from the start and Rowling has been, vocally, a TERF, since before the game was announced.
Why start boycotting it now? The only question is if you allow the loud opinions of someone else to effect your spending habits.
And that includes buying the game (when you weren't planning to) *because* mad people are loudly yelling for a boycott. Doing that is *just* as pathetic as those who avoid buying the game (when they were planning to) because mad people are loudly yelling for a boycott.
This is the way society is .... Rowling
Haha, I considered making this exact comment. Glad I didn't, as I'd be 5 hours late. ;)
Rowling isn't wrong.
She's a feminist, and men aren't women.
It's not really complicated.
I find the issue on cancel culture quite interesting -
On an individual level it seems obvious that if you don't like a particular person, or their business, or their product, and it's important enough for you to make a stand on it then not giving them any of your money is about as fair a position that you could take. Beyond that, I think even with interactions with friends or family, if I had a particularly bad interaction or opinion of some proprietor, and I know that I'm quite close with this friend or family member, I'd feel like a bit of a twat allowing them to discover that themselves. As a result, it strikes me that at this level, it feels like there's actually a duty that I have to those individuals (beyond enjoying a solid gripe to a friend) to tell them about it in advance so that they similarly are spared from emptying their wallet into the pockets of someone they would dislike, or from a negative experience they might have.
On the cultural level, it seems quite on the contrary to me, in which the destruction of a person's character, reputation or business because some people don't like them (any takers wanting to accuse me of using minimizing language here can stuff it), and the rest distancing themselves as far as they can to avoid getting caught in the collateral damage is grotesque to me. I often wonder what the end goal that they're aiming for in engaging in such behavior - should the person be out starving in the street with all their friends and family having abandoned them before there's satisfaction the lesson is well taken? Maybe it's enough that they lose just a few jobs or just a few relationships? It's a bizarre accounting in and of itself when I hear calls from certain people to have empathy and argue for release and rehabilitation for persons in the criminal justice system (something I'm not necessarily opposed to in general, though certainly there's always specifics to turn over), and then turn around and ask that a person socially and professionally wear an irredeemable black mark for the rest of their life because of some foul expression.
Maybe it's more of an academic point, but I've wondered where the level the two crossover - if I tell even 10 people I know that I hated the food at a local restaurant, or that the vietnamese lady who, while serving us, hurled entirely colourful and racist insults at me at the table in her native tongue (that my companion understood but I didn't) - 10 people isn't going to break anyone, but 50? 100? 1000? I have no idea. As well, at some point it has the capacity to grow well beyond our own statements to do real damage, but is that now the responsibility of that one individual, or of the individuals within the group, or the group itself? Accountability becomes difficult when it's spreading like wildfire across social media, where the problem may well lie.
I like the framing of the topic of ally abuse, I have to think on what you've said more. Where the groups to which you can be an ally may not necessarily agree and overlap, it may become a task shopping around for the best suzerain overlord for your opinions. Glad to have you posting more frequently again Noel.
Just Kidding Rowling must be shaking in her multi-million dollar mansion right now. This is going to totally leave her penniless as her net worth is only 1 billion dollars. How will she survive! D:
Re: Hogwarts Legacy and hurting JK Rowling financially, I think there is one way the boycott could have been genuinely impactful that you didn't mention (but in fairness I don't think I've actually seen it mentioned anywhere). If the backlash/boycott was effective enough that the game had tanked, it might have made the Harry Potter franchise/IP unpalatable to other companies considering what media to produce in the future. Companies and investors are risk averse, so if it looked like media tied to Harry Potter and/or Rowling was likely to fail because of Rowling being a 'persona non grata', they would likely steer clear of the franchise.
In other words, the boycott/backlash had the potential to indirectly hit Rowling financially (by deterring the creation of future Harry Potter franchise media), rather than directly (by reducing Rowling's cut from game sales).
I'm somewhat surprised I haven't seen this argument before (though I haven't been looking very hard in fairness) because it seems more plausible than the two common lines trotted out (ie the two you dealt with in this video).
Anyway, interesting video as always!
M&M's is cancel culture. Banning books is cancel culture. Cancelling Drag shows is cance culture.
There was an all-ages drag show held in my town and it was horribly inappropriately sexual. The organizers spoke with performers and removed the overtly sexual aspects from subsequent performances. We all seem to agree that not all books are appropriate for children, we do not all agree on which books are inappropriate.
2:30 - IDK, couldn't you make the same argument about voting in political elections? I'm not happy with my one vote, so I'm going to campaign for my preferred candidate in order to create even more votes for them?
I think that is a little bit different to what I meant though. Using the example Destiny gave of his "cancellation attempt", they effectively did what you say here and a group of them stopped watching his streams. I think that far is within the bounds of "one person, one vote" (if you convince 1000 people to stop watching then it takes 1000 people stopping watching to have 1000 persons worth of impact still) and a canvassing for more support analogy but when you move beyond that to measures whereupon one person can have a highly disproportionate impact (contacting sponsors, false flagging legit material, etc) then I think that is where it becomes unreasonable and an element of self-importance creeps in.
@@noelplum99 - I see, that makes sense, and certainly the Muslim student who waited to be offended is just a troublemaker.
Now, I suppose the next thought might be (pardon the extreme analogy), well, what if the "thing we want to put a stop to" was something we viewed as really really bad, like say, slavery of African people in England and the US, instead of simply showing a picture of Mohammed? If the thing we were trying to stop was slavery, and if it was so easy to stop one particular instance of it, then I could understand such bullying/troublemaking tactics. If you and I woke up in 1800, and we saw the terrible abuse of African people in slavery conditions, and we discovered that simply waiting to be offended by it at an opportune moment had the power to free some slaves... I personally hope we would both choose to do that.
So perhaps these types of bullies either truly believe that the thing they're trying to stop is as bad as you and I would consider slavery to be (or thereabouts), or these people simply have no sense of scale, and the worst thing that they experience is simply remembered as the worst thing on the planet. Either way, I think this could help to explain these types of bullying tactics.
I watched a bit of a video recently called "Is Harry Potter Bad?" and the thumbnail was some gender-thing and it said "Yes".
Most of their complaints wasn't the story, but that effectively that Harry Potter does not really live up to their sensibilities. Making hay out of the fact that there was only a single magic school in Africa, and other trivial bits of lore that actually in no way effect the overall story. What I find funny about this, is that it is exactly why I never really liked Harry Potter that much as a child - I always found that the world seems to be this ad hoc creation, and therefore a lot of the lore does not really make sense. As if J K Rowling was making things up on the fly...
However, this is strangely quite a good defence for the stories - maybe don't think too deeply about some silly books about a boy who lives under the stairs with magical powers, who goes to a magical boarding school and has magical adventures. Not every bit of fiction is some powerful allegory, steeped in meta-narratives - maybe it quite literally is just a story about a boy who lives under the stairs who discovers he has magic powers. Just a bin of fun.
It does looks really good, but until it launches no way of knowing if it is a technical mess.
We've seen many games like that, such as Cyberpunk 2077.
CDPR have a history of doing right by their games and were always going to fix Cyberpunk.
Don't know how much time and money WB Games will throw at Legacy if broken though.
It is the central fantasy of being a teenager waving a stick about that doesn't really grab me though.
I think there are many Harry Potter fans who have no interest in the culture wars and will pre-order this game simply for love of the franchise.
Are complaints about this game actually a thing? Or is it just some minor social media accounts? Because I for one have barely heard anything about this.
In fact, the things I have heard about this, is that people want to buy/pre-order this game because people are (apparently) complaining -- which honestly is just as stupid as the complaining itself. Meanwhile I haven't heard or seen anyone actually complain about this.
This self created problem is so stupid that I just don't feel like putting any real mental effort into it. It's a big: "*shug*, who cares", for me.
She's a super lefty on every other topic. Total acceptance of the message is a sign of cults or authoritarian governance. It's off putting. People are getting tired of it.
I am also a super lefty on all issue outside of the new anti-white/regressive/anti-egalitarian, anti-fact/anti-science aspects.
I think people just don't like being told what to do and maybe even more so what not to do. I didn't really have interest in the game. Harry Potter is fine and all, but I have more games than I can play in a life time. But then I was told that I am not to buy that game because if I do I am a fascist, whatever that means nowadays. So I now find myself with some desire to buy the game. This might be a brilliant marketing strategy.
They do not know what an ally is, to them it means someone who is 100% on board with their ideas and values them as highly as they do, which the rest of us would not call an ally so much as a comrade.
A real alliance is about people putting aside differences in the face of a greater threat, the USSR and the USA did not share any values at all beyond Antinazism but that was enough for them to ally.
The idea that someone who is their ally on one issue might not be on another is simply intolerable to these new cryptofascists on the left, they take it as an absolute betrayal.
I love and support my children, BUT I do not support everything they do. I am not going to show greater support for a group that I have less of a stake in. I can be supportive of anything or anyone, but I do not need to be in lockstep with their thoughts and actions.
The “ally” game is truly a way to falsely claim support for the most controversial of a groups thoughts and actions. My idea of where rights start and end may differ greatly from others, but it doesn’t mean I think anyone should have none. It is not black and white.
The socio-political pendulum is starting to swing back, and I believe it will get uglier before it makes it back to somewhere in the middle again. I think the pushback against the far left crowd, and feelings over facts zealots is spawning more of the far right feelings over facts zealots. Unfortunately, our modes of disseminating information now favor the fringe, rather than the moderate. If there were a way to better teach critical thinking, we may be able to overcome the misinformation being pushed from both sides.
I preordered Hogwarts Legacy for my girlfriend because she loves Harry Potter. I didn't get it for myself because I thought the Harry Potter movies sucked. I've never read the books. My girlfriend has. So, maybe I messed up by watching the movies first. I just thought the movies were terrible. lol.
I don't pay cancel culture any mind and I couldn't care less about what people think of JK Rolling. If the game looks good when my girlfriend starts playing it, I may pick it up for myself as well. I know a lot of my friends are looking to pick it up after some post-release reviews. They are very anti-preorder. I don't blame them. I also preordered No Man's Sky and was very disappointed. They've redeemed themselves and then some at this point though. No Man's Sky is really good now - really good. Some bugs here and there though.
Whatever you think of it, cancel culture is a feature of modern society. Whatever the moral implications of it, it's something people will do. Given a vector for attack, some people will take it. Take the lies told about trans people these days, such as the forced transition nonsense - same thing. When you have social media, you'll get individuals and groups capitalising on it for their own ends, good, or bad.
As for the whole 'ally' thing. I've always thought it was both uncomfortable and pointless. A person's opinions are that individual's. I've unsubbed TH-camrs for expressing certain viewpoints - that's a reflection of my own opinions. If enough people unsub, they lose - smallest violin plays etc... I'm not going to try to mobilise an army of people to boycot them, but some might (back to cancel culture). It's the currency of the realm these days. By the same token, I've subscribed to TH-camrs because I admire their content. That's how this works. No-one here is owed support.
I hope everyone that has made a video telling people not to purchase the game, have been gifted copies. Just insufferable people that need to learn.
How much of what ideologues say DOES make sense when you dissect it? Some maybe, but a lot more is just nonsensical bile & name-calling
U have allies? Any skilz with mysql? We should totally id.
I am trying to get Tetris banned due to the overwhelming amount of politically incorrect people who regularly use the number “4.”
And it promotes squareness.
It's also Russian, so it probably is on a "to be cancelled" list already, just like Tchaikovsky and Dostoyevsky.
If someone being an "ally" of the trans community means it is only a one way relationship and not really an alliance because allyiship requires a bilateral aid and there is no bilateral aid in that kind of relationship, what terms do I use instead of ally that would satisfy you?
If I am a rich successful person and I give someone who is in poverty 100k to get out of poverty, I am not being their "ally" by your definition because that person can do nothing for me. It's perfectly clear to me that ally is just another word for "supporter" and there need not be mutual support required for their to be an alliance just because that person or community is not in a position to help me.
Maybe what I get out of my alliance is simple verbal gratitude from that person and community. And the personal satisfaction of being ethically and historically on the right side of the issue.
In your example, as you say, supporter wpuld be one term. Patron, or benefactor, would be better terms ina financial context.
Aside from financial support, champion or advocate would be useful terms for someone asymmetrically supporting a group with no reciprocity.
However, please be clear here, I am generally fairly cool with other people using words as they wish, so this is more about why *I* wouldn't use the term in that context.
There are SO MANY words in english for one -sided support but "ally" and "alliance" are words usually used for something that has far less linguistic alternatives, which makes it seem a somewhat suspicious choice to have arisen, as if the intent is to dress the relationship up as somewhat more balanced than it is.
However, by all means use the term for your own support of causes if you like using it in that context.
The woke crowd weaponize labels. Their terminology is deceptive. The most obvious example and seemingly most overused is their redefinition of the term "rascism".
It is very much a case of cutting your nose to spite your face, when it comes to supporting or not J. K. Rowling. I imagine there was a large investment in money and manpower, in the production of this game. I doubt any of J. K. Rowling‘s money was invested in it. I imagine it was produced by an independent games studio, with little in the way of input from J. K. Rowling. All they needed was her permission and perhaps signed off by her. Like you said, she will obviously get royalties, as it is a brand, that she owns. At the end of the day, all you are really hurting by not buying the game, are the little people, who invested the time, money, and effort, into the production of the game. You don’t have to like J. K. Rowling because of her personal views, but there’s nothing to stop you liking what she has created. Her creation is not her. Just saying.
Ironically enough leftists use “death of the author” arguments like these to defend bad leftist takes all the time, especially when it comes queering characters that authors know to be straight simply because they want their gay ship to cannon.
Gay romanian at work came out as trans. I like the guy and in the past gave him an 8tb WD red HDD that was too loud for my media PC in exchange for a 3d print, and he currently has my old oculus rift on long term loan. That said, i wont call him his new girls name, nor will i use female pronouns. For that game to make him happy, it has to be single player. His happiness cant be based on other people playing along. I just avoid talking to him now or just jump into conversation without addressing him.
You should make a judgement on Rowling. It is clear she is one of these feminists that in the end has a double standard when it comes to the sexes and genders.
I do agree that cancel culture exists. I also hold the view that there are no successful cancellations. I don't think we're in disagreement, really. You yourself pointed out that this game is making money hand over fist in preorders. JK Rowling is not significantly harmed by her cancellation. Celebrity and wealth protect people from the consequences of this kind of thing.
The Jordan Peterson example is very relevant because it shows the intersection between cancel culture and professional victimhood. Jordan Peterson is a gender-swapped Anita Sarkeesian. He exists as a magnet of hate with some level of deniability so he can call his followers to his own defense with impunity. The constant conflict gets him a lot of attention and that has turned into a deal with the Daily Wire.
Now, the paradox of cancel culture as a culture war talking point is that the people who are significantly harmed by cancellation are people nobody cares about. But that's a double edged sword: If all cancellations were of these people who languish in obscurity and can't "fight back", the conservative side of the war wouldn't care either. What moves them to action isn't sympathy for the little guys getting ended by controversy, it's the idea that their favorite talking head with millions in the bank might be targeted.
*Jordan Peterson is a gender-swapped Anita Sarkeesian*
Quite an interesting comparison there. Yes, certainly insofar as they both had a period whereupon their main media selling point was "what it is like to be me" and both of them milked that for all it was worth then that is a very good observation.
Odd bedfellows though, nevertheless 🤣🤣
I'd say JK it's pretty transphobic, but at the same time, when you're making *any* purchase you have to acknowledge that the company your buying it from has done some level of unethical things. I mean you've got Nestle with their human rights violations, the mass production of any common household goods which come from a factory in another country without labor standards where workers are extremely exploited. For the case of JK, it's like the bible verse "don't point out the splinter in your neighbor while ignoring the log in your own eye" (who would have thought Sunday school actually comes in handy sometimes lol).
In terms of cancel culture, I think any sort of mob justice has the same problems where there isn't any accountability and the wrong person can (and does) get strung up on the noose. The idea behind it is intoxicating as way of getting justice against otherwise famous people who managed to evade the law for issues like domestic abuse/sexual assault (seems all to common in the entertainment industry sometimes). But that same blade gets turned on otherwise innocent people like the professor you mentioned in your video. Rather then try and use mob justice we should turn the focus towards understanding and fixing the justice system itself.
Finally, in terms of ally abuse, I'll disagree with you somewhat on the point of never calling yourself an ally, being an ally doesn't mean foregoing your autonomy as a person nor blindly following others. If that's what someone is asking of you then they want a cult member. Being an ally, like you said, is about mutual support. Maybe the better phrase is that if you're an ally make sure to set boundaries, and if you have an instance where you need help and they don't give it, then it's probably not a good alliance to be in. Honestly it's like being in any relationship, just because there are some assholes out there who would abuse you doesn't mean you should avoid relationships.
First of all i think you assume people who buy this video game have some kind of insight into The J.K R situation. 99% of people simply buy this game for their 12 year old kid....because they like H.Potter.
Jk Rowling is a goddam hero. I don't play video games, and have even less interest in Harry Potter, but I kinda wanna buy the game, just because of the butthurt about her. But I deeply admire her standing up against the insane bullying aimed at her (despite the fact she's never said anything REMOTELY "transphobic"- ask an accuser for any SPECIFIC "transphobic" quote from her, and you'll get cricket-noises, or unrelated accusations, or guilt-by-distant-association, or ghosted entirely.... But the one thing you WON'T get, is any legit, specific "transphobic" quote by JK Rowling)
@@monkeykingeater You are just wrong. As events in Scotland over the last 48 hours have proven.
@@monkeykingeater The only problem I see with that is the assumption that males are rapists. If anything it is misandrist.
@@monkeykingeater I think her point was more that there's zero concern for the outcomes of these policies. Allowing any man to declare himself a woman on a whim and enter into women's spaces is just asking for a disaster. And we can't even have a discussion about how to possibly mitigate the risk, because anything but 100% blind support is "transphobic." Rowling is indisputably right, and it's just too bad if having that discussion hurts some feelings.
@@monkeykingeater No you are still wrong.
@@monkeykingeater transwomen aren't women, and this whole thing of demanding everyone pretend they are is ridiculous and, frankly, inhuman. Someone needs to say it.
Fantastic point about being an ally. You don't know what you sign up for.
I am however a bit thrown that you refrain from calling J. K. Rowling transphobic. Her initial comments about trans people having an agenda to pretend biological sex doesn't exist is seems especially damning on it's own, let alone everything that followed.
Still giving this video a like for it's comments on allyship though.
But that’s an actual issue coming from the trans community especially when it comes to sport, sex segregated spaces and even just common sense. For example all of the trans women claiming to “get a period” from taking estrogen when 1.) taking estrogen should not have the effect even in males and if it does you need to see a doctor about possible complications 2.) it would not be a period because a period is the expulsion of the uterine lining out of the vagina. Trans women don’t have uterus’s and therefore no uterine lining to expel from the neo-vagina and that’s IF they have a neo vagina. A fully in tact male can never experience a period.
Also trying to “normalize” a “bulge” in a trans woman’s pelvis area as a “female bulge” is just insane. You can’t be female and have a penile bulge. That’s not how biology works.
I could go on and on about the rejection of biology via the trans community as well as the denial of science.
I support trans people on the basis of it being a severe psychological condition that’s only known treatment is social and medical transition. I would never fault someone for a condition they cannot control and a treatment they must have in order to live functional normal lives. I would never chastise a diabetic or someone with depression from getting the legitimate help they need and trans people should be treated with no more stigma than them which should be none.
I also don’t condemn people who try to express themselves in unconventional ways including body modification. Some women want high boobs, some want double mastectomies, some women are hyper masculine and some feminine. Same for men. Drag and cross dressing are all well and Dandy. But to fight against common sense and force people to tell you what you want to hear under threat of law or threat of violence isn’t okay but is widely accepted in the community. Hell, trans women tried to go to Rowlings HOUSE and talked about ASSAULTING HER ON SIGHT. How can you look at that and not see Rowling has a point? That trans people are crossing a line and we need to stop letting it happen over fear of being bigot. I am more than willing to listen to what they have to say but I also don’t believe everything I hear and use logic and reason. I also don’t listen to people who whose only course of action is violence and verbal abuse. That seems pretty reasonable doesn’t it???
@@kimmiewise1044 I have never heard of either of the issues that you brought up. Can't comment on them at all.
Also, I never denied that trans activists can be overzealous. Plenty of prominent cancel culture hysteria has been trans related. I'm not denying that.
But really? It's still in question as to whether J. K Rowling is Transphobic?
She's also compared the possibility of a woman with a penis to 1984 hasn't she? She said something to the effect of 'Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, the penised Individual who raped you is a woman.'
When she talked about biological sex being erased it sounded like transphobia to me because I personally heard the dog whistle of 'those people have their insidious agenda.' Maybe you didn't hear that because of these...er... issues that you have familiarity with.
But if you're saying that people who have penises can never be women that's the definition of transphobia, and SURELY J. K Rowling has tried to communicate that.
Not buying into ingroup-outgroup hatred like you seem to assume I do. But I'm still REALLY surprised that it's still controversial as to whether J. K. Rowling is transphobic.
@@kimmiewise1044 One more thing I want to say. I am not trans. But if I were, your issues of whether or not a period is valid, or whether or not I have a bulge and can still be female would not be important. The only thing that would matter would be 'am I similar enough to women to be considered a woman?' And if you don't think I am, I would try to make a better argument.
And by taking issue with a law as to whether a rapist with a penis might be a woman, J. K. Rowling was trying to undermine that identity.
And issues of trans identity do not inevitably lead to biological sex being erased. I do not know what news you listen to, but I have never even heard of trans identity leading to that. I'm sure that it COULD, because trans right can be overzealous as I said, but I don't think those things should be linked implicitly.
@Sam Martina
Nothing is the 'definition of transphobia" because it's not a real word. But the suffix "phobia" would imply a fear or hatred. You can say somebody isn't a woman without hating or fearing them.
@@markpostgate2551 Google definitions doesn't agree with you. It says that transphobia is 'dislike or strong prejudice against transgender people.' My phone also recognises the word 'transphobia' as I am typing. It is also just plain unhelpful to assume transphobia isn't a word, or that it has the definition you gave it based on the facts of the world we live in. You can never know for sure how much fear an individual is feeling, but you can see when a person gets combative on the issues of accepting trans people's identity. Some people like J. K. Rowling get really combative when it comes to accepting trans people.
I don't understand your take on boycotts here. The idea that you should only boycott things yourself as an individual otherwise you're saying that your vote should count for more than one? That's absurd. When people go leafleting for a political party, nobody thinks that they don't believe in democracy. The fact is that many people don't know or care about issues that some people find important. Maybe boycotting Hogwarts Legacy is a drop in the ocean but everyone who believes in the boycott is advocating for a full boycott of Rowling. If only TERFs were willing to buy anything Rowling puts out, that would be a big deal. Will that happen? No. But the idea that we don't get to advocate for anything approaching that seems absurd.
I have no issue with you canvassing others to try and convince them to follow your lead (for a boycott). If you convince 100 people then 100 people gave made a volitional choice and will have the impact of 100 people.
The issue is when the tactics get more grubby, such as trying to sabotage a person's economic relationships or, in this Hogwarts example, trying to emotionally and morally coerce people into siding with you.
There is a world of difference between "here is why I am boycotting this game, you may consider doing the same" and "if you don't do the same as me then you are immoral, siding with transphobia etc etc".
@@noelplum99 the economic relationships thing I can 100% agree with you on but I don't understand what the problem is with the moral "coercion". I really think it's an argument that only works if it's granted that the individual's boycott was invalid.
If we take an uncontroversial example like buying from Germany during WWII, I don't think anyone would have a problem with people explaining what the Holocaust victims are going through to make people take a stand.
People in Scotland hated J.K.Rowling before it was fashionable to do so elsewhere. I smiled when you said that it was uncomfortable for one person to have more than their fair share of say over others. During the referendum arguments for Scottish independence, Rowling did exactly that. One person one vote... unless you're a rich children's author, in which case you can hold a lot of influence amongst your fans. And hey, if the fame-factor wasn't enough, Rowling contributed towards the anti-independence campaign. I forget the sum, but it included the word "million". Rowling is Scotland's Benedict Arnold.
TLDR: Fuck her.
That damn freedom of speech! 😜
@@hibernopithecus7500 £1,000,000 = freedom of speech? Aw bless you, petal.
Not buying the game because of the views of one person involved in creating it seems like trying to get the gold medal in the virtue signal Olympics and it is yet another example of the hypocrisy of some people. It's a very slippery slope. Most things are produced in factories with hundreds of workers. What if one of those workers was a racist? In reality, it seems very likely that most factories have people working there that don't agree with your political views. It seems very hypocritical to use any product whatsoever if you agree with the cancelation, because you can never know how many "nazis" were involved in producing those products. It's just such a nonsensical idea that just doesn't make any sense when you start thinking about it and yet people just spew it out as if it's making them a "better person". It isn't. It's just showing people how hypocritical you are and how little you actually think about the issues you claim to be so invested in.
I expect this whole argument going away because I expect Hogwarts Legacy to suck. I don't see the game being released without tons of technical issues and the game being broken and unfinished in general. Why? Because most games that are licensed are bad, the developer who gets the license is the one which is most willing to pay the highest amount for the license which leaves them with less money to devote to actually making the game good and they tend to put in a low amount effort and instead trading on the name recognition of the license. Specifically, let's look at Avalanche Software's track record of game development in the last 10 years:
2014 Disney Infinity 2.0
2015 Disney Infinity 3.0
2017 Cars 3: Driven to Win
All these games licensed from known franchises and if you go back even further, that's what Avalanche Software does, they make licensed games from known Disney franchises. Hogwars Legacy is the first time since 2005 that Avalanche Software is independent of Disney however, now working under the Warner Brothers umbrella. Now it's true that it's entirely possible that while working under Warner Brothers they acquired the talent and the ability to put in the effort to make a high quality open world Harry Potter game.
However the scope of the platform they are releasing on is massive. They are releasing on last generation consoles PS4 and Xbox One as well and are also developing a Switch version as well as PC and current generation consoles. If you know anything about game development, targeting last generation consoles is usually the kiss of death, especially the Switch because you have to develop for the lowest common denominator that the inferior hardware (especially the Switch's) represent. It's really difficult to develop an open world game for every single platform without making compromises. The amount of quality assurance necessary to test things is astronomical with all these platforms. Much bigger and wealthier studios have failed to do this successfully like CD Projekt Red and Cyberpunk being the biggest example.
Lastly Hogwarts Legacy has already been delayed twice. That does not bode well at all, that's another red flag when you set a date and realize the game is not ready to meet that date.
So for all these reason, If I'm playing the odds, they are likely to fail hard and that is why this whole cancel culture discussion won't matter if the game sucks.
I only read the first paragraph since I didn't need to know your whole argument behind prediction. But I just wanted to point out, you were wrong. It was a terrific game and relatively bug free. It also was a crappy game because running around as a student killing a bunch of people and magical creatures eventually took me out of the Hogwarts world. I've killed hundreds of thousands in my time gaming but HP world should not be a part of that.
@@kirielbranson4843 I would say my prediction was of mixed results.
dogwarts
Don't buy the game Jim, spend the money on a new razor instead.
Eh, if people don't want to get the game for whatever reason its a valid reason for them. Its only when people try to convince others to act based on that reason that really matters or makes any difference. I don't feel comfortable getting the game, not only because of her views but for the smugness she has while holding those views. Its more her attitude about it then her views themselves, I think her views are wrong but if she wasn't just a smug jerk about her views then it wouldn't bother me that one rich person holds a view I disagree with. Cancel culture has always existed, if people don't like a thing they try to convince others to not like it as well, that is really all it is. Real harmful cancel culture to me is more what the right does where they try to ban things from existing or preventing other people from being able to get something through the law or government actions, which is completely different then saying.. I don't like x because the creator has views i disagree with so I will try to convince others to not support the creator due to the views they have (or due to the views the art or product itself supports). Its all about just having consequences for people's beliefs/views, they can have those views but it doesn't mean they don't face consequences for those views.
You say the right-wing does it in a bad way, but then you haven't really differntiated beyond that. So seemingly it boils down to cancel culture is fine as long as I agree with the people doing it.
Besides that politics is actually the proper avenue to get certain behaviors out of existence. An obvious example of the left wing banning things out of existence would be laws regarding environmental issues (e.g
Industrial pollution, protected species, taxes on fossil fuels). Surely you are fine with those even though it's the left-wing trying to ban something out of existence?
Fundamentally though a belief or view shouldn't have a consequence. Only actions carry a consequence. Merely holding or debating a view should hold no consequence as there is no harm done. What I find scary about people who have no issue talking about consequences is that they never seem to clarify what those consequences should entail. Meanwhile the consequences in practice tend to be horribly cruel and unfairly distributed.