Quote from: Shawn Driscoll on March 11, 2022, 05:55:57 PM
So in their new RPG, called Shield Maidens, the rules say that Shield Maidens aren't necessarily born female.

So they are Viking warriors , born male, never took any hormones to transition, but they're also ladies??

Quote from: Trond on April 06, 2022, 11:01:12 AM
born male, never took any hormones to transition

Silence! One can never question the nature of magic.

Quote from: Wrath of God on April 05, 2022, 04:16:31 PM

QuoteChoosing not to buy something is not what anyone means when they use the word "canceling". It's certainly not attacking the right of a thing to exist. Which is a rather peculiar thing to say, because you're ascribing rights to inanimate objects.

But TBH vast majority of cancelling efforts are well within boycott range.
It's very efficient and organised but usually it does not include anything but threat to publishers/producers that wokesters stop buing their products if undesirable persons works for those publishers.

No, that's wrong simply on the facts.  IANAL, but I think one of the typical lines that should not be crossed deals with "collusion" in other aspects.  It's not illegal or even unethical to try to lower your prices to get people to buy your thing over a competitor, for example. It can quickly cross that line if multiple sellers collude to fix prices.  It's not a problem to buy stock in a company for which you work.  It is quickly across that line to trade stock in that company based on "insider" information.

Likewise, boycotts are exactly as migo and others framed them.  This is personal behavior and free speech, with others also free to act or not act on that speech as they see fit.  Those are very clear lines.  Stepping across those lines includes such things as pressuring banks to not support the targeted company.  That's collusion with another entity to prevent otherwise legal commerce.  If a corporation tried those tactics against a competitor, they'd be hauled up to court so fast it would make your head spin.  See also "lawfare" as war by other means where "the process is the punishment", banning on platforms that take advantage in other contexts as a "neutral" content methods, libel and slander, the media, academics, and politicians that allow such abuses, etc.

That's all process.  Let's not get that confused with results.  The results of a hardcore "cancel" operation and a boycott can theoretically be the same.  If enough people boycott a product, it stops getting produced, because no one is buying it.  Which is also much the same as would happen with a product that was simply not very useful to enough people to justify its existence.   Cancelling being more hardcore, by any means necessary (the ends justify the means in the eyes of the woke, always), it is more likely to produce this result, but that's just scale.  This is very much a "means" discussion.  If the latest thing from Mongoose that is the topic of this thread does well, it does.  If it fails, it does,  If, as is more likely, it is somewhere in the middle, then it is up to Mongoose to decide if it is succeeding enough to continue. 

A good way to tell if you are across the process line is if you really must justify that action for it to make any sense.  If I don't buy the Mongoose product because of perceived politics or because I don't prefer the subject matter or I think it is not worth the list price or because I've been less than impressed with prior product's editing--none of that really matters from a process standpoint.  People don't buy things all the time, for a host of reasons.  If I feel strongly enough about it to try to convince others to boycott, then I still don't need to justify those reasons, but I need to articulate them and provide evidence.  (In my case, I don't buy because of what I perceive as poor editing relative to the price of the products, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to try to convince anyone else.  And everyone will have different tolerances there, anyway.  That doesn't say anything one way or the other about whether I might buy or not based on "wokeness" in their products, since I'm not going to look at it closely enough to determine if that's an issue for me.)  When you cross the line into "convince others not to buy" to "collude with various powers that be to make sure that no one can buy", the need for a justification just went through the roof.

The woke not having any principles, of course, they are incapable of understanding such distinctions.

If your RPG book makes an explicit goal (demonstrated through its adopting of weird jargon & tortured language) of preying on less able & mature people in an attempt to normalize harmful sexuality, then I have no interest in buying your book. Furthermore, I think it's perfectly appropriate and healthy to want you to never work again.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 06, 2022, 11:31:31 AM
Likewise, boycotts are exactly as migo and others framed them.  This is personal behavior and free speech, with others also free to act or not act on that speech as they see fit.  Those are very clear lines.  Stepping across those lines includes such things as pressuring banks to not support the targeted company.  That's collusion with another entity to prevent otherwise legal commerce.  If a corporation tried those tactics against a competitor, they'd be hauled up to court so fast it would make your head spin.  See also "lawfare" as war by other means where "the process is the punishment", banning on platforms that take advantage in other contexts as a "neutral" content methods, libel and slander, the media, academics, and politicians that allow such abuses, etc.

I'd agree that slander, libel, frivolous lawsuits, and such are clear abuses. However, I don't agree that pressuring banks is over the line unless the form of pressure is something that is already over the line. A bank is just another business - so it's valid to boycott banks just as much as boycotting any other business. Let's say I don't like the Chinese government. So I don't buy from Chinese companies. But let's say I find out that my American bank made a big business deal with China, so I join in a boycott and move my money to another bank. This boycott is pressuring the bank to change who it deals with.

I think that's a valid expression of my personal beliefs and free speech.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 06, 2022, 11:31:31 AM
A good way to tell if you are across the process line is if you really must justify that action for it to make any sense.  If I don't buy the Mongoose product because of perceived politics or because I don't prefer the subject matter or I think it is not worth the list price or because I've been less than impressed with prior product's editing--none of that really matters from a process standpoint.  People don't buy things all the time, for a host of reasons.  If I feel strongly enough about it to try to convince others to boycott, then I still don't need to justify those reasons, but I need to articulate them and provide evidence.  (In my case, I don't buy because of what I perceive as poor editing relative to the price of the products, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to try to convince anyone else.  And everyone will have different tolerances there, anyway.  That doesn't say anything one way or the other about whether I might buy or not based on "wokeness" in their products, since I'm not going to look at it closely enough to determine if that's an issue for me.)  When you cross the line into "convince others not to buy" to "collude with various powers that be to make sure that no one can buy", the need for a justification just went through the roof.

I'm not sure what this last bit is saying. Did you mean to say from "convince others not to buy"? So it's OK to, for example, say negative stuff about a company online and thus convince other people not to buy from them. I would think that is OK - it seems like free speech to me. And going to collusion is crossing the line.

The problem I have with this phrasing is that "making sure no one can buy" is an outcome, not an action. If the result of a boycott is that the company shelves the product, then no one can buy that product any more. So if I join in boycott a company over a product, and it then stops making that product -- then this implies that I've crossed a line, because other people can't buy the product any more. But if I boycott the company and it ignores me, then I'm OK.

Quote from: jhkim on April 06, 2022, 03:27:22 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 06, 2022, 11:31:31 AM
Likewise, boycotts are exactly as migo and others framed them.  This is personal behavior and free speech, with others also free to act or not act on that speech as they see fit.  Those are very clear lines.  Stepping across those lines includes such things as pressuring banks to not support the targeted company.  That's collusion with another entity to prevent otherwise legal commerce.  If a corporation tried those tactics against a competitor, they'd be hauled up to court so fast it would make your head spin.  See also "lawfare" as war by other means where "the process is the punishment", banning on platforms that take advantage in other contexts as a "neutral" content methods, libel and slander, the media, academics, and politicians that allow such abuses, etc.

I'd agree that slander, libel, frivolous lawsuits, and such are clear abuses. However, I don't agree that pressuring banks is over the line unless the form of pressure is something that is already over the line. A bank is just another business - so it's valid to boycott banks just as much as boycotting any other business. Let's say I don't like the Chinese government. So I don't buy from Chinese companies. But let's say I find out that my American bank made a big business deal with China, so I join in a boycott and move my money to another bank. This boycott is pressuring the bank to change who it deals with.

I think that's a valid expression of my personal beliefs and free speech.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 06, 2022, 11:31:31 AM
A good way to tell if you are across the process line is if you really must justify that action for it to make any sense.  If I don't buy the Mongoose product because of perceived politics or because I don't prefer the subject matter or I think it is not worth the list price or because I've been less than impressed with prior product's editing--none of that really matters from a process standpoint.  People don't buy things all the time, for a host of reasons.  If I feel strongly enough about it to try to convince others to boycott, then I still don't need to justify those reasons, but I need to articulate them and provide evidence.  (In my case, I don't buy because of what I perceive as poor editing relative to the price of the products, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to try to convince anyone else.  And everyone will have different tolerances there, anyway.  That doesn't say anything one way or the other about whether I might buy or not based on "wokeness" in their products, since I'm not going to look at it closely enough to determine if that's an issue for me.)  When you cross the line into "convince others not to buy" to "collude with various powers that be to make sure that no one can buy", the need for a justification just went through the roof.

I'm not sure what this last bit is saying. Did you mean to say from "convince others not to buy"? So it's OK to, for example, say negative stuff about a company online and thus convince other people not to buy from them. I would think that is OK - it seems like free speech to me. And going to collusion is crossing the line.

The problem I have with this phrasing is that "making sure no one can buy" is an outcome, not an action. If the result of a boycott is that the company shelves the product, then no one can buy that product any more. So if I join in boycott a company over a product, and it then stops making that product -- then this implies that I've crossed a line, because other people can't buy the product any more. But if I boycott the company and it ignores me, then I'm OK.

So pressuring a bank to not allow YOU to have a bank account is okay?

Why am I not surprized you're for cancel culture too?

Quote from: jhkim on April 06, 2022, 03:27:22 PM
The problem I have with this phrasing is that "making sure no one can buy" is an outcome, not an action. If the result of a boycott is that the company shelves the product, then no one can buy that product any more. So if I join in boycott a company over a product, and it then stops making that product -- then this implies that I've crossed a line, because other people can't buy the product any more. But if I boycott the company and it ignores me, then I'm OK.

The line is similar with freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of trade.

If person A has something to say that person B wants to hear, and third parties have made it impossible for person B to listen to person A, they have crossed the line.

If person A and B want to associate with each other, and third parties have made it impossible for person A and B to associate with each other, they have crossed the line.

If person A wants to sell something and person B wants to buy it, and third parties have made it impossible for person B to buy from person A, they have crossed the line.

If you refuse to buy from someone on certain grounds, and they want your business, and change whatever it is that makes you not want to buy from them, that's their choice. So if a product is no longer available because they care more about your business than the business of the person who wanted to buy what you consider objectionable, that's not like the above scenarios.

Quote from: migo on April 06, 2022, 04:46:41 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 06, 2022, 03:27:22 PM
The problem I have with this phrasing is that "making sure no one can buy" is an outcome, not an action. If the result of a boycott is that the company shelves the product, then no one can buy that product any more. So if I join in boycott a company over a product, and it then stops making that product -- then this implies that I've crossed a line, because other people can't buy the product any more. But if I boycott the company and it ignores me, then I'm OK.

The line is similar with freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of trade.

If person A has something to say that person B wants to hear, and third parties have made it impossible for person B to listen to person A, they have crossed the line.

If person A and B want to associate with each other, and third parties have made it impossible for person A and B to associate with each other, they have crossed the line.

If person A wants to sell something and person B wants to buy it, and third parties have made it impossible for person B to buy from person A, they have crossed the line.

If you refuse to buy from someone on certain grounds, and they want your business, and change whatever it is that makes you not want to buy from them, that's their choice. So if a product is no longer available because they care more about your business than the business of the person who wanted to buy what you consider objectionable, that's not like the above scenarios.

It seems to me that your third and fourth paragraphs are contradictory. Let's say you refuse to buy from Publisher A based on their product line, but person B likes their current products. Because they want your business, Publisher A changes to cater more to you, and drops their old products. Now person B can't get the products they want any more because Publisher A has stopped selling them.


Boycotts potentially have the power to make companies go bankrupt and/or change their products. This means that if someone liked how the company was prior to the boycott, then the boycott has effectively denied them the ability to get what was previously offered.

I think boycotts in themselves are not unethical, though. The problems are things like lying, slander, malicious lawsuits, doxing, and personal threats.

Quote from: jhkim on April 06, 2022, 05:57:54 PM

Quote from: migo on April 06, 2022, 04:46:41 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 06, 2022, 03:27:22 PM
The problem I have with this phrasing is that "making sure no one can buy" is an outcome, not an action. If the result of a boycott is that the company shelves the product, then no one can buy that product any more. So if I join in boycott a company over a product, and it then stops making that product -- then this implies that I've crossed a line, because other people can't buy the product any more. But if I boycott the company and it ignores me, then I'm OK.

The line is similar with freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of trade.

If person A has something to say that person B wants to hear, and third parties have made it impossible for person B to listen to person A, they have crossed the line.

If person A and B want to associate with each other, and third parties have made it impossible for person A and B to associate with each other, they have crossed the line.

If person A wants to sell something and person B wants to buy it, and third parties have made it impossible for person B to buy from person A, they have crossed the line.

If you refuse to buy from someone on certain grounds, and they want your business, and change whatever it is that makes you not want to buy from them, that's their choice. So if a product is no longer available because they care more about your business than the business of the person who wanted to buy what you consider objectionable, that's not like the above scenarios.

It seems to me that your third and fourth paragraphs are contradictory. Let's say you refuse to buy from Publisher A based on their product line, but person B likes their current products. Because they want your business, Publisher A changes to cater more to you, and drops their old products. Now person B can't get the products they want any more because Publisher A has stopped selling them.


Boycotts potentially have the power to make companies go bankrupt and/or change their products. This means that if someone liked how the company was prior to the boycott, then the boycott has effectively denied them the ability to get what was previously offered.

I think boycotts in themselves are not unethical, though. The problems are things like lying, slander, malicious lawsuits, doxing, and personal threats.

Meaning the publisher saw which demographic was bigger and decided they would be better off catering to the group that has the numbers.

Which isn't the same as threatening the publisher's ability to sell at all, because they could take an ideological stance and decide not to catter to the majority because whatever.

Meanwhile you'r stance that making a bank cancelling your accounts is a okay because it somehow isn't immoral...

I'm not surprized by your stance, what surprizes me is the brazen way in which you make such wild assertions.

First, the bank portion is exactly analogous to the "neutral content provider" versus publisher thing.  Basically, you don't get to have it both ways.  You can't say that you are a neutral and then forbid business on content grounds.  Being neutral carries with it exemption from all kinds of regulations and problems that do not apply otherwise. 

Second, there is yet another difference between business boycott pressure placed on one bank (or media outlet, or whatever) to become non-neutral (and thus responsible as a partisan actor to be held to the standards of a non-neutral party), and then taking that leap into a collusion to attempt to effectively get all banks to not support what is otherwise legal commerce. 

Third, there is the related push that we are beginning to see to restrict the cash economy with the explicit goal of locking people out, and the related to that broader push of the so called "social currency".  Which is essentially Orwell's 1984 through business. 

But we all know all this.  Some people just don't want to admit it because it isn't convenient to admit it yet.

Quote from: jhkim on April 06, 2022, 03:27:22 PM

I'm not sure what this last bit is saying. Did you mean to say from "convince others not to buy"? So it's OK to, for example, say negative stuff about a company online and thus convince other people not to buy from them. I would think that is OK - it seems like free speech to me. And going to collusion is crossing the line.

The problem I have with this phrasing is that "making sure no one can buy" is an outcome, not an action. If the result of a boycott is that the company shelves the product, then no one can buy that product any more. So if I join in boycott a company over a product, and it then stops making that product -- then this implies that I've crossed a line, because other people can't buy the product any more. But if I boycott the company and it ignores me, then I'm OK.

I don't believe you didn't understand that.  But on the off chance that you don't ... 

Refusing to buy and encouraging others not to buy is a boycott, and fine.  Doing an end-run through other purportedly neutral means to force the outcome is not.  It's basically a RICO violation done with politics as opposed to business or Mafia goals. 

Quote from: jhkim on April 06, 2022, 05:57:54 PM

Quote from: migo on April 06, 2022, 04:46:41 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 06, 2022, 03:27:22 PM
The problem I have with this phrasing is that "making sure no one can buy" is an outcome, not an action. If the result of a boycott is that the company shelves the product, then no one can buy that product any more. So if I join in boycott a company over a product, and it then stops making that product -- then this implies that I've crossed a line, because other people can't buy the product any more. But if I boycott the company and it ignores me, then I'm OK.

The line is similar with freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of trade.

If person A has something to say that person B wants to hear, and third parties have made it impossible for person B to listen to person A, they have crossed the line.

If person A and B want to associate with each other, and third parties have made it impossible for person A and B to associate with each other, they have crossed the line.

If person A wants to sell something and person B wants to buy it, and third parties have made it impossible for person B to buy from person A, they have crossed the line.

If you refuse to buy from someone on certain grounds, and they want your business, and change whatever it is that makes you not want to buy from them, that's their choice. So if a product is no longer available because they care more about your business than the business of the person who wanted to buy what you consider objectionable, that's not like the above scenarios.

It seems to me that your third and fourth paragraphs are contradictory.

You're wrong, I clearly explained why the situations are different.

QuoteNot sure where you've been, but their tactics typically go well beyond simply not buying a product they were never going to buy in the first place.

Boycott is never "simply not buying a product". You need to signal publically you boycott, say why, and convince other to do the same. Possibly loudly. Personal private boycott is kinda useless boycott.

QuoteSo pressuring a bank to not allow YOU to have a bank account is okay?

Why am I not surprized you're for cancel culture too?

Pressuring any kind of private business to do ANYTHING is within valid frame of boycott as long as methods used are legal.
I mean boycott is more than "I'm not interested", boycott is always done to pressure private business into changing their practices.

QuoteStepping across those lines includes such things as pressuring banks to not support the targeted company.  That's collusion with another entity to prevent otherwise legal commerce.  If a corporation tried those tactics against a competitor, they'd be hauled up to court so fast it would make your head spin.  See also "lawfare" as war by other means where "the process is the punishment", banning on platforms that take advantage in other contexts as a "neutral" content methods, libel and slander, the media, academics, and politicians that allow such abuses, etc.

Both boycotters, bank and let's say evil publisher LGBTPandit are private members of market dealing with each other consensually. That also means bank may not do interests with you, and you cannot force bank. At least not within libertarian logic. As long as no one is forced by state or violence all is clear.
Now I'm not libertarian so I'd totally forbade banks doing it, and I fully support my own government controlling banning policy of Facebook and Twitter (several of my friends already were unbanned after asking specific governmental organisation to intervene), as I believe corporations so big, forming oligopole in important areas should be controlled - nevertheless, if Woke clients of bank gonna blackmail bank to not do business with LGBTPandit, and bank decide having their accounts is more important - then well business as usual.

For me it's well within boycott logic - boycott is not merely choice of not buying what you don't like, but organised effort to push something we consider harmful and detrimental from market. And as long as we use market mechanism - it's boycott.

QuoteSo pressuring a bank to not allow YOU to have a bank account is okay?

That depends. If you pressure a bank to not allow Evil Hat Productions to have account then it's very okay, noble and just

QuoteMeanwhile you'r stance that making a bank cancelling your accounts is a okay because it somehow isn't immoral...

I mean if bank gonna steal your money that's unethical. If it's just gonna cancel your account and sent you all the money in big wooden chest, then well - freedom of association and business.

QuoteRefusing to buy and encouraging others not to buy is a boycott, and fine.  Doing an end-run through other purportedly neutral means to force the outcome is not.  It's basically a RICO violation done with politics as opposed to business or Mafia goals.

Difference is Mafia or government can use force. Woke clients can just threaten bank with removing their assets from bank, unless it stop making deals with right-wingers.
Which does not break freedom of association.

But then I'm authoritarian so I'd totally ban banks from doing it, I just don't see where's break from freedom of association and business side.

Wrath, when a private entity engaged in public business begins to enjoy monopoly status, they also begin to function somewhat as a public entity.  The bigger and more comprehensive it gets, the more the public aspect engages. 

A large private entity is given quite a lot of leeway, typically, on the grounds that some of the cures are worse than the disease.  One of the exceptions to that leeway is cross-entity coordination in the same field, which begins to look like a lot like monopoly practices. 

QuoteWrath, when a private entity engaged in public business begins to enjoy monopoly status, they also begin to function somewhat as a public entity.  The bigger and more comprehensive it gets, the more the public aspect engages.

I agree. As I said I'm not libertarian, I have no problem with quashing freedoms of those pesky bankers
AFAIU USA bankers have lots of freedoms to dump undesirables in a ways I believe would be impossible in Good Ol' Continent, so woke boycotts can achieve quite... impossible achievements.

Nevertheless it's not something you can solve with libertarian politics.

Then obviously cancel culture still has large space of boycotting, when even that won't help. Actor hated by work will have a problem to get good job again, and while it's relatively easy to force banks to open accounts for ANYONE willing client, it's kinda hard to force directors to hire some evil!fascist scum or smth.