LogFAQs > #952533801

I'm strongly opposed to any of this digital vigilantism stuff, and it's a grossly reductionist view of humanity to complete destroy a person's existence due to a mistake, an opinion that's had no bearings on actual actions, or something they've bettered themselves from in their pasts. Refusing to have discourse or actually open up conversation with people and just cancelling them, harassing their employers, etc. only creates martyrdom and impedes upon any societal progress. I do think it exists, and I think it's ignorant, socially irresponsible, self important, and simple-minded.
There are cases where it makes sense, like R. Kelly, Weinstein, or Michael Jackson. It's tough because they had their own mental health issues and their artwork was objectively well-made - but you can't help but feel icky listening to either one, especially after Robert's decades of misdeeds. But those cases are very, very rare.

I'm also in a Chris Chan group on Facebook, and I've literally been seeing tons of self proclaimed leftists calling out CWC for his bigotry and suggesting that he deserved everything that happened to him. Like he literally has severe autism. People who're autistic have troubles relating to stuff outside of themselves and are highly prone to different forms of prejudice -- especially when he grew up in the south, his parents were bigots, and the online culture at the time was heavily bigoted. Like jesus fucking christ - you're not being "woke" by pointing out that some things he's done are problematic by being incredibly ableist yourself. There are also cases of people who're on drugs or severely mentally ill who say/do bad/offensive things and they're uploaded online; you're not being politically correct by trying to destroy an already destroyed person who's incapable of comprehending their own political incorrectness. You're just being ableist.