# Five Nights At Freddy's creator, Scott Cawthon, has retired from game development



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 17, 2021)

Scott Cawthon, creator of "Five Night's At Freddy's" is now retiring from game development according to an image on his website. However, according to Cawthon, the series will continue with a developer of his choice. Cawthon was recently caught donating to controversial politicians such as Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump for the past few years on OpenSecrets. Cawthon received backlash and later responded to the backlash on Reddit claiming he would not apologize for supporting political candidates who he believed were best for the country. The LGBTQ community had also give Cawthon backlash for supporting Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell, however, Cawthon claims he does not have hate for the LGBTQ community and he respects them. He also thanks the LGBTQ members who supported him.
https://www.reddit.com/r/fivenightsatfreddys/comments/nybyo1/my_response_and_maybe_last_post/
http://scottgames.com/


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 17, 2021)

I will miss you Scott! Much love and respect.


----------



## DinohScene (Jun 18, 2021)

Let him support Trump.
Seriously, there's a billion more important things going on in the world then a gamedev supporting Trump...


----------



## Jayro (Jun 18, 2021)

I'm glad his ass was cancelled, but I don't condone the doxxing or the death threats, that's going too far. At least this era of cringe has come to a close.

To Scott Cawthon, I have this message to you:


----------



## eyeliner (Jun 18, 2021)

Jayro said:


> I'm glad his ass was cancelled, but I don't condone the doxxing or the death threats, that's going too far. At least this era of cringe has come to a close.
> 
> To Scott Cawthon, I have this message to you:
> View attachment 267336


Your commentary doesn't make you any better.

So, apparently, you can't support people differently than others, or else they will cancel you because good riddance to free will.
Strange times, these...


----------



## Jayro (Jun 18, 2021)

eyeliner said:


> Your commentary doesn't make you any better.
> 
> So, apparently, you can't support people differently than others, or else they will cancel you because good riddance to free will.
> Strange times, these...


He was actively funding the Republican party with tens of thousands of dollars, of which the Republican party hates the LGBTQ+ community, which is what most of Scott's fanbase is. That's a direct attack on his fanbase. They're completely in the right to cancel his ass.


----------



## eyeliner (Jun 18, 2021)

Jayro said:


> He was actively funding the Republican party with tens of thousands of dollars, of which the Republican party hates the LGBTQ+ community, which is what most of Scott's fanbase is. That's a direct attack on his fanbase. They're completely in the right to cancel his ass.


Did you read his post on Reddit? He donated to Republicans, so what? That makes him an homophobe by osmose?

What the hell is wrong with you? You've changed...


----------



## munnimann (Jun 18, 2021)

DinohScene said:


> Seriously, there's a billion more important things going on in the world then a gamedev supporting Trump...



And yet your you're wasting your time on a forum focused on video games. Let people make their own decision what they find important. And, picture this, people can even pay attention to multiple things with varying degrees of importance. Technology truly is incredible!



eyeliner said:


> He donated to Republicans, so what? That makes him an homophobe by osmose?



Yes.


----------



## Jayro (Jun 18, 2021)

eyeliner said:


> Did you read his post on Reddit? He donated to Republicans, so what? That makes him an homophobe by osmose?


Yes.



eyeliner said:


> You've changed...


We're supposed to.


----------



## Pipistrele (Jun 18, 2021)

Dude did some controversial things, but I still respect him a lot both for prolific output and numerous contributions to indie gaming community. Wishing the best for him!


----------



## linuxares (Jun 18, 2021)

eyeliner said:


> Your commentary doesn't make you any better.
> 
> So, apparently, you can't support people differently than others, or else they will cancel you because good riddance to free will.
> Strange times, these...





DinohScene said:


> Let him support Trump.
> Seriously, there's a billion more important things going on in the world then a gamedev supporting Trump...


Pretty much. But people are bored so they must rage about something.


----------



## smileyhead (Jun 18, 2021)

Jesus Christ, people being pissed about politics made one of the most influential indie devs of the 2010s retire? What the hell?


----------



## linuxares (Jun 18, 2021)

smileyhead said:


> Jesus Christ, people being pissed about politics made one of the most influential indie devs of the 2010s retire? What the hell?


Honestly, he was on his way out for a while.


----------



## such (Jun 18, 2021)

eyeliner said:


> Your commentary doesn't make you any better.
> 
> So, apparently, you can't support people differently than others, or else they will cancel you because good riddance to free will.
> Strange times, these...


Speaking of:


			
				Scott Cawthon said:
			
		

> I'd like to think that the last seven years would have given me the benefit of the doubt in regards to how I try to treat people, but there I was, trending on twitter for being a homophobe, getting doxed, with people threatening to come to my house. My wife is six weeks pregnant and she spent last night in fear because of what was being said online. She has already been struggling with her pregnancy so seeing her so afraid really scared me.


Not. Cool.


----------



## smileyhead (Jun 18, 2021)

linuxares said:


> Honestly, he was on his way out for a while.


True, but there's a difference between someone retiring by themselves and others making him retire.


----------



## templeofhylia (Jun 18, 2021)

good riddance <3


----------



## Burorī (Jun 18, 2021)

All of this because of some wack-ass politics ruining everything for everyone yet again.
Let the man live his life and stop riding that much dick you attention-seeking boring life having ass bitches


----------



## infinete (Jun 18, 2021)

Sad times, very sad times indeed.......


----------



## Pipistrele (Jun 18, 2021)

smileyhead said:


> Jesus Christ, people being pissed about politics made one of the most influential indie devs of the 2010s retire? What the hell?





Burorī said:


> All of this because of some wack-ass politics ruining everything for everyone yet again.
> Let the man live his life and stop riding that much dick you attention-seeking boring life having ass bitches


Sorta-but-not-really. Scott considered retirement for quite a while, even having multiple "final" FNAF games before then - he also contemplated in the letter on how he's "_turning 40 and is missing out on a lot of things_". It's just that the whole drama acted as a good excuse to do just that; I think Scott retiring from the industry was a matter of time regardless of politics.


----------



## Mark McDonut (Jun 18, 2021)

I don't agree with the threats, but you can't donate to the Death Star then get surprised that people look at you like an Imperial Stormtrooper.

Money is free speech after all, and free speech doesn't stop you from getting punched in the mouth for what you said.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 18, 2021)

Scott Cawthon doesn't hate gay people. He doesn't believe politicians like Trump are evil in any way, he just believed Trump could fix the economy. Scott isn't a bad man, always constantly donating to charity. Have you ever seen him hate on gays? Besides, I strongly doubt Trump is against gays. If he really was he would have done something horrible to the LBTQ laws

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Burorī said:


> All of this because of some wack-ass politics ruining everything for everyone yet again.
> Let the man live his life and stop riding that much dick you attention-seeking boring life having ass bitches


It was partially for him to live a good rest of life

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



linuxares said:


> Pretty much. But people are bored so they must rage about something.


For once, I agree with Linuxares


----------



## such (Jun 18, 2021)

This is the downside of a two-party system and the overall polarization of... everything thrown onto the dumpster fire that is the Internet: you're either a gun-totting homophobe, or you're a special snowflake SJW. No in-between, lock and load.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 18, 2021)

Sounds like a dickhead, but I've never played any of the games, so whatevs.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 18, 2021)

hippy dave said:


> Sounds like a dickhead, but I've never played any of the games, so whatevs.


He isn't bad. He just supports Republicans and everyone thinks he hates gay people for supporting Trump


----------



## dazindude (Jun 18, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> He isn't bad. He just supports Republicans and everyone thinks he hates gay people for supporting Trump


 I mean hating people because of their political beliefs is shitty but he funded several republicans that helped shape the current platform of the party which one of their stated goals is overturning the legality of gay marriage and removing workplace protections for LGBTQ workers so regardless of his intent with supporting the republican party he is enabling what I can only call the revocation of human rights. There is no room for the enabling of bigotry and the revocation of peoples freedoms in America. I would call these behaviors highly unamerican and should be fought against and treated for what it is which is an advocation of hate.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jun 18, 2021)

Good. Not because of his political choices, but because those games are (imo) garbage.


----------



## JaNDeRPeiCH (Jun 18, 2021)

smileyhead said:


> Jesus Christ, people being pissed about politics made one of the most influential indie devs of the 2010s retire? What the hell?



Whats the meaning for you supporting the Republican Party? Do you know the ideology of that party? . Everyone knows if you made a donation to them its supporting the same ancient ideas from Trump&Colleagues.If the dev make a donation its because  like  the Republicans scum and tryng to defend the dev its not worthy.


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jun 18, 2021)

dazindude said:


> I mean hating people because of their political beliefs is shitty but he funded several republicans that helped shape the current platform of the party which one of their stated goals is overturning the legality of gay marriage and removing workplace protections for LGBTQ workers so regardless of his intent with supporting the republican party he is enabling what I can only call the revocation of human rights. There is no room for the enabling of bigotry and the revocation of peoples freedoms in America. I would call these behaviors highly unamerican and should be fought against and treated for what it is which is an advocation of hate.


And many Republicans (and surely some Democrats and Independents) feel that supporting access to abortion is tantamount to genocide. "There is no room for enabling genocide in this country.  I would call these behaviors highly unamerican and should be fought against and treated for what it is which is an advocation of murder." See the problem? It cuts both ways. Advocate a scorched earth approach if you so wish, but don't be surprised if the end result is the nation being consumed in an inferno of sectarian strife.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 18, 2021)

dazindude said:


> I mean hating people because of their political beliefs is shitty but he funded several republicans that helped shape the current platform of the party which one of their stated goals is overturning the legality of gay marriage and removing workplace protections for LGBTQ workers so regardless of his intent with supporting the republican party he is enabling what I can only call the revocation of human rights. There is no room for the enabling of bigotry and the revocation of peoples freedoms in America. I would call these behaviors highly unamerican and should be fought against and treated for what it is which is an advocation of hate.


I understand what you're trying to say but I have a family member who voted for Trump. I disagreed with the descion but they don't hate gays! They just believed they could do the best in Economic terms. So did Scott


----------



## dazindude (Jun 18, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> I understand what you're trying to say but I have a family member who voted for Trump. I disagreed with the descion but they don't hate gays! They just believed they could do the best in Economic terms. So did Scott


Again I wouldn't  demonize or get angry about why they support someone more so the outcomes that result from that even if economics are the only issue that a person cares about the other issues matter as well if they are willing to ignore them then they are supporting hate or bigotry whether they wanted/ intended to or not.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 18, 2021)

I honestly think Scott was canceled for ab extremely dumb reason. People apparently still haven't learned how to respect political opinions. Also, about 45% of Americans voted for Trump so go 45% of the country. Now everyone thinks he hates gays because he supports a political who is actually helping the LGBT community and he (Trump) is hated for being edge. Really dumb!


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 18, 2021)

Voting for someone because you think it's best for the economy, even if it's really shitty for vulnerable people, is shitty behaviour.


----------



## guisadop (Jun 18, 2021)

I'm sure he had made a good amount of money already (and will probably keep earning quite a lot still). 
I'd have retired even sooner if I were him.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 18, 2021)

"People may lose their fundamental human rights but at least the dollar will go up a bit"


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 18, 2021)

Oh yeah here's the Reddit post, everyone
https://www.reddit.com/r/fivenightsatfreddys/comments/nybyo1/my_response_and_maybe_last_post/


----------



## JaNDeRPeiCH (Jun 18, 2021)

hippy dave said:


> Voting for someone because you think it's best for the economy, even if it's really shitty for vulnerable people, is shitty behaviour.



Really thinks that way? Seriously?....If you want to have better economy&jobs you should vote in that time for Hillary. Americans doesnt learn from history its well documented well garden economy protected do more harm.Voting for Trump and their failure bussiness its not smartest move to have better economy&jobs.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 18, 2021)

Oh my fucking God. You people are so petty you'd attack a game dev over his political affiliation? God damn hypocrites.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 18, 2021)

Remember, in 2008 Biden said he doesn't support gay marriage

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Memoir said:


> Oh my fucking God. You people are so petty you'd attack a game dev over his political affiliation? God damn hypocrites.


Right


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 18, 2021)

Biden is a shitty person who's not as bad as Trump.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 18, 2021)

hippy dave said:


> Biden is a shitty person who's not as bad as Trump.


Yeah, people don't hold him accountable as much
Biden (as senator) caused many African Americans to pointlessly go to jail and Trump freed them


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 18, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Remember, in 2008 Biden said he doesn't support gay marriage
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Politics have no place the gaming world. This is exactly why. Can't have your own beliefs without someone getting it twisted to fit their agenda. I sincerely hope this guy finds his peace.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 18, 2021)

Memoir said:


> Politics have no place the gaming world. This is exactly why. Can't have your own beliefs without someone getting it twisted to fit their agenda. I sincerely hope this guy finds his peace.


Well, actually I don't believe this caused him to retire. I think it happened at a coincidental time because his wife was pregnant and he is getting older


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 18, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Well, actually I don't believe this caused him to retire. I think it happened at a coincidental time because his wife was pregnant and he is getting older


I'm not saying it did, but people really need to get some perspective.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 18, 2021)

Memoir said:


> but people really need to get some perspective.


I know, I don't play horror games to yell over people voting Trump

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Jayro said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> We're supposed to.


What happened to the Jayro who was represented by the Pirate Party?


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jun 18, 2021)

hippy dave said:


> Voting for someone because you think it's best for the economy, even if it's really shitty for vulnerable people, is shitty behaviour.


Alternatively, you may believe that a strong economy will do the most good for the most people. From a utilitarian perspective, this would then be a logical decision to make. From such a perspective, favoring a smaller good over the greater is "shitty behavior".


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 18, 2021)

I guess 45% of the country are bad people for liking Trump..... (sarcasm don't cancel me)


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 18, 2021)

ChaosEternal said:


> Alternatively, you may believe that a strong economy will do the most good for the most people. From a utilitarian perspective, this would then be a logical decision to make. From such a perspective, favoring a smaller good over the greater is "shitty behavior".


What a shitty perspective.


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jun 18, 2021)

hippy dave said:


> What a shitty perspective.


What a shitty perspective. 


Sorry, couldn't resist!


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 18, 2021)

My thank you thread for Scott Cawthon has become a political discussion


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 18, 2021)

hippy dave said:


> What a shitty perspective.


The irony...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> My thank you thread for Scott Cawthon has become a political discussion


Give em even a whiff of politics in any given thread and it will be detailed so fast.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 18, 2021)

Memoir said:


> The irony...
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Politics hurt my soul
I didn't vote last year cause both sucked
Even the 3rd party candidates hurt me


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Jun 18, 2021)

Dunno, I think the people cancelling him have a point. It's the same reason I won't give money to something like Chick-Fil-A. I wouldn't like money I give to someone being funneled into a cause that chips away at my rights as a gay and trans person. You don't have to like cancel culture, or politics, or anything, to understand why people (namely FNAF's LGBTQ fans) would be upset about this after financially supporting him for years.


----------



## VinsCool (Jun 18, 2021)

Maybe now Game Theory can make videos that aren't related with the FNAF lore now. Lol

Sad to see people attack someone over a political party choice, makes you think how people go the extra mile to find a reason to hate someone.

Personally I never cared about the games, or the series, or even the developer himself, so this leaves me indifferent, but to see the motivation behind quitting sure doesn't bring much excitation.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 18, 2021)

VinsCool said:


> Maybe now Game Theory can make videos that aren't related with the FNAF lore now. Lol
> 
> Sad to see people attack someone over a political party choice, makes you think how people go the extra mile to find a reason to hate someone.
> 
> Personally I never cared about the games, or the series, or even the developer himself, so this leaves me indifferent, but to see the motivation behind quitting sure doesn't bring much excitation.


FNAF isn't over. Some dork will replace Scott


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jun 18, 2021)

Sophie-bear said:


> Dunno, I think the people cancelling him have a point. It's the same reason I won't give money to something like Chick-Fil-A. I wouldn't like money I give to someone being funneled into a cause that chips away at my rights as a gay and trans person. You don't have to like cancel culture, or politics, or anything, to understand why people (namely FNAF's LGBTQ fans) would be upset about this after financially supporting him for years.


I can certainly appreciate your reasoning; it's a totally valid way to feel. It's your right to choose who you wish to support. It's also more-or-less your right to express your feelings about his decisions. That being said, I cannot condone the people who have chosen to harass him and threaten him. (Not to say that you condone that either!) That sort of behavior tears at the very fabric of a society and fundamentally deprives others of the right to make that choice for themselves.


----------



## DKB (Jun 18, 2021)

cringe lamo


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 18, 2021)

ChaosEternal said:


> What a shitty perspective.
> 
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist!


If you actively choose to make some people suffer for other people's benefits, you are shitty. If this applies to you personally, then you, personally, are shitty.


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jun 18, 2021)

hippy dave said:


> If you actively choose to make some people suffer for other people's benefits, you are shitty. If this applies to you personally, then you, personally, are shitty.


I was being facetious, but on a more serious note, causing harm to some to benefit others is a completely unavoidable fact of life in a world with limited resources. Presumably, your government pursues policies that benefit its citizens. Many of these policies will be directly detrimental to people who live in other countries. However, only the most egregious instances of this generate any sort of controversy. This is (presumably) because it is understood that governments strive to improve the lot of their own citizens.

I could list numerous examples where we choose to harm some to benefit others. People are imprisoned so that the greater number may live in safety. Climate policies are pursued for the common good. Some people pay more than they receive in taxes so that society as a whole functions better. The entirety of government spending is a struggle between competing interests for limited money. Provide more money for food stamps and affordable housing programs have less. To pretend that most worthwhile things can be done without hurting anybody is naive and can potentially lead to worse outcomes in general. Some situations are win-wins, but in most cases there are no free lunches.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 18, 2021)

My government actively wants people like me and my family to die, so it has more public money available to steal and give to its chums, so let's not go there.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2021)

Good riddance to this guy. Deplorable behavior should be met with condemnation.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Good riddance to this guy. Deplorable behavior should be met with condemnation.


Voting for Trump is deplorable behavior?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Voting for Trump is deplorable behavior?


Yes it is, and giving money to him is worse.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Yes it is, and giving money to him is worse.


I don't know what to say about that.....


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> I don't know what to say about that.....


A vote and/or donation to the former president is, demonstrably, a vote against immigrants, against immigrant children, against Black people, against women, against LGBT people, against healthcare, against the poor, against the environment, against climate, against science, against American democracy, and for 601,000 lives lost to COVID-19.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 19, 2021)

Jayro said:


> I'm glad his ass was cancelled, but I don't condone the doxxing or the death threats, that's going too far. At least this era of cringe has come to a close.
> 
> To Scott Cawthon, I have this message to you:
> View attachment 267336


The only ass here is you clown


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> A vote and/or donation to the former president is, demonstrably, a vote against immigrants, against immigrant children, against Black people, against LGBT people, against healthcare, against the poor, against the environment, against climate, against science, against American democracy, and for 601,000 lives lost to COVID-19.


I can see where you're at
but Scott Cawthon believed that he would help the country 
Also in the Reddit post, he mentioned he supported another leaked politician he supported (can't remember the name) was someone he believed could save African Americans from poverty.
He supported LGBT'S 
Besides, 45% of the country voted for Trump


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> A vote and/or donation to the former president is, demonstrably, a vote against immigrants, against immigrant children, against Black people, against women, against LGBT people, against healthcare, against the poor, against the environment, against climate, against science, against American democracy, and for 601,000 lives lost to COVID-19.


The biggest Biden shill is here telling us about morals


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 19, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> The only ass here is you clown


Please don't say that about people, saying things like that make the situation worse
No offense


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> I can see where you're at
> but Scott Cawthon believed that he would help the country


The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> He supported LGBT'S


Trump claimed to support LGBT people. Actions speak louder than words. Frankly, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile LGBT support with support for the former president.



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Besides, 45% of the country voted for Trump


When you count eligible voters who didn't vote, Trump received about 31% of the vote. Regardless of the number, that doesn't mean those votes aren't deplorable.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 19, 2021)

Scott did nothing wrong This is The USA and you have the FREEDOM to vote for whatever candidate you want and support whatever you want and freedom of religion.

All the clowns here happy about canceling people because they dare not think like them should be a shame.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 19, 2021)

Ouch, this thread didn't go as planned


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jun 19, 2021)

ooohh when we gonna lock this one bois?


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 19, 2021)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> ooohh when we gonna lock this one bois?


Shhh don't tell the mods


----------



## Thunder Hawk (Jun 19, 2021)

His biggest mistake probably was donating to Mitch McConnell of all people. Don't even think Trump supporters like him anymore since he backstabbed Trump... or maybe they never liked him? I don't remember.

Sad to see such a wonderful gamedev get targeted by political witch hunting groups.


----------



## Apex (Jun 19, 2021)

So people are pissed off that he donated to a political party, under the assumption that this political party doesn't support their beliefs, and choices? So essentially they're condemning him for his beliefs and choices?

How is the irony lost on so many people?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 19, 2021)

I mean, with all the money he made from the FNAF games as well as getting money from the entire franchise itself, toys and whatnot, he can retire early with cash to boot.

Now, as for the politics, I like how people think it's ok to berate and insult and even possibly physically assault him because he voted and donated and supported a different party or persons than you. Freedom of speech unless you disagree with what I say. Right. That's fair. This is why I have ways to defend myself from these psychos. I don't start fights, but I guarantee you I will end them. For all you being petty about this, go fuck yourself with a rusty railroad spike for all I care. You're never getting anyone on your side by being such cocksuckers and threatening people, the exact opposite will happen. I'm getting real sick and tired of this shit, people who claim to be inclusive and understanding, only to viciously attack you if you dare go against their ideologies and whatnot. It's not a two way street fuckbags, no double standards, and you will learn the hard way it isn't.


----------



## Tomato123 (Jun 19, 2021)

Just because he voted and supported a party doesn't mean he supports all of what that party wants, and very few people will. It's just that his opinion was that they were the best at the time of voting, which he is allowed to think. If people want to get angry at him they can, but throwing around threats is no better than what the people complaining are saying he is doing by supporting Trump.


----------



## J-Machine (Jun 19, 2021)

well intentions can still be abusive and do the opposite of what was expected. I'm not gonna defend someone who couldn't be bothered to make a proper, informed decision. and let's be real even if he wasn't supporting republicans who were anti lgbtq and women's right... his religion (fundamentalist christian) is also anti lgbtq and reproductive rights by design so it's not like he can just hide behind the nice guy with good intentions schtic. it's a big part of who he is.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2021)

Apex said:


> So people are pissed off that he donated to a political party, under the assumption that this political party doesn't support their beliefs, and choices? So essentially they're condemning him for his beliefs and choices?
> 
> How is the irony lost on so many people?


Are you suggesting we aren't allowed to judge a person for their words, actions, and the content of one's character? Hell yes I'm condemning a person for financially supporting deplorable candidates with deplorable policies, and rightfully so.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> Scott did nothing wrong This is The USA and you have the FREEDOM to vote for whatever candidate you want and support whatever you want and freedom of religion.
> 
> All the clowns here happy about canceling people because they dare not think like them should be a shame.


Nobody is arguing he didn't have the legal freedom to donate to political candidates. That doesn't mean what he did isn't deserving of rightful condemnation.


----------



## RichardTheKing (Jun 19, 2021)

Makes sense; from what I recall, he only became a "superstar" because his kiddie games had really creepy animatronic-like models, he received criticism from that, and instead of crumbling used that to his advantage by making horror games instead - horror games that were then massively popularised by Markiplier and MatPat, among others.
I always pictured Five Nights as being Cawthon's 'taking back' the criticism, and when it turned out to be a wild success, continuing it for as long as he could. I never pictured him remaining a game dev forever, really.


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Jun 19, 2021)

it sucks that this is our world today, but Scott had a good run. 'll always respect that guy. (Tbh I don't think he even NEEDED to retire, the situation wasn't that bad. I think he was probably wanting an excuse to retire, and twitter-babies getting upset over meaningless things, "cancelling" is usually a good reason)\

This is basically just another example of not going with society and the elites' narrative, and getting hated for it. I'm really proud of Scott for sticking to his beliefs, though. God bless him


----------



## Apex (Jun 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Are you suggesting we aren't allowed to judge a person for their words, actions, and the content of one's character? Hell yes I'm condemning a person for financially supporting deplorable candidates with deplorable policies, and rightfully so.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Death threats and attempting to destroy someone's livelihood is somehow not worse than supporting a broad ideology. Do you think when he donated to the party he filled out a form specifically stating he wanted his donation to be put towards fighting lgbt rights? He probably supported the party that would give him a bigger tax break with his newly found wealth. The idea and generalization that all republicans are inherently evil is casting the same harmful and hatemongering stereotypes that the cancellers are fighting to stop.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jun 19, 2021)

What's the point of bringing up controversies? It doesn't really seem fitting for a "this dev is retiring" thread.


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Jun 19, 2021)

Nerdtendo said:


> What's the point of bringing up controversies? It doesn't really seem fitting for a "this dev is retiring" thread.


I think it's because those controversies were a reason, if not the main reason for his retiring. So, it's on topic.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jun 19, 2021)

BlazeMasterBM said:


> I think it's because those controversies were a reason, if not the main reason for his retiring. So, it's on topic.


Oh that's fair. Didn't really consider that. Guess I'll throw my two cents in even though they're not worth much. If we got rid of every artist who held beliefs we didn't like, there'd be no art. The gaming community seems to trend left leaving (I'd guess about a 60/40 split in my observations), so it makes sense that someone openly right winged would get flack, but it seems like a pretty intense game of word association
> Donation to republican politician.
> All right wing politicians hate LGBT people
> Must be a Homophobe
Seems like a lapse in logic to me but okay


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Jun 19, 2021)

Nerdtendo said:


> Oh that's fair. Didn't really consider that. Guess I'll throw my two cents in even though they're not worth much. If we got rid of every artist who held beliefs we didn't like, there'd be no art. The gaming community seems to trend left leaving (I'd guess about a 60/40 split in my observations), so it makes sense that someone openly right winged would get flack, but it seems like a pretty intense game of word association
> > Donation to republican politician.
> > All right wing politicians hate LGBT people
> > Must be a Homophobe
> Seems like a lapse in logic to me but okay


It's a HUGE lapse in logic. But people are quick to assume things like that nowadays, and they aren't much for listening to others either. So, Scott clearly knew this, and he didn't care to try and make the situation better. He simply stated what he honestly believed, and didn't apologize for it. Which is the right thing to do, if you ask me.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jun 19, 2021)

BlazeMasterBM said:


> It's a HUGE lapse in logic. But people are quick to assume things like that nowadays, and they aren't much for listening to others either. So, Scott clearly knew this, and he didn't care to try and make the situation better. He simply stated what he honestly believed, and didn't apologize for it. Which is the right thing to do, if you ask me.


I agree. It's the same reason why I avoid stating my politics in most situations. People begin to generalize and assume things about me instantly. Especially in an era of anonymity with the internet, you can rarely get to know the character of a person. It's not just one party or the other that does the generalizing-- it's everyone. It makes civilized discussion/debate impossible, so it's best to avoid it entirely. I guess it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Jun 19, 2021)

Nerdtendo said:


> I agree. It's the same reason why I avoid stating my politics in most situations. People begin to generalize and assume things about me instantly. Especially in an era of anonymity with the internet, you can rarely get to know the character of a person. It's not just one party or the other that does the generalizing-- it's everyone. It makes civilized discussion/debate impossible, so it's best to avoid it entirely. I guess it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.


I completely agree. Well I still state my opinions if somebody asks me, and I let them make a fool of themselves by assuming things about me. Which is why I  am careful to find out all the details about what someone believes before having those discussions, as I don't want to assume things like "liberal? must be a communist" or "conservative? must hate gay people"


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jun 19, 2021)

BlazeMasterBM said:


> I completely agree. Well I still state my opinions if somebody asks me, and I let them make a fool of themselves by assuming things about me. Which is why I  am careful to find out all the details about what someone believes before having those discussions, as I don't want to assume things like "liberal? must be a communist" or "conservative? must hate gay people"


I have a personal problem of letting what people assume about me make me angry, so I respect people who can remain level headed like you.

I do think the internet is 90% of the reason behind the political unrest these days. I've noticed that if you can shake a man's hand and look him in the eye, he will be much more reasonable despite your difference. The internet strips away everyone's humanity from the president of the united states, all the way down to your average joe schmoe like you and I.


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Jun 19, 2021)

Nerdtendo said:


> I have a personal problem of letting what people assume about me make me angry, so I respect people who can remain level headed like you.
> 
> I do think the internet is 90% of the reason behind the political unrest these days. I've noticed that if you can shake a man's hand and look him in the eye, he will be much more reasonable despite your difference. The internet strips away everyone's humanity from the president of the united states, all the way down to your average joe schmoe like you and I.


Very true. I can admit that sometimes, I have more balls saying things online than in person. I guess I am pretty shy irl, but also it's so easy to say anything online and not worry much about what people think.


----------



## DarkCoffe64 (Jun 19, 2021)

What am wondering is: Why did he even donate that money?
Don't them politicians already have waay too much, lol?
Just... keep those, or give them to the people that are struggling to have a decent life, dunno.
*shrug*


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Jun 19, 2021)

Apex said:


> Death threats and attempting to destroy someone's livelihood is somehow not worse than supporting a broad ideology. Do you think when he donated to the party he filled out a form specifically stating he wanted his donation to be put towards fighting lgbt rights? He probably supported the party that would give him a bigger tax break with his newly found wealth. The idea and generalization that all republicans are inherently evil is casting the same harmful and hatemongering stereotypes that the cancellers are fighting to stop.


Be fair if you're going to debate this. I haven't seen a single person here defend death threats or threats of violence.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2021)

Apex said:


> Death threats and attempting to destroy someone's livelihood is somehow not worse than supporting a broad ideology. Do you think when he donated to the party he filled out a form specifically stating he wanted his donation to be put towards fighting lgbt rights? He probably supported the party that would give him a bigger tax break with his newly found wealth. The idea and generalization that all republicans are inherently evil is casting the same harmful and hatemongering stereotypes that the cancellers are fighting to stop.


I haven't seen anybody condone harassment or death threats, so please don't act like I have either.

A person has a right to free speech, a right to their beliefs, and a right to donate to political candidates (within the confines of election finance law). However, a person's political contributions are not free from condemnation and consequences.

If a person donates to a candidate who, for example, forcibly ripped families apart at the border for no reason other than to use fear to deter immigration, that rightfully warrants cancellation.
If a person donates to a candidate who, for example, did everything in their power to unnecessarily attack LGBT people (including dozens of executive actions and numerous judicial appointments), that rightfully warrants cancellation.
If a person donates to a candidate who, for example, regularly says racist things and promotes racist policies, that rightfully warrants cancellation.
If a person donates to a candidate who, for example, starts lying about imaginary election fraud before the election even takes place in order to undermine democracy and do anything else it takes to steal the election, that rightfully warrants cancellation.
I don't know why the political donation was made. It could be he just wanted bigger tax breaks, but that doesn't change any of the above, and it means he was willing to sell out immigrants, immigrant children, Black people, LGBT people, women, the environment, etc. for some tax breaks. That rightfully warrants cancellation. It could be he has sincere religious beliefs, as we've known throughout the years, and that's why he gave money to the former president. However, there's a difference between merely holding sincere religious beliefs and being a zealot who gives money to candidates who are going to impose their religious beliefs on the general public in ways that hurt LGBT people, women, etc. That rightfully warrants cancellation.

As I said, he was free to make donations to the candidates of his choosing (within the confines of election law), he has a right to his beliefs, and he had a right to free speech. Nobody is saying otherwise. However, those rights go both ways. If someone acts deplorably, which he has, his fan base has every legal right to condemn his deplorable behavior and not buy his games/merchandise. Scott isn't entitled to anybody's money, and people are free to withhold their money from him because he acted inappropriately.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DarkCoffe64 said:


> What am wondering is: Why did he even donate that money?
> Don't them politicians already have waay too much, lol?
> Just... keep those, or give them to the people that are struggling to have a decent life, dunno.
> *shrug*


A person usually donates money to a candidate when they passionately care about one or more of the policies that candidate is promoting. That's part of what makes his donations so deplorable.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Nerdtendo said:


> Oh that's fair. Didn't really consider that. Guess I'll throw my two cents in even though they're not worth much. If we got rid of every artist who held beliefs we didn't like, there'd be no art. The gaming community seems to trend left leaving (I'd guess about a 60/40 split in my observations), so it makes sense that someone openly right winged would get flack, but it seems like a pretty intense game of word association
> > Donation to republican politician.
> > All right wing politicians hate LGBT people
> > Must be a Homophobe
> Seems like a lapse in logic to me but okay



If it walk likes a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
If it talks about instituting homophobic policies and it institutes homophobic policies, it's probably a homophobe.
If it talks about having specific religious beliefs that are often used as a defense for homophobic views and gives money to demonstrably homophobic politicians, it's probably a homophobe.
If Scott isn't homophobic, and didn't want to come off as homophobic, he probably shouldn't have behaved like he was homophobic.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 19, 2021)

Just for giggles


----------



## Deleted member 471305 (Jun 19, 2021)

The Man Behind the Questionable Political Donations


----------



## Magnus87 (Jun 19, 2021)

It's amazing how the hate of Twitter destroys lives.

I am not a fan of FNAF but it seems ridiculous to me that people want to cancel you simply because of your political position, what kind of democracy are we living in?


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 19, 2021)

Some political positions need destroying.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2021)

Magnus87 said:


> It's amazing how the hate of Twitter destroys lives.
> 
> I am not a fan of FNAF but it seems ridiculous to me that people want to cancel you simply because of your political position, what kind of democracy are we living in?


When someone gives money to candidates who actually destroy lives, that's deplorable, and it's deserving of condemnation.

As I've already said, Scott was free to make donations to the candidates of his choosing (within the confines of election law), he has a right to his beliefs, and he had a right to free speech, but those rights go both ways. If Scott acted deplorably, which he did, his fan base has every right to condemn his deplorable behavior and not buy his games/merchandise. Scott isn't entitled to anybody's money, and people are free to withhold their money from him because he acted inappropriately.

TLDR: If anybody "destroyed" Scott's life, it was Scott.


----------



## Tigran (Jun 19, 2021)

Free speech does not mean your free from repercussion from said speech.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 19, 2021)

I wonder if Scott Cawthon can be properly replaced...


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jun 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I haven't seen anybody condone harassment or death threats, so please don't act like I have either.
> 
> A person has a right to free speech, a right to their beliefs, and a right to donate to political candidates (within the confines of election finance law). However, a person's political contributions are not free from condemnation and consequences.
> 
> ...


If a person donates to a candidate who, for example, supports the murder of unborn children, that rightfully warrants cancellation.

Oh darn, that set of axioms leaves me with pretty much no one to vote for, Democrat or Republican. Guess I'd better get started on canceling everyone.


----------



## Joe88 (Jun 19, 2021)

Good, how dare he hold a political opinion and donate to one of the two main political parties in this country that differed to those views held by woke people on twitter.

Death threats, his address being posted online, just aren't enough.
He, his pregnant wife, and the rest of his family should be imprisoned for it and reeducated on the right party to vote for.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 19, 2021)

ChaosEternal said:


> If a person donates to a candidate who, for example, supports the murder of unborn children, that rightfully warrants cancellation.
> 
> Oh darn, that set of axioms leaves me with pretty much no one to vote for, Democrat or Republican. Guess I'd better get started on canceling everyone.


Even the Green Party has gone to hell. Just support the US Piracy Party


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2021)

ChaosEternal said:


> If a person donates to a candidate who, for example, supports the murder of unborn children, that rightfully warrants cancellation.
> 
> Oh darn, that set of axioms leaves me with pretty much no one to vote for, Democrat or Republican. Guess I'd better get started on canceling everyone.


I'm not aware of any candidate who advocates for the "murder of unborn children."


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm not aware of any candidate who advocates for the "murder of unborn children."


wait what


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> Death threats, his address being posted online, just aren't enough.
> He, his pregnant wife, and the rest of his family should be imprisoned for it and reeducated on the right party to vote for.


Nobody's suggesting any of this.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> wait what


Candidates who are pro-choice, which is what was being referred to, are not "advocating for the murder of unborn children."


----------



## Tigran (Jun 19, 2021)

You know... I'm tired of the whining "But death threats!" from the guys who like to have a tough attitude.

I worked at a place for over 16 years, where the people making death threats to me and others at my company at least once a week knew exactly where we were, our hours, and even what days we worked.

I continued to work at my job cause I wasn't a damned pussy. And the threats were from godamn law enforcement and attorneys.


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jun 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm not aware of any candidate who advocates for the "murder of unborn children."


You know exactly what I mean, don't play coy. I was merely attempting to mimic your style. I wouldn't have phrased it that way normally if I weren't. But since it wasn't clear enough, let me rephrase it. If a person donates to a candidate who, for example, supports access to abortion, that rightfully warrants cancellation. Obviously you don't agree. This isn't even how I personally feel. However, there are many people out there that feel that this is an issue just as deplorable and worthy of cancellation as anything you listed. Who determines that you're right and they're wrong? Who gets to draw that line?


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 19, 2021)

ChaosEternal said:


> If a person donates to a candidate who, for example, supports the murder of unborn children, that rightfully warrants cancellation.
> 
> Oh darn, that set of axioms leaves me with pretty much no one to vote for, Democrat or Republican. Guess I'd better get started on canceling everyone.


I mean yeah, ideally. The broken system needs dismantling and replacing.

Out of curiosity, how many abortions do you think Trump has personally paid for? I obviously don't have any data, but I'm comfortable assuming double figures.


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jun 19, 2021)

hippy dave said:


> I mean yeah, ideally. The broken system needs dismantling and replacing.
> 
> Out of curiosity, how many abortions do you think Trump has personally paid for? I obviously don't have any data, but I'm comfortable assuming double figures.


Hm... I'm going with 7. I don't personally feel that strongly about abortion. I merely take offense to the implication that there aren't moral issues that people who vote Republican feel just as strongly about. Ultimately, when you vote for either major party, you are indirectly taking stances on major moral issues. The only difference is which issues, if any, you hold paramount. Had Cawthon supported Biden, then this post could just have easily have been about conservatives attacking him for supporting a politician who is in favor of abortion access. There are people who could agree with Lacius on every one of their points and still vote Republican because they feel that abortion is a more important issue than all of those other issues combined.


----------



## J-Machine (Jun 19, 2021)

ChaosEternal said:


> If a person donates to a candidate who, for example, supports the murder of unborn children, that rightfully warrants cancellation.
> 
> Oh darn, that set of axioms leaves me with pretty much no one to vote for, Democrat or Republican. Guess I'd better get started on canceling everyone.


if those people truly believed in god and the teachings of the bible they would turn the other cheek and let God sort it out. We were never tasked with judging others for their choices so to me it's very hypocritical when a christian tries to impose their views on others as written law.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 19, 2021)

Yeah, the issue of abortion sure has been used by "conservative" politicians to push their agenda of control and misogyny, taking advantage of brainwashed religionists whose firmly held beliefs bear no meaningful relation to the written text they base their identity around.


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jun 19, 2021)

J-Machine said:


> if those people truly believed in god and the teachings of the bible they would turn the other cheek and let God sort it out. We were never tasked with judging others for their choices so to me it's very hypocritical when a christian tries to impose their views on others as written law.


I would note that you can feel strongly about abortion without religious beliefs, although the two do seem to be closely correlated. I'm neither Christian nor religious, so I can't really argue your point, haha. Would that apply even to extremes such as standing aside as an ethnic cleansing occurs?


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 19, 2021)

Fwiw I've found my new political position and I'm sticking to it:


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 19, 2021)

hippy dave said:


> Fwiw I've found my new political position and I'm sticking to it:
> 
> View attachment 267453


May I join the cult that supports this movement!


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 19, 2021)

ChaosEternal said:


> IWould that apply even to extremes such as standing aside as an ethnic cleansing occurs?


Oh yeah good point, historically speaking Christians are huge proponents of ethnic cleansing.


----------



## J-Machine (Jun 19, 2021)

ChaosEternal said:


> I would note that you can feel strongly about abortion without religious beliefs, although the two do seem to be closely correlated. I'm neither Christian nor religious, so I can't really argue your point, haha. Would that apply even to extremes such as standing aside as an ethnic cleansing occurs?


my point relates to the fnaf creator who is a fundamentalist christian. but in general, as per my understanding of the holy scriptures (I am christian), the answer to your question would be yes. it's not ideal by any means though many forms of christianity put in a "redemption" clause somewhere in their belief structure. Some have repenting on the death bed, some have prayer and changing their ways, some have limbo be a personal prison you can leave if you renounce your past self... heck the LDS have multiple after life planes based on how good a person you are; all of which are better than earth.

All that aside you can most certainly not be religious and be pro "life" but it's not exactly a popular combination when it comes to politics in USA.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 19, 2021)

Just because someone supports something doesn't mean they hate another group of people. Just because one bad past action made someone angry doesn't mean you can change it. This whole thread is people so high on their own anger for a guy supporting who he thought was right for a country. I disagree with Trump's ideals, but that doesn't mean I'mma slam dunk "roast" a guy with a life bigger than someone sitting in a chair playing League of Legends. If you disagree with his support for a candidate, that's fine. It's in the past. He's voiced his own opinions, you can voice yours. People, this is GBATemp and y'all are turning it into Twitter. Seriously. People can have opinions. If you are seriously *debating someone's opinion* by saying something like "No, that's not what you think." Surprise! You're an ass! Let people have their own beliefs before you go and debate them.

Scott Cawthon created a series I never got into, but his fanbase was enormous (and weird too, but enormous). He put a crap ton of work into it. He made lore, books, games, and a whole lot of other things. His impact on modern culture was quite significant compared to other indie developers. The work he did was pretty good. If he's retiring, that's a good decision on his part: going to take care of his family. From the looks of it, he's a good man.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 19, 2021)

Welp, I lost some brain cells due to some people in this thread. This is why I got tired of debating the left. You can never fix stupid, ignorant, vicious and miserable people, no matter how hard you try.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 19, 2021)

holy shit the replies in this thread makes me consider joining the wave of people deleting their accounts, fucking hell


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2021)

ChaosEternal said:


> You know exactly what I mean, don't play coy. I was merely attempting to mimic your style. I wouldn't have phrased it that way normally if I weren't. But since it wasn't clear enough, let me rephrase it. If a person donates to a candidate who, for example, supports access to abortion, that rightfully warrants cancellation. Obviously you don't agree. This isn't even how I personally feel. However, there are many people out there that feel that this is an issue just as deplorable and worthy of cancellation as anything you listed. Who determines that you're right and they're wrong? Who gets to draw that line?



I am not the arbiter of what's right/wrong. What is/isn't conducive to well-being determines whether something is right or wrong.
Restricting access to abortion and telling a woman what she can't do with her own body violates a woman's right to bodily autonomy and demonstrably causes harm.
Abortion is not the "murder of an unborn child." It's the termination of a pregnancy. Whether or not the termination of a pregnancy results in the death of a fetus is a separate issue.
If a person really did believe abortion was child-murder, then they have the right to "cancel" any person they think is giving money to candidates who support the supposed "child-murder." Nobody is entitled to anybody else's money.



ChaosEternal said:


> Had Cawthon supported Biden, then this post could just have easily have been about conservatives attacking him for supporting a politician who is in favor of abortion access.


While it would be misguided, social conservatives would be free to do that. They don't have to spend their money supporting people who they perceive to be "advocating for the murder of unborn children."



ChaosEternal said:


> It strikes me as a holier-than-thou attitude to believe yourself to be perfectly right in all your moral determinations and your opponents to be perfectly wrong.


People generally believe they're right about things when they post about them. I believe I'm right about the topics that have been discussed in this thread. That doesn't mean anyone is claiming to be infallible. What a total waste of a post. "You believe you're right, and you believe the people who disagree with you are wrong." Uh, yeah.



ChaosEternal said:


> There are people who could agree with Lacius on every one of their points and still vote Republican because they feel that abortion is a more important issue than all of those other issues combined.


Those people would be wrong to do so. It's also unlikely that someone would agree with me on literally everything else while also being anti-choice.



J-Machine said:


> if those people truly believed in god and the teachings of the bible they would turn the other cheek and let God sort it out. We were never tasked with judging others for their choices so to me it's very hypocritical when a christian tries to impose their views on others as written law.


For numerous reasons, even Christians should condemn Scott for his political contributions.



ChaosEternal said:


> I would note that you can feel strongly about abortion without religious beliefs


The anti-choice movement is inherently religious and based on the belief that a "soul" exists and begins at conception. There isn't a secular argument that I've heard for restricting access to abortion.



WG481 said:


> Just because someone supports something doesn't mean they hate another group of people.


If what a person supports is a candidate who talks about enacting homophobic policies and enacts those homophobic policies, then it probably means that person is homophobic. Even if the person giving money to the homophobic candidate isn't homophobic and just cares deeply about something else, that person is accepting of the homophobia in order to so. That's still a form of homophobia.



WG481 said:


> This whole thread is people so high on their own anger for a guy supporting who he thought was right for a country.


That doesn't mean he wasn't wrong. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.



WG481 said:


> If you disagree with his support for a candidate, that's fine.


If someone wants to condemn the support for the former president and doesn't want that person to get any of their money (since it's being used to support candidates who are deplorable and commit atrocities), that's also fine.



WG481 said:


> He's voiced his own opinions, you can voice yours.


Then what are you complaining about?



WG481 said:


> People, this is GBATemp and y'all are turning it into Twitter. Seriously. People can have opinions.


People have a right to their opinions, and they have a right to donate to the political candidates of their choosing. They do not have a right to be free from criticism, boycotts, etc. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from all consequences resulting from that speech.



WG481 said:


> From the looks of it, he's a good man.


From the looks of it, he gave money to a candidate who is demonstrably, anti-LGBT, anti-woman, anti-immigrant, anti-immigrant child, anti-environment, anti-Black, and anti-democracy. At best, he accepted these things because he wanted tax breaks. At worst, he supports some or all of these things. I haven't seen any indication that Scott is a "good man." In determining whether or not someone is a "good person," I don't need to see anything other than their actions, and Scott's actions doesn't speak kindly of him.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jun 19, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Welp, I lost some brain cells due to some people in this thread. This is why I got tired of debating the left. You can never fix stupid, ignorant, vicious and miserable people, no matter how hard you try.





Latiodile said:


> holy shit the replies in this thread makes me consider joining the wave of people deleting their accounts, fucking hell


Keyboard warriors upon keyboard warriors.
There's more to a person than how they align politically. A lot of people need to go outside and touch grass with their hands for the first time in months.

@Lacius remember the humans you're talking to. They are all worth more than their sentences on a forum about freaking video games and are priceless human beings.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2021)

Nerdtendo said:


> Keyboard warriors upon keyboard warriors.
> There's more to a person than how they align politically. A lot of people need to go outside and touch grass with their hands for the first time in months.
> 
> @Lacius remember the humans you're talking to. They are all worth more than their sentences on a forum about freaking video games and are priceless human beings.


Please don't suggest I've done anything to dehumanize anyone when I haven't. Thank you.


----------



## Zyvyn (Jun 19, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> View attachment 267278​Scott Cawthon, creator of "Five Night's At Freddy's" is now retiring from game development according to an image on his website. However, according to Cawthon, the series will continue with a developer of his choice. Cawthon was recently caught donating to controversial politicians such as Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump for the past few years on OpenSecrets. Cawthon received backlash and later responded to the backlash on Reddit claiming he would not apologize for supporting political candidates who he believed were best for the country. The LGBTQ community had also give Cawthon backlash for supporting Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell, however, Cawthon claims he does not have hate for the LGBTQ community and he respects them. He also thanks the LGBTQ members who supported him.
> https://www.reddit.com/r/fivenightsatfreddys/comments/nybyo1/my_response_and_maybe_last_post/
> http://scottgames.com/


I don't understand the hate. let him support who he wants. that's his choice. He didn't do anything illegal and also spent a rather large amount of his money giving to charity. I kinda feel bad for him.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jun 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Please don't suggest I've done anything to dehumanize anyone when I haven't. Thank you.


I am merely suggesting that your tone caused by what I assume is anger is making the people you talk to feel dehumanized.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2021)

Zyvyn said:


> I don't understand the hate. let him support who he wants. that's his choice. He didn't do anything illegal and also spent a rather large amount of his money giving to charity. I kinda feel bad for him.


Something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be morally reprehensible. It's more than understandable, for example, that the LGBT community and its allies don't want to spend money on FNAF, which Scott then uses to fund politicians that work to take away the rights of the LGBT community.

Scott is free to give money to politicians, but that doesn't mean he's free from criticism, and the criticism in this case is more than warranted.



Nerdtendo said:


> I am merely suggesting that your tone caused by what I assume is anger is making the people you talk to feel dehumanized.


There is nothing about my tone that is angry or dehumanizing. My criticisms are warranted, but some people don't handle criticism well. That doesn't mean what I said was wrong or at all insulting.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jun 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be morally reprehensible. It's more than understandable, for example, that the LGBT community and its allies don't want to spend money on FNAF, which Scott then uses to fund politicians that work to take away the rights of the LGBT community.
> 
> Scott is free to give money to politicians, but that doesn't mean he's free from criticism, and the criticism in this case is more than warranted.
> 
> ...


Alright then. This is the last I will say on the subject, but the insistence to dog on every little rebuttal, the generalization of people's character when they present that they have opposing beliefs, the way you are preaching your beliefs as 100% right and everyone else's as 100% wrong, and the downplaying of death threats all insist an angry and dehumanizing tone.

You keep defending the LGBT community in many of your posts-- an honorable goal. You defend them because there are a lot of folks out there who are antagonistic to that community because they hold different beliefs. Are you not doing the same thing as the people attacking that community by insisting that your beliefs are the only morally correct ones? Just some food for thought. And before you say "I have said that people can believe what they want. They just aren't free from criticism.", know that saying "I feel so sorry for you" as a twist a knife through your heart doesn't change the fact that I'm killing you without remorse. You say people can believe what they want, but attack that at a moral level if they do.


----------



## Tigran (Jun 19, 2021)

I love the Christians screaming about abortion when the Bible actually gives step by step instructions on how to perform one.


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jun 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> People generally believe they're right about things when they post about them. I believe I'm right about the topics that have been discussed in this thread. That doesn't mean anyone is claiming to be infallible. What a total waste of a post. "You believe you're right, and you believe the people who disagree with you are wrong." Uh, yeah.


Whoops, didn't mean to post that. It must have snuck in when I reopened the edit pane. Sometimes my discarded thoughts are kept by the drafting system and I failed to notice this one. I ultimately discarded it because I believed it to be needlessly aggressive, so I apologize for that.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Jun 19, 2021)

ChaosEternal said:


> If a person donates to a candidate who, for example, supports the murder of unborn children, that rightfully warrants cancellation.
> 
> Oh darn, that set of axioms leaves me with pretty much no one to vote for, Democrat or Republican. Guess I'd better get started on canceling everyone.


Abortion doesn't fit the legal definition of murder. Bad faith argument.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2021)

Nerdtendo said:


> but the insistence to dog on every little rebuttal


This is a forum where discourse happens. When I see something posted that is in error, I will sometimes respond. That's the nature of this website.



Nerdtendo said:


> the generalization of people's character when they present that they have opposing beliefs


I haven't unfairly generalized anything or anyone.



Nerdtendo said:


> the way you are preaching your beliefs as 100% right and everyone else's as 100% wrong,



I haven't suggested I'm infallible. I'm definitely fallible.
Yes, I believe what I've posted is right, and if someone has an opposing view, I think they're wrong. I don't think there's anybody who posts things they consciously think are wrong. That's how things work.



Nerdtendo said:


> and the downplaying of death threats



I haven't downplayed death threats.
I'm on the record condemning death threats and harassment.



Nerdtendo said:


> all insist an angry and dehumanizing tone.


There's nothing angry about my posts, and there's nothing dehumanizing about my posts. If you are going to continue to suggest I'm angry or dehumanizing, I'd like a specific quote of mine that is dehumanizing or angry. This can be done over PM, since it's off topic. Thank you.



Nerdtendo said:


> You keep defending the LGBT community in many of your posts-- an honorable goal. You defend them because there are a lot of folks out there who are antagonistic to that community because they hold different beliefs. Are you not doing the same thing as the people attacking that community by insisting that your beliefs are the only morally correct ones?


It is objectively and demonstrably immoral to antagonize the LGBT community and strip their rights away. I am not doing the same thing when I condemn prejudice and intolerance. They aren't comparable.

Everyone has a right to their beliefs, but not all beliefs are equal. Some beliefs, like those that dehumanize the LGBT community, racial minorities, women, etc. are deplorable. Some beliefs are deserving of condemnation.

It should be noted I'm not even condemning Scott's beliefs; I'm condemning his actions.



Nerdtendo said:


> And before you say "I have said that people can believe what they want. They just aren't free from criticism.", know that saying "I feel so sorry for you" as a twist a knife through your heart doesn't change the fact that I'm killing you without remorse. You say people can believe what they want, but attack that at a moral level if they do.


Again, some beliefs are deserving of condemnation, but we aren't talking about condemning beliefs; we are talking about condemning actions.


----------



## J-Machine (Jun 19, 2021)

@Lacius Jesus teaches us to be against an act, not a person. to that end you would turn the other cheek and you do so by "washing your feet" of it and walking away. That said if someone needs help in a way that does not go against the teachings you would be expected to do so. passing laws on others... is not one of them nor is uttering a death treat. On the other hand though USA is supposed to have a separation of church and state and the teachings of the bible can only fully be realized if everyone is on the same page so to speak so it's kind of not something that can be practiced in principal. (i forgot to note that christians are supposed to put fault on the action and not the person but it's rare to see that so heres an edit)

but this thread is about fans who do not agree with the decision of a person they are invested in regardless of their ideological background. To that end it's fine to cancel him just as much as it's weird to not expect someone of Scott's background to do what he did in the first place.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2021)

J-Machine said:


> @Lacius Jesus teaches us to be against an act, not a person.


I don't believe in God/Jesus. That being said, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that one should be against an act, not a person. Being against the act of giving campaign contributions to the former president, and not the person who did it, doesn't mean we should forget about it, move on, and continue to buy Scott's games/merchandise all so he can turn around and use that money to the same thing. His actions should still be condemned, and it's perfectly reasonable to not want to buy his stuff anymore.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 19, 2021)

He didn't apologise, he didn't bend the knee, he chose to stay with his family to support them and he's laughing all the way to the bank while holding bags of hundred dollar bills. Gigachad, right on.


----------



## Zyvyn (Jun 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be morally reprehensible. It's more than understandable, for example, that the LGBT community and its allies don't want to spend money on FNAF, which Scott then uses to fund politicians that work to take away the rights of the LGBT community.
> 
> Scott is free to give money to politicians, but that doesn't mean he's free from criticism, and the criticism in this case is more than warranted.
> 
> ...


He was literally getting death threats and his wife was scared to sleep at night because of it.


----------



## Tigran (Jun 19, 2021)

I'm not saying anyone should send death threats.. but I also see that as such a common excuse I have to question the validity of it a lot of times.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 19, 2021)

here's how I see the issue.
the death threats and other shit unnecessary and complete bullshit.
Scott backing the GOP?
It makes me mixed. One hand, I get it, he thought that (even though I disagree) that Trump would fix the economy. (while realistically speaking proably wouldn't. United States is really just a one party state with slightly different identites between the two "parties" and that's mostly because rich lobbying and backing go burrr)
Which I honestly wouldn't take a issue with...
On THE OTHER HAND. As a extreme example, it's like saying saying you support the nazi's. Without the part the Nazi's do. It's part of what they are.
Now to be clear, I'm not calling scott a nazi. Not even a transphobe. He has no history of being against LGBTQ people. (infact has a history of helping said groups.if I recall correctly he did donate to LGBTQ groups and BLM related protests.)
I am however saying supporting a group that actively hurt others in any way possible, makes it easier for said group to do that exact thing.
With notch, he had a clear history in the past, and double downed on it. Scott doesn't.
So really, I'm just mixed.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 19, 2021)

Thank fuck we finally got to Godwin's Law.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2021)

Zyvyn said:


> He was literally getting death threats and his wife was scared to sleep at night because of it.


And I'm not condoning that. That doesn't make Scott's actions any less deplorable.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 19, 2021)

This is why our world is broken, political differences being treated as if it's extremely offensive


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 19, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> This is why our world is broken, political differences being treated as if it's extremely offensive






This shit, and homophobia, etc, is not "a valid political position", it is "hate and bigotry that destroys lives" - learn the difference.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> This is why our world is broken, political differences being treated as if it's extremely offensive


Our world is broken in part because overt bigotry and prejudice are treated as mere political differences.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 19, 2021)

hippy dave said:


> View attachment 267478
> This shit, and homophobia, etc, is not "a valid political position", it is "hate and bigotry that destroys lives" - learn the difference.


That's fair


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 20, 2021)

Alright looking back, I'm not holding Scott for doing anything wrong
Fun Fact: Did You know Biden dissed gays in 2008?

Biden also said if you don't vote for him you aren't black
However, Trump has also said racist stuff in the past
Both are bad, you just have to choose the slightly better one


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 20, 2021)

I am pretty sure his games after after the 3rd game were just being made to fuck with Matt Patt. I honestly didn’t follow any of his personal life nor even his games past the first FNFA. I literally don’t care about him retiring nor am I personally invested in whatever stupid political stance he has.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 20, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Alright looking back, I'm not holding Scott for doing anything wrong
> Fun Fact: Did You know Biden dissed gays in 2008?
> 
> Biden also said if you don't vote for him you aren't black
> ...



This isn't quite right. The Republicans wanted to make a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, so a hypothetical Supreme Court in the future couldn't, for example, make a ruling that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional.  Joe Biden was saying that it was already federal law that same-sex marriage couldn't be recognized by the federal government, and states didn't have to recognize same-sex marriage from another state. In other words, he was rightfully acknowledging that the talk of a constitutional amendment was anti-gay fear-mongering and nothing more. The entire interview was him explaining why we should NOT have an anti-gay amendment.

Joe Biden did not come out in favor of same-sex marriage until around 2012, but he didn't have a history of saying or doing anything explicitly anti-gay before that. To his credit, he also changed his mind on the topic, and any positions he had in the past against marriage equality are in the past.

This is not a case of "both sides are equal." It's not even close.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> This isn't quite right. The Republicans wanted to make a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, so a hypothetical Supreme Court in the future couldn't, for example, make a ruling that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional.  Joe Biden was saying that it was already federal law that same-sex marriage couldn't be recognized by the federal government, and states didn't have to recognize same-sex marriage from another state. In other words, he was rightfully acknowledging that the talk of a constitutional amendment was anti-gay fear-mongering and nothing more. The entire interview was him explaining why we should NOT have an anti-gay amendment.
> 
> Joe Biden did not come out in favor of same-sex marriage until around 2012, but he didn't have a history of saying or doing anything explicitly anti-gay before that. To his credit, he also changed his mind on the topic, and any positions he had in the past against marriage equality are in the past.
> 
> This is not a case of "both sides are equal." It's not even close.


Yeah but we have to admit that they've both said bad things. I feel like Biden is a masked demon, and Trump is an honest demon, and Hawkins is a Devil Incarnation.  I don't really pay attention to politics but I know Trump said "Grab them by the *****" and Biden said "You ain't black", just both candidates are sad and miserable


----------



## Lacius (Jun 20, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Yeah but we have to admit that they've both said bad things. I feel like Biden is a masked demon, and Trump is an honest demon, and Hawkins is a Devil Incarnation.  I don't really pay attention to politics but I know Trump said "Grab them by the *****" and Biden said "You ain't black", just both candidates are sad and miserable


I'm not arguing that anybody is perfect or infallible, but your claim that Biden is a "masked demon" and is at all comparable to the former president demonstrates your other claim that you don't really pay attention to politics. Only one candidate was anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-Black, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-healthcare, anti-climate, anti-immigrant, anti-family, anti-child, and anti-democracy, and it wasn't Joe Biden.


----------



## Apex (Jun 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Our world is broken in part because overt bigotry and prejudice are treated as mere political differences.


Our world isn't broken, this is a cycle that has existed since humans have. A group people will always repress another group of people, and the pendulum will always swing back at some point. If you want a chance to break the cycle, you can't meet hatred with hatred. 

All of this hatred came from unfair treatment, and not letting people live the lives they want to live. You're literally doing the same deplorable thing you're accusing them of. You are oppressing, you are suppressing, you are telling people they shouldn't be themselves, and worst you are meeting inaction with action. Scott donated money for an undisclosed reason, he didn't punch someone, he didn't lynch someone, he did threaten someone. 

If you want people to just let you live your life, you need to offer the same courtesy to them. If you want people to accept you, you need to accept them.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm not arguing that anybody is perfect or infallible, but your claim that Biden is a "masked demon" and is at all comparable to the former president demonstrates your other claim that you don't really pay attention to politics. Only one candidate was anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-Black, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-healthcare, anti-climate, anti-immigrant, anti-family, anti-child, and anti-democracy, and it wasn't Joe Biden.





Lacius said:


> I'm not arguing that anybody is perfect or infallible, but your claim that Biden is a "masked demon" and is at all comparable to the former president demonstrates your other claim that you don't really pay attention to politics. Only one candidate was anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-Black, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-healthcare, anti-climate, anti-immigrant, anti-family, anti-child, and anti-democracy, and it wasn't Joe Biden.


Yeah, maybe he's better then Trump
But he isn't my political that's for sure


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 20, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Yeah, maybe he's better then Trump
> But he isn't my political that's for sure


To be fair, literally a dead a raccoon on the side of the road is better than Trump. It’s not a real accomplishment to be better than Trump. Although, I am actually glad to not be waking up every morning to finding out Trump tweeted something stupid and now my rights to live in peace are threatened or something insane Trump tweeted at 3 AM instead of sleeping.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 20, 2021)

Apex said:


> Our world isn't broken, this is a cycle that has existed since humans have. A group people will always repress another group of people, and the pendulum will always swing back at some point. If you want a chance to break the cycle, you can't meet hatred with hatred.


First, whether or not our world can be described as "broken" is subjective. For some, it absolutely feels broken. There are significant and systemic issues that plague marginalized communities, for starters. Second, I didn't explicitly call the world broken; I was responding to someone else's comment. Third, I haven't responded with hate.



Apex said:


> All of this hatred came from unfair treatment, and not letting people live the lives they want to live. You're literally doing the same deplorable thing you're accusing them of. You are oppressing, you are suppressing, you are telling people they shouldn't be themselves, and worst you are meeting inaction with action. Scott donated money for an undisclosed reason, he didn't punch someone, he didn't lynch someone, he did threaten someone.
> 
> If you want people to just let you live your life, you need to offer the same courtesy to them. If you want people to accept you, you need to accept them.


I never once said someone shouldn't live how they want to live. Any decency flies out the window, however, when a person goes farther and donates money to a politician who actively enacts policies taking rights away from people. My rightful condemnations of financially supporting deplorable candidates is not at all comparable to supporting prejudicial and hateful policies. In other words, I'm all for letting people live how they want to live, but that doesn't mean I have to ignore deplorable behavior or that I'm obligated to patronize deplorable people by spending my money on their games. Respectfully, it's idiotic to suggest I should ignore deplorable behavior and give them my money anyway. I'm not arguing someone doesn't have a right to give money to politicians and live freely, but deplorable behavior isn't free from criticism, boycotts, etc.

It's not oppression to say "you're giving money to deplorable candidates" and refuse to spend my money on that person's video games. Oppression can be found in one of the many policy positions of the former president that I've listed several times. I recommend you learn the difference.

Tolerating LGBT people isn't the same as tolerating anti-LGBT policies and the stripping of civil liberties. I suggest you learn that difference as well.


----------



## JaNDeRPeiCH (Jun 20, 2021)

In this thread only i see two party politics: Democrats and Republicans. Why your system only have two party? Why your system dont give more options? Because i see you have two choices and your solution for the next presidential election its to choose the less shity devil of the two option. In México we see the Republican party a bad party political with bad news every day went Trump was in charge.We dont remember any good traits or benefits for that party.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 20, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Yeah, maybe he's better then Trump
> But he isn't my political that's for sure


In the Democratic Primary elections, Joe Biden wasn't my first choice (or second, or third), but he and I are roughly 85% in alignment when it comes to policy positions, he seems to be a good guy who has never once tried to dismantle American democracy, he's competent, and he is not a corrupt buffoon like the former president. The contrast between Biden and the former president is night and day, and anybody who gave money to the former president's campaign knew what they were doing, and it was deplorable behavior. While there should be no legal consequences to giving money to the former president, there can and should be societal ones. If your fan base is upset because, for example, what you did was anti-LGBT, that's on you.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



JaNDeRPeiCH said:


> In this thread only i see two party politics: Democrats and Republicans. Why your system only have two party? Why dont have more options? Because i see dont have choices and your solution for the next presidential election its to choose the less shity devil of the two option. In México we see the Republican party a bad party political with bad news every day went Trump was in charge.We dont remember any good traits or benefit for that party.


We do have more than two political parties, but because each party is so diverse, there isn't more room ideologically for more than three (anything more than Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian pretty much overlaps with one of the aforementioned parties), and a large percentage of this country identifies with one of the major two parties (Democratic or Republican). The system is also structured in a way that a vote for a third party is essentially a vote that's thrown into the trash. If we had something like ranked voting or multi-round voting, third party candidates wouldn't be treated as spoilers, and people could potentially vote for them without feeling like they've wasted their votes.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Jun 20, 2021)

ok, I guess, idc I haven't cared about fnaf since the fucking 5th grade


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 20, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> ok, I guess, idc I haven't cared about fnaf since the fucking 5th grade


I've seen you reference it a couple times


----------



## J-Machine (Jun 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I don't believe in God/Jesus. That being said, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that one should be against an act, not a person. Being against the act of giving campaign contributions to the former president, and not the person who did it, doesn't mean we should forget about it, move on, and continue to buy Scott's games/merchandise all so he can turn around and use that money to the same thing. His actions should still be condemned, and it's perfectly reasonable to not want to buy his stuff anymore.


that's more or less how it works. you are supportive of the person in a way that doesn't challenge your beliefs all while being against the things that they did. so I wouldn't buy his games because he hasn't shown me he won't take that money to further his ideology on others. cause he is indeed christian and believes in God. It's fine if you don't but he does and the hypocrisy he is known for is not welcome if he actually took time to read the bible or learned from Jesus' teachings


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jun 20, 2021)

that's what you get for being a trump supporter


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 20, 2021)

Cancel culture and those who bitch about people who don't agree with their thoughts and agendas? 
I thought this was America, not Germany during the Third Reich. 

Cancel culture can fuck itself.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Jun 20, 2021)

the_randomizer said:


> Cancel culture and those who bitch about people who don't agree with their thoughts and agendas?
> I thought this was America, not Germany during the Third Reich.
> 
> Cancel culture can fuck itself.


godwin's law


----------



## Lacius (Jun 20, 2021)

the_randomizer said:


> Cancel culture and those who bitch about people who don't agree with their thoughts and agendas?
> I thought this was America, not Germany during the Third Reich.
> 
> Cancel culture can fuck itself.


Scott is being "canceled" because his fan base, which consists of a lot of LGBT individuals and allies, don't want to give money to someone who is going to turn around and give some of that money to a former president who literally took rights away from the LGBT community (not to mention the other atrocities committed by the former president). That's completely fair. People have as much a right to not want to spend their money on Scott as Scott has a right to give money to politicians.

It seems to me that whining and complaining about the condemnation of Scott, but not what Scott himself did, is the only double-standard "bitching" I've heard so far.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Scott is being "canceled" because his fan base, which consists of a lot of LGBT individuals and allies, don't want to give money to someone who is going to turn around and give some of that money to a former president who literally took rights away from the LGBT community (not to mention the other atrocities committed by the former president). That's completely fair. People have as much a right to not want to spend their money on Scott as Scott has a right to give money to politicians.
> 
> It seems to me that whining and complaining about the condemnation of Scott, but not what Scott himself did, is the only double-standard "bitching" I've heard so far.


Actually most of his community defended him. I'd like to say about 5% dissed him


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Scott is being "canceled" because his fan base, which consists of a lot of LGBT individuals and allies, don't want to give money to someone who is going to turn around and give some of that money to a former president who literally took rights away from the LGBT community (not to mention the other atrocities committed by the former president). That's completely fair. People have as much a right to not want to spend their money on Scott as Scott has a right to give money to politicians.
> 
> It seems to me that whining and complaining about the condemnation of Scott, but not what Scott himself did, is the only double-standard "bitching" I've heard so far.



So is it possible for someone to hate Trump, but have non-liberal views and not be shat on and crucified in 2021? I'm genuinely curious. I wasn't aware people could have non-liberal views, as that's apparently tantamount to treason. And here I thought this country had a two party system, not 1984 bullshit.

Edit: When people have right-leaning beliefs, and hate Trump, and still get shat on because they think all people who vote Republican or have Repub views are evil can all fuck off.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 20, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Actually most of his community defended him. I'd like to say about 5% dissed him


It doesn't matter what percent of his fans are mad. Those who are mad are justifiably mad.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Jun 20, 2021)

"third reich is when no more fnaf" adolf hitler


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 20, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> "third reich is when no more fnaf" adolf hitler



Well social media seems a lot like the third reich when you don't support the majorities' views.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 20, 2021)

the_randomizer said:


> So is it possible for someone to hate Trump, but have non-liberal views and not be shat on and crucified in 2021? I'm genuinely curious. I wasn't aware people could have non-liberal views, as that's apparently tantamount to treason. And here I thought this country had a two party system, not 1984 bullshit.
> 
> Edit: When people have right-leaning beliefs, and hate Trump, and still get shat on because they think all people who vote Republican or have Repub views are evil can all fuck off.


I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals about people who identify as "non-liberals" or have "right-leaning" beliefs. It's irrelevant to the conversation and has nothing to do with what I've been talking about, but you seem to be trying to pull me into it.

If you want to be much more specific, I might be willing to engage.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 20, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals about people who identify as "non-liberals" or have "right-leaning" beliefs. It's irrelevant to the conversation and has nothing to do with what I've been talking about, but you seem to be trying to pull me into it.
> 
> If you want to be much more specific, I might be willing to engage.



What's the point? Like, seriously, what's the fucking point in engaging at all?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 20, 2021)

the_randomizer said:


> What's the point? Like, seriously, what's the fucking point in engaging at all?


What's the point in engaging your apparent whataboutism? I have no idea.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 20, 2021)

the_randomizer said:


> So is it possible for someone to hate Trump, but have non-liberal views and not be shat on and crucified in 2021?


That entirely depends if you mean "non-liberal views" or "shitty fucking bigotry".


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 20, 2021)

hippy dave said:


> That entirely depends if you mean "non-liberal views" or "shitty fucking bigotry".



People nowadays say "being Republican automatically makes you a bigot" there's no middle ground or in-between. It's "be a liberal or you're automatically bigoted" bullshit.
You know what I say to that? Fucking. Bullshit. 

"Oh no, someone has right beliefs, he's automatically a bigot, let's assume everyone with right beliefs is the same way and let's verbally crucify them" 

Yeah, political discussions with one sided beliefs can suck it.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 20, 2021)

the_randomizer said:


> People nowadays say "being Republican automatically makes you a bigot" there's no middle ground or in-between. It's "be a liberal or you're automatically bigoted" bullshit.
> You know what I say to that? Fucking. Bullshit.
> 
> "Oh no, someone has right beliefs, he's automatically a bigot, let's assume everyone with right beliefs is the same way and let's verbally crucify them"
> ...


That's literally why I asked and made the distiction, but thanks for the rant.

e: referring back to this post.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 20, 2021)

the_randomizer said:


> People nowadays say "being Republican automatically makes you a bigot" there's no middle ground or in-between. It's "be a liberal or you're automatically bigoted" bullshit.
> You know what I say to that? Fucking. Bullshit.
> 
> "Oh no, someone has right beliefs, he's automatically a bigot, let's assume everyone with right beliefs is the same way and let's verbally crucify them"
> ...


I don't think anybody said or implied these things in the context of this conversation.

The former president engaged in deplorable and anti-LGBT behavior, and Scott financially supported him. He rightfully deserves condemnation, and that's the issue.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 20, 2021)

hippy dave said:


> That's literally why I asked and made the distiction, but thanks for the rant.
> 
> e: referring back to this post.




Anytime. I'll remember that being anything but a liberal is a crime and people who don't have liberal views should all be shat on and ostracized for all being bigots. Gotcha.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 20, 2021)

the_randomizer said:


> Anytime. I'll remember that being anything but a liberal is a crime and people who don't have liberal views should all be shat on and ostracized for all being bigots. Gotcha.


It's as if you read what people wrote and magically interpret it to mean the opposite.

Maybe the problem we're having here is based on your actual views. Let's put it in a simple way shall we?

If your "political opinion" equates to an existing "-ism" or "-phobia" it is, by definition, bigotry.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 20, 2021)

hippy dave said:


> It's as if you read what people wrote and magically interpret it to mean the opposite.
> 
> Maybe the problem we're having here is based on your actual views. Let's put it in a simple way shall we?
> 
> If your "political opinion" equates to an existing "-ism" or "-phobia" it is, by definition, bigotry.



And do I look like I'm a bigot? No, I'm not, so back off already.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 20, 2021)

the_randomizer said:


> And do I look like I'm a bigot? No, I'm not, so back off already.


You're the one who came in attacking me and accusing me of shit I wasn't doing, so feel free to go fuck yourself.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 20, 2021)

Alexa, call the priest

I need to exorcize this thread


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 20, 2021)

WG481 said:


> Alexa, call the priest
> 
> I need to exorcize this thread



This shitbrained thread should've been killed after the first post. What a waste of bandwidth.
Fuck political discussions.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 20, 2021)

WG481 said:


> Alexa, call the priest
> 
> I need to exorcize this thread


I don't have a cross on my but I do have guns, bullets, and fire.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 20, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I don't have a cross on my but I do have guns, bullets, and fire.


I've got the cross. Those bullets silvered?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 20, 2021)

the_randomizer said:


> This shitbrained thread should've been killed after the first post. What a waste of bandwidth.
> Fuck political discussions.



You came into the thread and started hypocritically ranting against cancel culture (despite people being free to not want to spend their money on somebody who supports deplorable bigots) while simultaneously giving Scott a pass because he has the right to give money to politicians.
When you were called out on it, you started irrelevantly crying about how persecuted you are and how people are calling you and anyone "not a liberal" a "bigot," even though nobody called you a "bigot," and nobody said not being a liberal was a crime or deserving of condemnation.
When you were called out on that, you started calling the thread shitbrained, a waste of bandwidth, and said "fuck the political discussions."
If you can't take the heat, don't play with the fire, and definitely don't blame the fire for burning you when you stuck your hand in. Your posts were deserving of criticism, and that's not our fault.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 20, 2021)

WG481 said:


> I've got the cross. Those bullets silvered?


For a thread like this? Always.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 20, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> For a thread like this? Always.


Let's do this.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 20, 2021)

I'm not sure why people are claiming Republicans hate LGBTQ people. Did I miss something or is the fake news programming still running?


----------



## WG481 (Jun 20, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not sure why people are claiming Republicans hate LGBTQ people. Did I miss something or is the fake news programming still running?


My brain cells have evolved. They ascended to the astral plane where the gods gave them mouths, lungs, brains, and critical thinking.

Just so they could scream profanities as they died while I read that.

It's pretty common for Republican identified people (mostly the South) to pour hate on them.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 20, 2021)

WG481 said:


> My brain cells have evolved. They ascended to the astral plane where the gods gave them mouths, lungs, brains, and critical thinking.
> 
> Just so they could scream profanities as they died while I read that.
> 
> It's pretty common for Republican identified people (mostly the South) to pour hate on them.



I'm sorry to tell you this, but simply disagreeing on certain things or with peoples life styles doesn't mean you hate them. I have a few LGBTQ friends that I've known most of my life and they are Republicans. Whatever nonsense you've been listening to I suggest you stop listening to it.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 20, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm sorry to tell you this, but simply disagreeing on certain things or peoples life styles doesn't mean you hate them. I have a few LGBTQ friends that I've known most of my life and they are Republicans. Whatever nonsense you've been listening to I suggest you stop listening to it.


"I'm not racist, I have black friends" - An idiot


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 21, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm sorry to tell you this, but simply disagreeing on certain things or peoples life styles doesn't mean you hate them. I have a few LGBTQ friends that I've known most of my life and they are Republicans. Whatever nonsense you've been listening to I suggest you stop listening to it.


Pretty smart

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WG481 said:


> "I'm not racist, I have black friends" - An idiot


The only thing that proves you are racist is if you actually look as other races as lesser


----------



## Xalusc (Jun 21, 2021)

Glad that guy's gone
Sad the series will still go on. About time for it to die, god damn it


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 21, 2021)

Xalusc said:


> Glad that guy's gone
> Sad the series will still go on. About time for it to die, god damn it


Agreed. The game needs an ending
A story without an ending is a bad story
Its constant and needs a real finale


----------



## Joe88 (Jun 21, 2021)

The creator of hazbin hotel has now been doxxed by the fnaf fanbase for criticizing scott in a tweet, saying he was anti science, bigot, ect

wow cool. So I replied to a tweet my friend made with a hot take about Scott's statement. now I HAVE BEEN DOXXED. you fuckers happy now? actually FUCK you. look who's the hypocrites now. fucking hell. Don't you people dare act like you have the moral highground over me.— Vivienne Medrano (@VivziePop) June 18, 2021


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 21, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> The creator of hazbin hotel has now been doxxed by the fnaf fanbase for criticizing scott in a tweet, saying he was anti science, bigot, ect
> 
> https://twitter.com/VivziePop/status/1405980949893029889


I mean
She does draw demons....


----------



## Wolfy (Jun 21, 2021)

My gosh, if people want others to step away from making games due to having an opinion on politics, that also has nothing to do with the content they create; they honestly frick you, at some point in time, every single developer of a movie, show, game, and animation series will probably have something dug up about them that half the internet doesn't agree with. And people are going to great lengths to attack the people themselves and their families, who might disagree with said support themselves and yet still suffer the backlash.

The hate is ridiculous and I'm wondering what will start the next war, cause at this point it could literally be anything.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 21, 2021)

Wolfy said:


> My gosh, if people want others to step away from making games due to having an opinion on politics, that also has nothing to do with the content they create; they honestly frick you, at some point in time, every single developer of a movie, show, game, and animation series will probably have something dug up about them that half the internet doesn't agree with. And people are going to great lengths to attack the people themselves and their families, who might disagree with said support themselves and yet still suffer the backlash.
> 
> The hate is ridiculous and I'm wondering what will start the next war, cause at this point it could literally be anything.


Amen


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 21, 2021)

Wolfy said:


> My gosh, if people want others to step away from making games due to having an opinion on politics, that also has nothing to do with the content they create; they honestly frick you, at some point in time, every single developer of a movie, show, game, and animation series will probably have something dug up about them that half the internet doesn't agree with. And people are going to great lengths to attack the people themselves and their families, who might disagree with said support themselves and yet still suffer the backlash.
> 
> The hate is ridiculous and I'm wondering what will start the next war, cause at this point it could literally be anything.


Politics have no place in the gaming world
(Or GBAtemp)


----------



## Lacius (Jun 21, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not sure why people are claiming Republicans hate LGBTQ people. Did I miss something or is the fake news programming still running?


The Republican Party, broadly speaking, has a history of condemning LGBT people, criminalizing LGBT behavior, banning LGBT people from marrying, culling LGBT people from employment as federal and state employees, keeping legal protections from LGBT people (including but not limited to hate crime protection, employment protection, housing protection, etc.), and using fear-mongering about gay people for political gain.

Please don't act like the Republican Party, broadly, has ever done anything positive for LGBT people.


----------



## Magnus87 (Jun 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> When someone gives money to candidates who actually destroy lives, that's deplorable, and it's deserving of condemnation.




That according to your point of view.

If someone helps Biden's campaign and someone else thinks that's bad, it doesn't give them the right to harm the life of whoever supported that candidate.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The Republican Party, broadly speaking, has a history of condemning LGBT people, criminalizing LGBT behavior, banning LGBT people from marrying, culling LGBT people from employment as federal and state employees, keeping legal protections from LGBT people (including but not limited to hate crime protection, employment protection, housing protection, etc.), and using fear-mongering about gay people for political gain.
> 
> Please don't act like the Republican Party, broadly, has ever done anything positive for LGBT people.


Actually, let me tell you something
Trump supports the LGBQ community, just not the t part of it. He doesn't mind gays, just transgenders. Which is very rude of him


----------



## Lacius (Jun 21, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> The creator of hazbin hotel has now been doxxed by the fnaf fanbase for criticizing scott in a tweet, saying he was anti science, bigot, ect
> 
> https://twitter.com/VivziePop/status/1405980949893029889


Whataboutism about doxxing, which is of course unacceptable, doesn't change the fact that Scott's actions were bad, and it's justifiable for people to condemn his behavior and not want to buy his games anymore.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Magnus87 said:


> That according to your point of view.
> 
> If someone helps Biden's campaign and someone else thinks that's bad, it doesn't give them the right to harm the life of whoever supported that candidate.


You can see my previous posts on how the former president was deplorable. He separated children from their parents at the border and caused irreparable harm. Some of those families haven't even been reunited because the former administration didn't have any plans in place for reunification. He worked to take numerous rights away from LGBT people, which I'll highlight in my next post in response to the absurd comment that the former administration was at all pro-gay. The former president regularly engaged in racist rhetoric. He did things to hurt the environment and exacerbate global warming and climate change. He mishandled and downplayed the pandemic in such a way that hundreds of thousands of people are dead who otherwise wouldn't be if he had taken the pandemic seriously instead of, for example, mocking mask-wearing. This is not an extensive list. The former president was deplorable, and if a person gives money to him, that is a deplorable action.

It is objectively true that what the former administration did caused harm and was inconducive to well-being. However, even if we were to say it's only a "matter of opinion" (it isn't), that's irrelevant. If a large group of people merely have the opinion that what Scott did was deplorable, they still have every right to condemn it and not patronize him.


----------



## Magnus87 (Jun 21, 2021)

You don't have to like Trump any more than I have to like Biden, that's how a democracy works. Candidates present themselves and each of us will support whoever seems best for the role.

You have to separate the developer from the person, they don't always go together.
If you told me that Scott as a developer imposed an LGBT hate agenda on FNAF I would reply "Let's not buy games from this guy"

However, that is not the situation, Scott is like any other and since he lives in a democracy he can choose the party that he believes will improve the country's situation even more.

I do not support any aggression from either side.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 21, 2021)

I love democracy...

...and burritos for that matter.


----------



## Tigran (Jun 21, 2021)

I just want to point out.. Scott Cawthon couldn't have been doxxed.

His address is public record and can be found in the white pages.

(not saying I agree with Doxxing,)


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 21, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Actually, let me tell you something
> Trump supports the LGBQ community, just not the t part of it. He doesn't mind gays, just transgenders. Which is very rude of him



Trump doesn't have a dislike for transgendered people he just doesn't bow and obey to whatever happens to be popular in various online circles *this week*. Just because you're not straight doesn't give you more rights than other people nor does it give you a pass to do whatever you want when you want. Clear evidence of how nasty the LGBTQ community can be is happening before our eyes. I know I won't get brownie points for speaking negatively about a coveted group, but that's where the lack of your (the readers) tolerance comes into play.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Tigran said:


> I just want to point out.. Scott Cawthon couldn't have been doxxed.
> 
> His address is public record and can be found in the white pages.
> 
> (not saying I agree with Doxxing,)



It's still possible to doxx someone even if their information can be found via other means.


----------



## Tigran (Jun 21, 2021)

Dude.. you don't even known what an effing pronoun is.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 21, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Actually, let me tell you something
> Trump supports the LGBQ community, just not the t part of it. He doesn't mind gays, just transgenders. Which is very rude of him


Trump does not support any part of the LGBT community. You might be able to find some comments here and there about how he supports the LGBT community, but actions speak louder than words. At every chance he had, he did what he could to strip rights away from the LGBT community. They spent years ignoring Pride Month. As soon as the former president was sworn in, LGBT resource pages on the White House website were removed. They tried to remove LGBT questions from the census in order to erase LGBT people. They tried to remove LGBT people from the equal employment policies at the commerce department. They banned trans people from the military for no reason other than to be anti-LGBT. They ordered the Department of Education to remove anti-discrimination policies relating to LGBT people. They explicitly said they'd reject civil rights complaints at the Department of Education relating to LGBT issues. They gave federal funds to private schools that explicitly discriminate against LGBT people. They removed healthcare protections for LGBT people, effectively making it so anyone could refuse health care to anybody who is LGBT, for any reason. They established an office within HHS to specifically defend people who refused medical care to LGBT people. They granted federal funds to foster programs that discriminated against LGBT people. They engaged in an outright effort to specifically erase trans people from all existing protections and acknowledgements online. They ordered the CDC to stop using words like "transgender." They created a rule to stop doing data collection on LGBT foster youth, creating significant impediments to helping them, all for no reason but to cause harm. They ordered the removal of questions relating to LGBT people from forms belonging to programs that help the elderly and disabled, hindering the ability to help those people's specific needs as well. They ordered the removal of anti-discrimination policies relating to LGBT people from HUD. They ordered HUD to permit shelters to deny entry to trans people. They ordered the cancellation of HUD surveys relating to LGBT needs. They ordered the Justice Department to argue in court against anti-LGBT discrimination. They rolled back previously existing protections for LGBT people in prisons. They rolled back anti-discrimination policies affecting LGBT federal contractors. They ordered the denial of visas to same-sex partners of diplomats. They ordered a rule change so that a child born of a same-sex couple born overseas via a surrogate wouldn't be eligible for US citizenship. They removed the US from the UN Human Rights Council with one of the main reasons being because of LGBT issues (they were friendly to LGBT people and LGBT issues). They refused to sign a statement condemning physical attacks against LGBT people overseas. They ordered the removal of a pro-LGBT program in the 4H program, hurting LGBT children. They've nominated numerous justices, including ones even controversial among the Republican Party, who are vehemently anti-LGBT. Under their policies, ICE as specifically mistreated LGBT inmates in their custody. They did and said nothing relating to anti-trans violence and murders in this country.

I try to remember that the amount of ignorance needed to make a statement like "the former president was actually pro-gay" comes from a place of privilege, not a place of malice, but it was incredibly offensive.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Magnus87 said:


> You don't have to like Trump any more than I have to like Biden, that's how a democracy works. Candidates present themselves and each of us will support whoever seems best for the role.
> 
> You have to separate the developer from the person, they don't always go together.
> If you told me that Scott as a developer imposed an LGBT hate agenda on FNAF I would reply "Let's not buy games from this guy"
> ...


Scott has the legal right to give money to conservative candidates. His fans have the right to condemn his actions and refrain from giving him money that he can turn around and give to politicians working against their interests. If you're condemning one of these things but not the other, it's hypocritical, and it probably says a lot more about your character than you want it to.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 21, 2021)

https://www.facebook.com/GaysForTrumpOrg

Just gonna put this here....


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 21, 2021)

I wonder if Scott's replacement is better


----------



## DuoForce (Jun 21, 2021)

Jayro said:


> He was actively funding the Republican party with tens of thousands of dollars, of which the Republican party hates the LGBTQ+ community, which is what most of Scott's fanbase is. That's a direct attack on his fanbase. They're completely in the right to cancel his ass.


Donating actual money to the republican party is a complete waste of money


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 21, 2021)

DuoForce said:


> Donating actual money to the republican party is a complete waste of money


When you're rich
*Its free*


----------



## DuoForce (Jun 21, 2021)

hippy dave said:


> "People may lose their fundamental human rights but at least the dollar will go up a bit"


Republican party is centered around money not people


----------



## Lacius (Jun 21, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> https://www.facebook.com/GaysForTrumpOrg
> 
> Just gonna put this here....


There are always going to be members of the LGBT community who don't support their own interests. They're a minority, and their political affiliation doesn't change anything I said above about how the former administration was demonstrably bad for LGBT people.

In reality, only about 30% of LGBT people who voted in 2020 voted for the former president.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 21, 2021)

DuoForce said:


> Republican party is centered around money not people


Just like the democrats, just add control and power with it too.



Lacius said:


> There are always going to be members of the LGBT community who don't support their own interests. They're a minority, and their political affiliation doesn't change anything I said above about how the former administration was demonstrably bad for LGBT people.
> 
> In reality, only about 30% of LGBT people who voted in 2020 voted for the former president.


Who are you to dictate the interests of a group of people? Just because they don't go with your definition of what you think is the norm doesn't mean they don't matter.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 21, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Who are you to dictate the interests of a group of people?


Whether or not a policy is conducive to the well-being of a group of people is objective and demonstrable. It's not a matter of opinion.



BitMasterPlus said:


> Just because they don't go with your definition of what you think is the norm doesn't mean they don't matter.


The vote of a person who identifies as LGBT for a candidate like the former president is deplorable, regardless of whether or not they are a member of the LGBT community.

You can read my post above for a bunch of the ways the former president shit on LGBT people in deplorable ways.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Whether or not a policy is conducive to the well-being of a group of people is objective and demonstrable. It's not a matter of opinion.
> 
> 
> The vote of a person who identifies as LGBT for a candidate like the former president is deplorable, regardless of whether or not they are a member of the LGBT community.
> ...



Okay, I'll take your word for it because you decide what a person should believe in depending on who they are regardless of what an individual thinks, if they want to be something but still be their own person and have their own different opinion and views. You're the grandmaster who gets to decide what's right and wrong.

Dude, get over yourself.


----------



## VartioArtel (Jun 21, 2021)

Seriously what's the most pathetic thing in this topic is the intolerant left. Because he voted trump he's an evil person by association of the republican party? My god people, and you wonder why so many people dislike the further-left democrats. You guys are the definition of intolerant.

The Republicans aren't gonna kill LGBTQ+ or strip them of their jobs if they win a presidential election (edit: Hell, they didn't really do that at all from all 4 years of Trump running the show!), yet even before the Republicans were out of office you Democrats wanted to take away every Republican minded person's job in the world and half of you all seem to wish them dead! You guys are freaking atrocious human beings, even in comparison to the very Republicans you hate.

 **Note**: I am unaffiliated with any party officially, both sides are full of radical looneys, for lack of a better word that don't get hyper offensive. So don't even try to twist this on me. The Republicans are definitely a cult under Trump's stupid personality and many don't realize the damage they DO cause, and the more extreme Democrats are so stuck in their self-righteous dogma I would swear that lot should make their own god damn religion.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 21, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Okay, I'll take your word for it because you decide what a person should believe in depending on who they are regardless of what an individual thinks, if they want to be something but still be their own person and have their own different opinion and views. You're the grandmaster who gets to decide what's right and wrong.
> 
> Dude, get over yourself.


What I think about what's right or wrong is irrelevant. However, we can objectively measure harm and well-being. If a person wants to say slavery, for example, should be legal like it was before the American Civil War, that would be a deplorable position. The same goes for positions that are anti-LGBT, for example.

Everyone has a right to their opinions, but not all opinions are created equal. Expressing those opinions, or giving money to politicians who act on those positions, are things people have a right to do, but it doesn't mean people have a right to these things free from criticism, boycotts, etc.

When a person acts like I'm suggesting I'm a god who is all-knowing, instead of actually responding to my points, it usually means a substantive rebuttal doesn't exist.


----------



## AHB (Jun 21, 2021)

Burorī said:


> All of this because of some wack-ass politics ruining everything for everyone yet again.
> Let the man live his life and stop riding that much dick you attention-seeking boring life having ass bitches









DuoForce said:


> Republican party is centered around money not people





Spoiler: Today I will remind him.






Spoiler: CW: Ben Garrison's only good opinion


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> What I think about what's right or wrong is irrelevant. However, we can objectively measure harm and well-being. If a person wants to say slavery, for example, should be legal like it was before the American Civil War, that would be a deplorable position. The same goes for positions that are anti-LGBT, for example.
> 
> Everyone has a right to their opinions, but not all opinions are created equal. Expressing those opinions, or giving money to politicians who act on those positions, are things people have a right to do, but it doesn't mean people have a right to these things free from criticism, boycotts, etc.
> 
> When a person acts like I'm suggesting I'm a god who is all-knowing, instead of actually responding to my points, it usually means a substantive rebuttal doesn't exist.



I'm not really required to respond to your BS points if I don't want to. This isn't a serious debate stage. If it were then yes, you'd have a point, but this is just a forum thread on the internet on a small website and most people responding here are acting like babies. But you do act like you're all knowing. I've seen enough posts to see what a pompous person you are, acting like your way is the right way and all that.

I've had many debates with libs across the interwebs, and seen debates with them, and I gotta tell you, it'd be a better use of time talking to a brick wall than trying to converse with these people.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 21, 2021)

Hot take: I never cared for the FNAF games.  Slideshows aren't great from a gameplay perspective.  I'm gonna go ahead and say nothing of value was lost.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 21, 2021)

VartioArtel said:


> Seriously what's the most pathetic thing in this topic is the intolerant left. Because he voted trump he's an evil person by association of the republican party? My god people, and you wonder why so many people dislike the further-left democrats. You guys are the definition of intolerant.


The most pathetic thing I've seen is probably the hypocritical posts about how one group of people (Scott and other conservatives) are free to donate money to politicians, express conservative views, and even enact deplorable policies that, for example, hurt LGBT people, but another group of people can't express their views and decide how they want to spend their own money.

When a person gives money to someone as deplorable as the former president (see my previous posts in this thread for the deplorable actions and even atrocities committed by the former president), it should rightfully be criticized, and damn right people shouldn't feel compelled to give that guy money if they disagree with him and don't want their money used in that way.

You wonder why so many people think those who are mindlessly critical of "cancel culture" are out of touch.



VartioArtel said:


> The Republicans aren't gonna kill LGBTQ+ or strip them of their jobs if they win a presidential election (edit: Hell, they didn't really do that at all from all 4 years of Trump running the show!)


LGBT people lost basic job protections, as well as many other rights, as a result of the former administration being in power. You seem to forget, for example, that trans people were literally kicked out of the military by the former president, for example.

Violence against LGBT people abroad occurred in part because the former administration explicitly refused to condemn it, and violence against LGBT people in this country occurred in large part because the former administration refused to talk about it or do anything about it.



VartioArtel said:


> yet even before the Republicans were out of office you Democrats wanted to take away every Republican minded person's job in the world and half of you all seem to wish them dead!


This is made-up nonsense. I'm unaware of any serious Democratic politician or any significant number of Democratic voters (let alone half) who ever advocated for Republicans "having their jobs taken away" or "being killed." It's not a good sign when your response to my post is stuff that only exists in your imagination. In fact, I've never once heard these things from anybody.



VartioArtel said:


> You guys are freaking atrocious human beings, even in comparison to the very Republicans you hate.


In your imagination, maybe. Those things you listed above that are in your head are really awful.



BitMasterPlus said:


> I'm not really required to respond to your BS points if I don't want to.


No you're not, but here you are, so maybe you should not whine about doing so.



BitMasterPlus said:


> but this is just a forum thread on the internet on a small website and most people responding here are acting like babies.


I agree with you that there are people responding in this thread who are acting like babies, but I don't think they're the people you're thinking of. The people who are whining and acting like babies are the people hypocritically criticizing those who condemn Scott's actions (freedom of speech) and choose not to spend their money in ways they morally disagree with, but give Scott a pass.

There are figurative babies in this thread who act like the "cancellation" of Scott is anything other than people expressing their opinions about Scott's actions, which were morally reprehensible, and making their own decision about what ultimately happens to their money after they spend it. Some people have some growing up to do.



BitMasterPlus said:


> But you do act like you're all knowing. I've seen enough posts to see what a pompous person you are, acting like your way is the right way and all that.


I've never once said or suggested that I'm all-knowing or infallible. In fact, I've expressed on numerous occasions that I am quite fallible. Just because I think I'm right doesn't mean I think I'm always right. You might be interested to know that just about everybody thinks that what they post is correct. That's how things work.



BitMasterPlus said:


> I've had many debates with libs across the interwebs, and seen debates with them, and I gotta tell you, it'd be a better use of time talking to a brick wall than trying to converse with these people.


"Your points are BS."
"You're pompous."
"It's useless trying to debate with liberals, and you'd be better off talking to a brick wall."

Tell me again where the substantive points in your post were. It looked like a lot of huff and fluff to me. People who genuinely have substantive responses don't say things like that instead; they just provide the substantive response.



Xzi said:


> Hot take: I never cared for the FNAF games.  Slideshows aren't great from a gameplay perspective.  I'm gonna go ahead and say nothing of value was lost.


I don't think I've even thought of FNAF since around 2014 or 2015. I played the first one (I didn't buy it), and while it seemed a little cheap and basic as many indie games are, I didn't think it was bad, and I had students who talked about it around that time. If I had known about Scott's political donations back then, I probably would have shrugged and just not played it at all. The only reason I'm responding in this thread is because there are a lot of people criticizing the condemnations of Scott without realizing the hypocrisy of doing so. Doxxing and harassment are wrong, and I don't think anyone in this thread would disagree with that, but the criticisms of Scott are fair, whether or not one agrees with them.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 21, 2021)

Summary of this thread:
1. People on both sides need to do their research.
2. BS is a versatile term.
3. I made a total of 1 burrito joke.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The most pathetic thing I've seen is probably the hypocritical posts about how one group of people (Scott and other conservatives) are free to donate money to politicians, express conservative views, and even enact deplorable policies that, for example, hurt LGBT people, but another group of people can't express their views and decide how they want to spend their own money.
> 
> When a person gives money to someone as deplorable as the former president (see my previous posts in this thread for the deplorable actions and even atrocities committed by the former president), it should rightfully be criticized, and damn right people shouldn't feel compelled to give that guy money if they disagree with him and don't want their money used in that way.
> 
> ...



You remind me of those people who just love to hear themselves talk, or in this case, love to read out your own long winded responses.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 21, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> You remind me of those people who just love to hear themselves talk, or in this case, love to read out your own long winded responses.


I do often like to hear myself talk and read my own posts, but that's irrelevant to the conversation, the topic, and this thread. Please make sure you respond directly to my posts or tag me by name if you end up having something substantive to say in response to my posts. I don't always see new posts directed at me when I'm rereading my own posts, and I depend on notifications. Thank you.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WG481 said:


> 1. People on both sides need to do their research.


I'm not sure what research someone needs to do after they've read what Scott has done, rightfully condemned his actions, and decided they didn't want Scott to get anymore of their money since they don't want it to be used to enable atrocities or take people's civil liberties away.


----------



## VartioArtel (Jun 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The most pathetic thing I've seen is probably the hypocritical posts about how one group of people (Scott and other conservatives) are free to donate money to politicians, express conservative views, and even enact deplorable policies that, for example, hurt LGBT people, but another group of people can't express their views and decide how they want to spend their own money.



Putting words in my mouth as you're wont to do Lucius? What people are not allowed to do is wish people to lose their livelihood/jobs over their political choices, that, *(EDIT)* their right to their political freedom,*(/EDIT)* is the VERY ESSENCE of "Freedom of Politics". If you wish them out of the way, do so by voting, and winning, over, and over, and over, until the political opinion of the opposition dies out and a new party arises, or accept that maybe YOUR opinion's the wrong one.



> When a person gives money to someone as deplorable as the former president (see my previous posts in this thread for the deplorable actions and even atrocities committed by the former president), it should rightfully be criticized, and damn right people shouldn't feel compelled to give that guy money if they disagree with him and don't want their money used in that way.



Then make their investments dead weight. Speak with the words of the people, not the words of cancel. He's welcomed to his opinion as much as you are yours, it's when your opinion threatens another's livelihood that you're exiting 'political speech' and entering a realm I could only explain as "verbal lynching".



> You wonder why so many people think those who are mindlessly critical of "cancel culture" are out of touch.



I know to cancel stuff too. I stopped following Coke after their anti-White campaign and haven't looked back, because ANY form of overt racist mentality is unwelcomed in my mind. *(Edit!)* The difference? I ain't doxing, threatening to lynch, so on and so forth until they drop out of business entirely, I simply stopped buying their products. MAYBE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE LEFT'S GOAL WITH THE FNAF CREATOR???



> LGBT people lost basic job protections, as well as many other rights, as a result of the former administration being in power. You seem to forget, for example, that trans people were literally kicked out of the military by the former president, for example.



Proof, and I don't mean stories, I mean documented proof not from MSM (I trust *none* of MSM mind you, so don't try to claim any media station better than another. I want FOIA requests). I am not saying you're wrong, but I heard absolutely nothing of this over the 4 years.



> Violence against LGBT people abroad occurred in part because the former administration explicitly refused to condemn it, and violence against LGBT people in this country occurred in large part because the former administration refused to talk about it or do anything about it.



And this administration permits violence, arson, murder, etc, against whole cities and explicitly refuse to condemn it. *Such as the vandalism committed in the wake of George Floyd's murder.*



> This is made-up nonsense. I'm unaware of any serious Democratic politician or any significant number of Democratic voters (let alone half) who ever advocated for Republicans "having their jobs taken away" or "being killed." It's not a good sign when your response to my post is stuff that only exists in your imagination. In fact, I've never once heard these things from anybody.



In your own words: "It's occuring in large part because the current administration refuses to talk about it or do anything about it". And trust me, it isn't hard to find democrats/left leaners crying for Republicans losing jobs or being killed. It's happening *in this topic for love of Ra.*

You are so narrow minded in your views it's hilarious, and I know you won't like me flipping your own words against you either. You're the exact sort of gaslighter I hate.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 21, 2021)

VartioArtel said:


> Putting words in my mouth as you're wont to do Lucius? What people are not allowed to do is wish people to lose their livelihood/jobs over their political choices, that, *(EDIT)* their right to their political freedom,*(/EDIT)* is the VERY ESSENCE of "Freedom of Politics". If you wish them out of the way, do so by voting, and winning, over, and over, and over, until the political opinion of the opposition dies out and a new party arises, or accept that maybe YOUR opinion's the wrong one.


I don't condone anyone being forced to lose their job solely because of their political beliefs or political donations, but Scott accepted the consequences of his actions when he donated money to the former president. If people stop buying Scott's games because of Scott's actions, that's on Scott, not the people justifiably responding to his political donations.

You keep going on about political freedom, but you're continuing to hypocritically ignore the political freedom of those who wish to speak about against Scott's actions, which they legitimately disagree with, and boycott him. You might want to take an introspective look at why you're applying a double standard.



VartioArtel said:


> Then make their investments dead weight. Speak with the words of the people, not the words of cancel. He's welcomed to his opinion as much as you are yours, it's when your opinion threatens another's livelihood that you're exiting 'political speech' and entering a realm I could only explain as "verbal lynching".


Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism, and you seem to be arguing that Scott is somehow entitled to the money that belongs to people who don't want to give him their money. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the only person intentionally trying to hurt anybody's livelihood is the former president and those who donated to his campaign. You can see my post from earlier in this thread about how the former administration attacked the livelihoods of LGBT people, for example.

If Scott does something that makes people not want to patronize his video games anymore, that's Scott's fault, and it's Scott's problem. It's not the fault of anyone else, and nobody else has done anything wrong.



VartioArtel said:


> I know to cancel stuff too. I stopped following Coke after their anti-White campaign and haven't looked back, because ANY form of overt racist mentality is unwelcomed in my mind. *(Edit!)* The difference?


First, Coke doesn't seem to have been cancelled. Their stock prices were higher earlier this month than they ever have been in the history of the company. Second, I'm wholly unaware of any "anti-white" campaign of theirs, and I suspect you're misrepresentation whatever they did. My hunch is you're confusing a pro-Black campaign for an anti-white campaign, which says a lot more about you than it does about them. Third, if a company had actually done something deplorable (or even something you thought was deplorable), you are well within your right to condemn the company and boycott it. How is any of that different from what people are doing with FNAF? Once again, you seem to be acting hypocritically.



VartioArtel said:


> *(Edit!)* The difference? I ain't doxing, threatening to lynch, so on and so forth until they drop out of business entirely, I simply stopped buying their products. MAYBE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE LEFT'S GOAL WITH THE FNAF CREATOR???


Nobody in this thread is condoning harassment, doxxing, etc. That's not what I'm addressing.



VartioArtel said:


> Proof, and I don't mean stories, I mean documented proof not from MSM (I trust *none* of MSM mind you, so don't try to claim any media station better than another. I want FOIA requests). I am not saying you're wrong, but I heard absolutely nothing of this over the 4 years.


Earlier in this thread, I posted a very long list of specific examples of what the former administration did to target and hurt LGBT people in this country. Each instance is easy to verify and aren't even refuted by the former administration. Go find the list.



VartioArtel said:


> And this administration permits violence, arson, murder, etc, against whole cities and explicitly refuse to condemn it. *Such as the vandalism committed in the wake of George Floyd's murder.*


I haven't seen the Biden administration condone or permit "violence, arson, murder, etc. against whole cities." Joe Biden has consistently condemned violence. Check out the remarks by President Biden on the verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial for the murder of George Floyd. It's not a good sign when you have to make things up to make a point.



VartioArtel said:


> In your own words: "It's occuring in large part because the current administration refuses to talk about it or do anything about it". And trust me, it isn't hard to find democrats/left leaners crying for Republicans losing jobs or being killed. It's happening *in this topic for love of Ra*.


You're going to have to be more specific if you want to be respond to this point, because I'm still unaware of any serious Democratic politician or any significant number of Democratic voters (let alone half) who ever advocated for Republicans "having their jobs taken away" or "being killed."

Nobody is saying Scott shouldn't be allowed to make games and attempt to sell them to those who still want them; people are condemning his deplorable actions and choosing to not spend their own money on a guy who is going to use that money to fund an administration that commits atrocities and strips people's rights away. A boycott is different from "a job being taken away" or "someone being killed." I suggest you learn the difference.



VartioArtel said:


> You are so narrow minded in your views it's hilarious, and I know you won't like me flipping your own words against you either. You're the exact sort of gaslighter I hate.


I haven't seen my words "flipped against me" in any real way. It's not a good sign when your rebuttals have to resort to happenings that only exist in your imagination and name-calling.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 21, 2021)

You mean I won't get the same 'horror' experience recycled for the 10th time?  But the lore was really working up to go on indefinitely with no major payoffs!  What a titan of the gaming industry we have now lost out on. I will surely lose much sleep over this one, why couldn't it have been Miyamoto instead??!


----------



## VartioArtel (Jun 21, 2021)

> You keep going on about political freedom, but you're continuing to hypocritically ignore the political freedom of those who wish to speak about against Scott's actions, which they legitimately disagree with, and boycott him. You might want to take an introspective look at why you're applying a double standard.



I never once said someone wasn't free to condemn his choice. I said they were condemned to threatening his livelihood. Again, you are putting words in my mouth because you, as usual, are incapable of anything BUT putting words in people's mouths. It's the #1 habit with almost every post you've done on this forum since I joined. You're adding context that isn't there. You're adding concepts that are not expressed. Because that is all you can do. And here, AGAIN, we see you do it, AGAIN, with the same lines of text, AGAIN. Please, for love of god, *stop*.

By the way, nowhere, once, in here, have *you* condemned the people who doxxed him, and while you condemn the doxxing, you've yet to condemn the people because it got the result YOU agree with. That is the epitome of a crooked mentality. You are embodying my whole point.



> Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism



Nobody said it gives freedom from criticism. but this isn't about the criticism. It's about the doxxing, the harassment (which is not necessarily criticism), so on and so forth. but again, AND AGAIN, *AND AGAIN*, you try to twist what I say AND imply to make it about YOUR narrative.



> and you seem to be arguing that Scott is somehow entitled to the money that belongs to people who don't want to give him their money.




I will repeat what I said before:

_I know to cancel stuff too. I stopped following Coke after their anti-White campaign and haven't looked back, because ANY form of overt racist mentality is unwelcomed in my mind. *(Edit!)* The difference? I ain't doxing, threatening to lynch, so on and so forth until they drop out of business entirely, I simply stopped buying their products. MAYBE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE LEFT'S GOAL WITH THE FNAF CREATOR???_

Yet again, you put words in my mouth, and I am honestly tired of you trying to gaslight people, to lie to them what I and others around you say, because the only way you naturally know how to argue is to put words in peoples mouths.



> You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the only person intentionally trying to hurt anybody's livelihood is the former president and those who donated to his campaign.



https://www.reddit.com/r/fivenightsatfreddys/comments/nybyo1/my_response_and_maybe_last_post/
"*but there I was, trending on twitter for being a homophobe, getting doxed*, *with people threatening to come to my house*"

I'm sorry, I don't see how slandering a person as a homophobe and getting doxxed DOESN'T harm their livelihood. Much less threatening to come to one's house because they share a different opinion. Maybe you've never heard of MENTAL TRAUMA/STRESS?



> You can see my post from earlier in this thread about how the former administration attacked the livelihoods of LGBT people, for example.



I'm waiting for you to provide documents. I don't believe ANYTHING you say seeing as you've lied about what I've said at least TWICE now.



> If Scott does something that makes people not want to patronize his video games anymore, that's Scott's fault, and it's Scott's problem. It's not the fault of anyone else, and nobody else has done anything wrong.



Never said it wasn't his fault. But hey, again, you're putting words in my mouth.



> Second, I'm wholly unaware of any "anti-white" campaign of theirs, and I suspect you're misrepresentation whatever they did.



https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/366132

To quote:
"_“To be less white is: to be less oppressive, to be less arrogant, to be less trusting, to be less defensive, to be less ignorant, to be more humble, to listen, to believe. , break with apathy and break with white solidarity ”_ ."

There's a link to the twitter post with the documents inside, which mind you, Coke has admitted existed and took them down.



> My hunch is you're confusing a pro-Black campaign for an anti-white campaign, which says a lot more about you than it does about them.





> Third, if a company had actually done something deplorable (or even something you thought was deplorable), you are well within your right to condemn the company and boycott it. How is any of that different from what people are doing with FNAF? Once again, you seem to be acting hypocritically.



I already answered this. Why is it so hard for you to read things as they are?

_The difference? I ain't doxing, threatening to lynch, so on and so forth until they drop out of business entirely, I simply stopped buying their products. MAYBE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE LEFT'S GOAL WITH THE FNAF CREATOR???_



> Earlier in this thread, I posted a very long list of specific examples of what the former administration did to target and hurt LGBT people in this country. Each instance is easy to verify and aren't even refuted by the former administration. Go find the list.



Sources. FOIA Requests, Court Documents, Investigative reports released by police agencies. I trust absolutely nothing out of you as a person.



> I haven't seen the Biden administration condone or permit "violence, arson, murder, etc. against whole cities." Joe Biden has consistently condemned violence. Check out the remarks by President Biden on the verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial for the murder of George Floyd. It's not a good sign when you have to make things up to make a point.



Where's the federal charges for all the looters/arsonists/etc as their charges were dismissed by Portland and New York, following Biden taking office? Because considering the # of times a Federal Courthouse was hit in Portland alone, I'd expect a damn laundry list of arrests, but they aren't. This is domestic terrorism, the Federal Agencies and Courts have a right to arrest them, but they aren't doing so.

It's Biden's call, and he nor his administration are prosecuting.




> You're going to have to be more specific if you want to be respond to this point, because I'm still unaware of any serious Democratic politician or any significant number of Democratic voters (let alone half) who ever advocated for Republicans "having their jobs taken away" or "being killed."



As you said, by not condemning those who are doing such actions, they themselves are condoning the actions.  Isn't that how it works? Because *IN YOUR OWN WORDS*:

_Violence against LGBT people abroad occurred in part because the former administration explicitly refused to condemn it, and violence against LGBT people in this country occurred in large part because the former administration refused to talk about it or do anything about it._

Lemme reword this for you:

_Violence, murder, looting, arson against people abroad occurred in part because the current administration explicitly refused to condemn it, and such against people in this country occurred in large part because the current administration refuses to talk about it or do anything about it._

Same difference. They like Trump can pass off a light 'plz don't do this', like how Trump gave his half-assed request for the Proud Boys to 'stand down'. But until Biden begins pushing for Federal cases against the Arsonists and the sort, he's spewing platitudes.



> I haven't seen my words "flipped against me" in any real way. It's not a good sign when your rebuttals have to resort to happenings that only exist in your imagination and name-calling.



Wow, you really are incapable of realizing just how narrow your entire worldview is. You don't realize that everything you've said about the Republicans ALSO applies to the Democrats.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 21, 2021)

I don't know why Republicans need any donations at all. All they have to do is just let "Internet Democrats" talk, preferably unrestrained and uncensored, and televise that 24/7.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't know why Republicans need any donations at all. All they have to do is just let "Internet Democrats" talk, preferably unrestrained and uncensored, and televise that 24/7.


Conversely, hearing Republicans talk, IRL or online, is also the best recruiting tool that the Democratic party could ask for.  Sadly all they can seem to do when in power is step on their own toes, but that's also by design.  The few actual left-leaning individuals (progressives) in Congress are drowned out by right-wing Dems and far-right Republicans.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 21, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The few actual left-leaning individuals (progressives) in Congress are drowned out by right-wing Dems and far-right Republicans.


Of course they are, for the reason I mentioned above. On the bright side, it keeps the uniparty going - no reason to rock the boat, let the peons argue about stuff that doesn't matter while we all balloon the budget, inflate the currency and rob future generations, since robbing the current generation isn't quite enough to fund legislative escapades. All priced in, no worries.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course they are, for the reason I mentioned above. On the bright side, it keeps the uniparty going - no reason to rock the boat, let the peons argue about stuff that doesn't matter while we all balloon the budget, inflate the currency and rob future generations, since robbing the current generation isn't quite enough to fund legislative escapades. All priced in, no worries.


It's corporations and their lobbyists successfully robbing current and future generations of the "American dream" and everything else.  Not coincidentally they also benefit most from the way the right-wing uniparty operates.  Let's see how long they hold out on the infrastructure bill when crumbling roads and bridges start hitting their bottom lines hardest of all.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 21, 2021)

Xzi said:


> It's corporations and their lobbyists successfully robbing current and future generations of the "American dream" and everything else.  Not coincidentally they also benefit most from the way the right-wing uniparty operates.  Let's see how long they hold out on the infrastructure bill when crumbling roads and bridges start hitting their bottom lines hardest of all.


Nonsense. It's entirely the fault of the government and central banking.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...ours-to-buy-one-unit-of-the-sp-500-2020-01-02

You have to work in excess of 120 hours in order to purchase one share of the S&P500 index, the de facto investment into your own future. In the 80's your parents had to work 20 for the same share, and they had ostensibly "lower" wages. If you're concerned about anything else, you're being distracted from your future being sold for boondogles in the present... but that's not really a subject for a thread about a developer retiring.


----------



## Burorī (Jun 21, 2021)

AHB said:


> View attachment 267598
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I feel real stupid for not getting the joke


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 21, 2021)

Thread isn't really holding my interest by this point, but a timely meme came up, so here you go:




 

(R.I.P. Jessica Walter )


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 21, 2021)

hippy dave said:


> Thread isn't really holding my interest by this point, but a timely meme came up, so here you go:
> 
> View attachment 267614
> 
> (R.I.P. Jessica Walter )


Listen. To. Me.

There's always money *in the banana stand*. 

(Also great as Archer's mother, Malory. Drinking at the pearly gates now, no doubt.)


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Listen. To. Me.
> 
> There's always money is *in the banana stand*.
> 
> (Also great as Archer's mother, Malory. Drinking at the pearly gates now, no doubt.)


We're privileged that another Archer season was already recorded, so we'll get to appreciate her genius one more time.


----------



## AHB (Jun 21, 2021)

Burorī said:


> I feel real stupid for not getting the joke


Good opinion, so I immortalized it.


----------



## Magnus87 (Jun 21, 2021)

I am very amused that if you are from this or that "community" you should vote yes or yes for a specific candidate.


If you are Gay it does not make you part of the LGBT community.
If you are a Woman, it does not make you part of the Feminist community.

Each person is different, do not try to group the thought by gender, sexuality or race.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 21, 2021)

hippy dave said:


> We're privileged that another Archer season was already recorded, so we'll get to appreciate her genius one more time.


I was curious if they got her in on the next season or not. This makes me happy.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 21, 2021)

VartioArtel said:


> I never once said someone wasn't free to condemn his choice. I said they were condemned to threatening his livelihood.


If Scott's actions causes people to not want to patronize his video games, that's Scott's fault. People are free to spend (and not spend) their money as they choose. He's not entitled to their money. If Scott's livelihood is somehow threatened by the response to his actions, perhaps he shouldn't have done it, and that's on him.



VartioArtel said:


> Again, you are putting words in my mouth because you, as usual, are incapable of anything BUT putting words in people's mouths. It's the #1 habit with almost every post you've done on this forum since I joined. You're adding context that isn't there. You're adding concepts that are not expressed. Because that is all you can do. And here, AGAIN, we see you do it, AGAIN, with the same lines of text, AGAIN. Please, for love of god, *stop*.


You seem to be making the argument that there's somehow something wrong with people using their conscience to decide how they want to spend money. If that's not what you're arguing, and if you're not arguing that Scott is somehow entitled to people's money regardless of his political donations, then you can drop the whining about Scott's livelihood. It would be hypocritical to say Scott can spend his money how he wants, but his fanbase doesn't have the same rights with their money.

In other words, if a boycott is threatening someone's livelihood, that's not the fault of those participating in the boycott, and they are undeserving of condemnation. They are free to spend their money as they choose.



VartioArtel said:


> By the way, nowhere, once, in here, have *you* condemned the people who doxxed him, and while you condemn the doxxing, you've yet to condemn the people because it got the result YOU agree with. That is the epitome of a crooked mentality. You are embodying my whole point.


I've said numerous times in this thread that doxxing, harassment, etc. are unacceptable. I've never condoned these things, and I've condemned them. Please don't make things up about what I have/haven't said. Thank you.



VartioArtel said:


> Nobody said it gives freedom from criticism. but this isn't about the criticism. It's about the doxxing, the harassment (which is not necessarily criticism), so on and so forth. but again, AND AGAIN, *AND AGAIN*, you try to twist what I say AND imply to make it about YOUR narrative.


If this conversation is only about harassment and doxing, then you and I are on the same page. However, those aren't the things I'm talking about. I'm specifically responding to the hypocritical whinings about "cancel culture." People are free to criticize Scott's actions and boycott his products, and rightfully so. Scott's actions were bad.



VartioArtel said:


> _I know to cancel stuff too. I stopped following Coke after their anti-White campaign and haven't looked back, because ANY form of overt racist mentality is unwelcomed in my mind. *(Edit!)* The difference? I ain't doxing, threatening to lynch, so on and so forth until they drop out of business entirely, I simply stopped buying their products. MAYBE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE LEFT'S GOAL WITH THE FNAF CREATOR???_
> 
> Yet again, you put words in my mouth, and I am honestly tired of you trying to gaslight people, to lie to them what I and others around you say, because the only way you naturally know how to argue is to put words in peoples mouths.


I'm not putting words in your mouth. If you are going to argue that people shouldn't be boycotting Scott, then you are saying Scott is entitled to people's money despite his actions and how his fanbase feels about his actions. If you're not arguing that people shouldn't be boycotting Scott, then great. We are on the same page.



VartioArtel said:


> https://www.reddit.com/r/fivenightsatfreddys/comments/nybyo1/my_response_and_maybe_last_post/
> "*but there I was, trending on twitter for being a homophobe, getting doxed*, *with people threatening to come to my house*"
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't see how slandering a person as a homophobe and getting doxxed DOESN'T harm their livelihood. Much less threatening to come to one's house because they share a different opinion. Maybe you've never heard of MENTAL TRAUMA/STRESS?


As I've already said, doxxing and harassment are unacceptable behavior. That being said, calling someone out for homophobic actions like donating money to a homophobic candidate is not slander, and it's a fair criticism of Scott and his actions. Acknowledging what he did, explaining why it's bad, condemning it, boycotting his work, and suggesting others do the same is not harassment, and it's Scott's fault if that results in a loss of income.



VartioArtel said:


> I'm waiting for you to provide documents. I don't believe ANYTHING you say seeing as you've lied about what I've said at least TWICE now.


I haven't lied about anything you've said, and there's nothing untrue in the list of the former president's anti-LGBT behavior I posted. You are free to deny it all you want, but it would be pretty silly to do so. Most things on the list, including things like the trans military ban, are common knowledge.



VartioArtel said:


> Never said it wasn't his fault. But hey, again, you're putting words in my mouth.


If you aren't saying it isn't Scott's fault, then I'm not sure why you're condemning everyone involved other than Scott.



VartioArtel said:


> https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/366132
> 
> To quote:
> "“To be less white is: to be less oppressive, to be less arrogant, to be less trusting, to be less defensive, to be less ignorant, to be more humble, to listen, to believe. , break with apathy and break with white solidarity ” ."
> ...


I wasn't aware of this. Regardless, it looks like this wasn't mandatory training, and it wasn't Coke that said these things. It also looks like Coke responded by removing it, so I'm not sure what else you want from them.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coca-cola-training-less-white/

If, however, you're still upset by Coke's actions, you have every right to condemn them and boycott them. The same goes for Scott's fanbase.



VartioArtel said:


> I already answered this. Why is it so hard for you to read things as they are?
> 
> The difference? I ain't doxing, threatening to lynch, so on and so forth until they drop out of business entirely, I simply stopped buying their products. MAYBE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE LEFT'S GOAL WITH THE FNAF CREATOR???


I'm not sure how this is relevant then. Nothing I've said in this thread, aside from condemnations, has to do with harassment and doxxing.



VartioArtel said:


> Sources. FOIA Requests, Court Documents, Investigative reports released by police agencies. I trust absolutely nothing out of you as a person.


That sounds like a personal problem. Regardless, you don't have to trust anything I've said. Go look it up yourself. All it takes is a Google Search for "trans military ban," for example, to find what you're looking for. I look up just about everything anyone posts in threads like these (I looked up your Coke claim, for example). It isn't difficult, and it's not my responsibility to do your research for you. If you want to be able to come up with a substantive response to anything I've posted, you have to do the work yourself. Speaking of which, if you do respond to this post, please respond to it directly or tag me in it. Otherwise, I might not see your response. I almost didn't see this one, but fortunately for you, I was in the thread rereading my own posts.



VartioArtel said:


> Where's the federal charges for all the looters/arsonists/etc as their charges were dismissed by Portland and New York, following Biden taking office?


State governments aren't beholden to the president of the United States, and with regard to federal charges, the Biden/Garland justice department is still going through with hundreds charges against people who committed crimes during BLM protests.

You should turn off the Fox News every once in awhile. Discussions like these aren't fun when we live on two different Earths.



VartioArtel said:


> As you said, by not condemning those who are doing such actions, they themselves are condoning the actions.  Isn't that how it works? Because IN YOUR OWN WORDS:
> 
> Violence against LGBT people abroad occurred in part because the former administration explicitly refused to condemn it, and violence against LGBT people in this country occurred in large part because the former administration refused to talk about it or do anything about it.
> 
> ...


Biden has condemned all of the things you say he hasn't, before and after the 2020 election. Oof.



VartioArtel said:


> Same difference. They like Trump can pass off a light 'plz don't do this', like how Trump gave his half-assed request for the Proud Boys to 'stand down'. But until Biden begins pushing for Federal cases against the Arsonists and the sort, he's spewing platitudes.


Last I checked, Biden never responded to white supremist protests by saying "there are good people on both sides." Biden didn't cause a deadly riot on the Capitol. Biden didn't tell the Proud Boys to "stand down and standby."

And Biden's justice department is indeed continuing to pursue federal charges against some of the people who committed crimes during the BLM protests.



VartioArtel said:


> Wow, you really are incapable of realizing just how narrow your entire worldview is. You don't realize that everything you've said about the Republicans ALSO applies to the Democrats.


Before I respond to anything else you say, please post the #1 best example of something I've said  about "Republicans" that also applies to "Democrats." Please and thank you.



Magnus87 said:


> I am very amused that if you are from this or that "community" you should vote yes or yes for a specific candidate.
> 
> 
> If you are Gay it does not make you part of the LGBT community.
> ...


Each person is different, and there are going to be people in one group (LGBT, for example) who vote against LGBT interests. However, that is not the same as saying they shouldn't vote for LGBT interests. They should. Everybody should vote in favor of civil rights.

If a person is gay, it does not automatically make them a part of the LGBT community. However, if a person is gay and identifies as gay, then that person is a member of the LGBT community. That doesn't mean, however, that the person has to agree with the broader LGBT community on anything whatsoever.


----------



## VartioArtel (Jun 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If Scott's actions causes people to not want to patronize his video games, that's Scott's fault. People are free to spend (and not spend) their money as they choose. He's not entitled to their money. If Scott's livelihood is somehow threatened by the response to his actions, perhaps he shouldn't have done it, and that's on him.



Original post:

_Seriously what's the most pathetic thing in this topic is the intolerant left. *Because he voted trump he's an evil person by association of the republican party?* My god people, and you wonder why so many people dislike *the further-left democrats*. *You guys are the definition of intolerant.*_

My issue's the intolerance. And I specify this twice more throughout my post.

_ yet even before the Republicans were out of office you Democrats wanted to take away every Republican minded person's job in the world *and half of you all seem to wish them dead!*_

_The Republicans are definitely a cult under Trump's stupid personality and many don't realize the damage they DO cause, and* the more extreme Democrats are so stuck in their self-righteous dogma I would swear that lot should make their own god damn religion.*_

Not once have I EVER been unclear that my issue is with the most intolerant, extreme, hostile democrats, the ones who think it's fine to directly threaten others, whether through emotional trauma, physical threats, etc. The exact sort YOU play word gymnastics to try to convince me and EVERYONE else here that YOU aren't. Don't believe me? Look at your next sentence.

*



			You seem to be making the argument that there's somehow something wrong with people using their conscience to decide how they want to spend money.
		
Click to expand...

*
*RIGHT HERE. *

How many bloody god damn times have I said this exact next line line? LET'S SEE! I'll color code each individual instance!

_What people are not allowed to do is wish people to lose their livelihood/jobs over their political choices, that, *(EDIT)* their right to their political freedom,*(/EDIT)* is the VERY ESSENCE of "Freedom of Politics"._

_He's welcomed to his opinion as much as you are yours, it's when your opinion threatens another's livelihood that you're exiting 'political speech' and entering a realm I could only explain as "verbal lynching"._

_ *(Edit!)* The difference? I ain't doxing, threatening to lynch, so on and so forth until they drop out of business entirely, I simply stopped buying their products._

_I never once said someone wasn't free to condemn his choice. I said they were condemned to threatening his livelihood._

_Nobody said it gives freedom from criticism. but this isn't about the criticism. It's about the doxxing, the harassment (which is not necessarily criticism), so on and so forth. but again, AND AGAIN, *AND AGAIN*, you try to twist what I say AND imply to make it about YOUR narrative._

_I know to cancel stuff too. I stopped following Coke after their anti-White campaign and haven't looked back, because ANY form of overt racist mentality is unwelcomed in my mind. *(Edit!)* The difference? I ain't doxing, threatening to lynch, so on and so forth until they drop out of business entirely, I simply stopped buying their products. MAYBE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE LEFT'S GOAL WITH THE FNAF CREATOR???_

_(_in response to you saying I think he's entitled to money from the left)
_I will repeat what I said before:_

_I know to cancel stuff too. I stopped following Coke after their anti-White campaign and haven't looked back, because ANY form of overt racist mentality is unwelcomed in my mind. *(Edit!)* The difference? I ain't doxing, threatening to lynch, so on and so forth until they drop out of business entirely, I simply stopped buying their products. MAYBE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE LEFT'S GOAL WITH THE FNAF CREATOR??? _

(In Response to you asking me what's the difference between me boycotting Coke and the Intolerant Left Doxxing, Threatening, slandering Scott.)
_I already answered this. Why is it so hard for you to read things as they are?_

_The difference? I ain't doxing, threatening to lynch, so on and so forth until they drop out of business entirely, I simply stopped buying their products. MAYBE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE LEFT'S GOAL WITH THE FNAF CREATOR???_

That's *EIGHT* times, I've told you the same exact thing. There has never been an issue with people not paying him. The issue is that they DOXXED him, they leaked his public details so any Joe, Jill, and in between can harass him because of his political opinion. They can call his phone and call him all sorts of slurs. They can send him bombs if they're insane enough. They SLURRED him, they call him a Homophobe because he voted Republican because THEY are Homophobic, not because HE is homophobic. That's the same as Nintendo calling all of us Pirates and arresting us because this forum promotes use of game modifications which are often used by piraters!

So on and so forth. TIME, and TIME, again, you are continuing to put words in my mouth. You either are completely illiterate, or you are so delusional you are incapable of reading the English Language. This isn't even me trying to insult you, this is exactly what you are.



> If that's not what you're arguing, and if you're not arguing that Scott is somehow entitled to people's money regardless of his political donations, then you can drop the whining about Scott's livelihood. It would be hypocritical to say Scott can spend his money how he wants, but his fanbase doesn't have the same rights with their money.



If people won't hire him because of a false stigma he's homophobic simply because of his political arrangement, if he can't leave his house without being uncertain someone won't shiv him for being a 'Republican supporter', then he cannot safely ensure the livelihood of himself or his family. Maybe this idea's so foreign because you lack any and all ability to place yourself in someone else's shoes, and I'm not speaking empathetically - although clearly that is a skill you lack - I'm speaking just being able to place yourself psychologically into a situation and emulating events in your mind. You don't consider what effects ANY of this can have on a person's livelihood.

I've seen cases like Vic Mignogna and Johnny Depp over the years, who even to today struggle to find jobs even a fraction as good paying because of lies and slander about what they've done in their lives. People editting images or extremely specific frames out of context of a video, by people like you who tell the third-party people what THEY think even as they tell everyone else that they didn't think or feel anything like the image implies, while the fourth party (the readers/viewers) are wasting time having to listen to your political bullshit in an attempt for people like you ruining people's images.



> In other words, if a boycott is threatening someone's livelihood, that's not the fault of those participating in the boycott, and they are undeserving of condemnation. They are free to spend their money as they choose.



And this is time #10 I'll need to tell you this is about the Doxxing, harassment, etc!




> I've said numerous times in this thread that doxxing, harassment, etc. are unacceptable. I've never condoned these things, and I've condemned them. Please don't make things up about what I have/haven't said. Thank you.



Then how is it SO GOD DAMN HARD for you to get that I've made it clear since POST ONE that my issue has been with the INTOLERANT LEFT, the LEFT EXTREMISTS, who go so damn hard that they HAVE doxxed them? Even if you HAD failed to see it, I made it SO CLEAR in my response to your gaslighting absurdity that the issue has been the doxxing and I am all for boycotting that you SOMEHOW find yourself incapable of reading THE ACTUAL LINES and are reading between the lines looking for a boogieman, persistently trying to accept anything else than what I have bluntly put as the truth for you and everyone else to read.

And you never condemned them. I've yet to see you condemn ANYONE in this topic directly for being thankful for the doxxing. You've condemned the action, but you have yet to condemn a SINGLE SOUL for actually DOING the doxxing and have SUPPORTED it simply by saying "Oh the act's bad, but I still appreciate it because it lead to him quitting".

HIM QUITTING should NOT have been a result of his being Harassed, Doxxed, and Slandered. It should be a result of his own actions. The fact you are one of those who are thankful he quit as a result of this and show no sympathy for him shows the sort of monster you really are.



> If this conversation is only about harassment and doxing, then you and I are on the same page. However, those aren't the things I'm talking about. I'm specifically responding to the hypocritical whinings about "cancel culture." People are free to criticize Scott's actions and boycott his products, and rightfully so. Scott's actions were bad.



Says the biggest hypocrite here who can't even realize his own actions are, as I stated above, supporting the act of the cancel culture. This was never a boycott, it was shaming and threatening a man until he quit.



> I'm not putting words in your mouth. If you are going to argue that people shouldn't be boycotting Scott, then you are saying Scott is entitled to people's money despite his actions and how his fanbase feels about his actions. If you're not arguing that people shouldn't be boycotting Scott, then great. We are on the same page.



I've established you've been ignoring what I've said, and said I've said something else OVER 8 TIMES NOW. So yes, you ARE putting words in my mouth, PERSISTENTLY.




> As I've already said, doxxing and harassment are unacceptable behavior. That being said, calling someone out for homophobic actions like donating money to a homophobic candidate is not slander, and it's a fair criticism of Scott and his actions. Acknowledging what he did, explaining why it's bad, condemning it, boycotting his work, and suggesting others do the same is not harassment, and it's Scott's fault if that results in a loss of income.



That's Fair criticism to the extreme who don't see nuance. The world isn't black and white.




> I haven't lied about anything you've said



And I'm ending this here, because now you're starkedly lying to my face. I've had enough of your flagrant lying habits to my face.

You've been laying direct implications of what you THINK I THINK since your first reply to me in this topic. You've randomly brought up concepts that never got implied in my posts. You didn't NEED to reply to me, but you did, and by doing so you attempted to deflect by attacking those you misperceive as not agreeing with YOU.

I know about how people like you play gaslighting political speech. You attempt to lay implications to make people think 'hey, why is he bringing this up? Is this person like this'? Like when in your initial reply you implied that I am one of those people who quote:
_The most pathetic thing I've seen is probably the hypocritical posts about how one group of people (Scott and other conservatives) are free to donate money to politicians, express conservative views, and even enact deplorable policies that, for example, hurt LGBT people, but another group of people can't express their views and decide how they want to spend their own money._

I was clear from the start my issue was with the "Intolerant Left", the "Extreme Left", the sort who cannot grasp there is a difference between a simple Boycott, and the threatening of a person's life to scare them out of business. You started this whole argument chain, claiming you're against Doxxing, Threats, Etc, and yet every time I mention SPECIFICALLY that I am not against boycott but against the very actions that ruined his career, that has provided anxiety to the man's wife, you somehow twisted it around and implied I said something entirely different.

Like I implied above, just because someone supports a political platform for something they do like, does not mean they agree to ALL that party's bad decisions. It's why I don't view myself as Republican OR Democrat. BUT there is no actual 'third party'. It is because they have rigged the game so that only those two parties exist that this whole situation started. Each side is looking out for people in their own way, and each side is plagued with extremists who are inhuman monsters. American politics are the worst kind of joke.

On the right, they got Anti-LGBTQs and Anti-black Racists on their end. They have the likes of the KKK! These groups are still horrid in their own rights, but they do not make up the entirety of the right, or even the right's political structure.

On the left, you got Anti-White Racists as they attempt to convince everyone that White People are legitimately the cancer of American Civilization (if not the western world), such as that Coca-Cola Critical Race Training campaign. You also have Antifa on that end to alter from the KKK. I'd even include the ACLU in this group too seeing as their intense involvement in the likes of Amber Heard.

And yes, I know there's other known groups, but I list KKK and Antifa as they are the most well known extremists of each side.

So should we cancel you because you support the party that has an Open Secret of a discretion policy to not talk about Antifa (in fact, despite fact checking Biden as condemning the looting and violence, he has refused to name Antifa - much as I am loath to use MSM here's a site with a list of examples example - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ed-violent-protests-several-times/6576824002/ ), or if they do, try to convince people Antifa doesn't exist? They sure as hell aren't doling out Federal Charges (just like Trump didn't to the more hostile Proud Boys) to the Antifa who actively cause Riots.

The only people I see 'doxxed' on the active left ARE the people who participate in the riots and other such conflicts, and their doxxing is done via entirely public information listed on police websites or on individuals own facebooks/twitters where anyone could find them until they hide them after their arrests. Meanwhile anyone even dares support the Republican party and they're the ones doxxed by the left. (I won't even speak the neutral doxxing as it's clear the FNAF fanbase isn't exclusively left or right.). Now mind you I don't follow everything, but what I see is it's always the conversatives, those against Feminism (Johnny Depp Case - Amber Heard's side doxxed a whole list of Conservatives including Depp's sister), LGBTQ+ (Scott), or the like who get actually cancel cultured. Not Boycotted, Cancel Cultured.

No. We should not cancel you. I'd sure as hell boycott you if you were a company though.

P.S.: This whole time, you've jumped from idea to idea, trying to attack my avenue of thinking, while I've been EXTREMELY clear where I stand while trying to warp what I say/mean/think.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You have to work in excess of 120 hours in order to purchase one share of the S&P500 index, the de facto investment into your own future. In the 80's your parents had to work 20 for the same share, and they had ostensibly "lower" wages.


You're not telling me anything I didn't already know, you're just attempting to deflect blame from ultra-wealthy (corporations) who you've already admitted control both parties.  The middle and lower classes have less purchasing power and fewer life-changing opportunities precisely because they will it so.  Zuckerberg alone has vacuumed up almost half of all wealth accumulated by millennials.  As long as billionaires are treated like the royalty Americans threw a revolution to escape, the system will remain broken.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 21, 2021)

Xzi said:


> You're not telling me anything I didn't already know, you're just attempting to deflect blame from ultra-wealthy (corporations) who you've already admitted control both parties.  The middle and lower classes have less purchasing power and fewer life-changing opportunities precisely because they will it so.  Zuckerberg alone has vacuumed up almost half of all wealth accumulated by millennials.  As long as billionaires are treated like the royalty Americans threw a revolution to escape, the system will remain broken.


The extremely wealthy do not set monetary policy, the government and central banking does (since the federal reserve is technically a separate entity in every way except the ones that actually matter). If you have corrupt politicians that sell out to the highest bidder then you should hang them, plain and simple - it's treason, the penalty for treason is codified, 18 U.S. Code § 2381. Ultimately it is the government that's at fault. In slightly less hyperbolic terms, it's the government that takes the dirty money for their dirty policies, so that's the body responsible for the current state of affairs.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 21, 2021)

VartioArtel said:


> Original post:
> 
> _Seriously what's the most pathetic thing in this topic is the intolerant left. *Because he voted trump he's an evil person by association of the republican party?* My god people, and you wonder why so many people dislike *the further-left democrats*. *You guys are the definition of intolerant.*_
> 
> ...


If your only issues are with the doxxing and harassment, then you and I are on the same page. "Cancel culture" is not about harassment and doxxing; it's about public criticism and the dissemination of information that will, among other things, allow people to make informed decisions about how to spend their money. If, however, you take issue with people choosing not to spend money on someone they perceive to be supporting a deplorable former president, then you and I are in disagreement.

As for the bottom of your post, you seem to think I've somehow misrepresented your positions throughout this thread, but I haven't. What you seem to be taking issue with are the logical implications of some of what you've said, and I wasn't wrong to point them out. If there's something in particular you take issue with, please quote what I said and well me how it misrepresented your position.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch -- POLL (Jun 21, 2021)

https://linkto.run/p/WXJP0IAK


----------



## VartioArtel (Jun 21, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If your only issues are with the doxxing and harassment, then you and I are on the same page. "Cancel culture" is not about harassment and doxxing; it's about public criticism and the dissemination of information that will, among other things, allow people to make informed decisions about how to spend their money. If, however, you take issue with people choosing not to spend money on someone they perceive to be supporting a deplorable former president, then you and I are in disagreement.
> 
> As for the bottom of your post, you seem to think I've somehow misrepresented your positions throughout this thread, but I haven't. What you seem to be taking issue with are the logical implications of some of what you've said, and I wasn't wrong to point them out. If there's something in particular you take issue with, please quote what I said and well me how it misrepresented your position.


Cancel Culture's thing is to shame, humiliate, Dox, threaten, contact companies to tell them they'll not support X, doing anything EXCEPT a natural boycott. THAT is Cancel Culture's Modus Operandi. It's been that way for ~ a decade now.

Public Criticism and harassment are different things, but you don't get that. You act like you do, but you constantly conflate the two as the same thing and keep defending the whole damn thing of what happened to Scott. You continue to try to gaslight, IE:



> _*If, however, you take issue with people choosing not to spend money on someone they perceive to be supporting a deplorable former president*, then you and I are in disagreement._



DO I HEAR 11 times!? I HEAR 11 TIMES I'VE TOLD YOU MY STANCE IS ON THE HARASSMENT AND THOSE WHO ARE HAPPY HE QUIT AS A RESULT OF THE HARASSMENT!


Stop replying to me Lucius, ever again. I WILL consider your very responses to me harassment after this point. Your lying to everyone's faces and willful ignoring my words over and over again? I'm considering it harassment. I'm considering your VERY responses to me harassment now.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 21, 2021)

VartioArtel said:


> Cancel Culture's thing is to shame, humiliate, Dox, threaten, contact companies to tell them they'll not support X, doing anything EXCEPT a natural boycott. THAT is Cancel Culture's Modus Operandi. It's been that way for ~ a decade now.
> 
> Public Criticism and harassment are different things, but you don't get that. You act like you do, but you constantly conflate the two as the same thing and keep defending the whole damn thing of what happened to Scott. You continue to try to gaslight, IE:
> 
> ...


Damn


----------



## VartioArtel (Jun 21, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Damn



I wouldn't go this far if he just frickin' read what I said instead of constantly implied I meant ANYTHING else.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 21, 2021)

VartioArtel said:


> I wouldn't go this far if he just frickin' read what I said instead of constantly implied I meant ANYTHING else.


I mean, was it really harassment though. He seemed heated but respectful, I mean, Lacius is a pretty nice guy, he just wasn't understanding what you were trying to say.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 21, 2021)

VartioArtel said:


> Cancel Culture's thing is to shame, humiliate, Dox, threaten, contact companies to tell them they'll not support X, doing anything EXCEPT a natural boycott. THAT is Cancel Culture's Modus Operandi. It's been that way for ~ a decade now.
> 
> Public Criticism and harassment are different things, but you don't get that. You act like you do, but you constantly conflate the two as the same thing and keep defending the whole damn thing of what happened to Scott. You continue to try to gaslight, IE:


Cancel culture is not about doxxing, harassment, etc. Anybody who engages in these behaviors should themselves be "cancelled." I explained in my last post what cancellation should mean. If our only issue is a semantic one, then you and I are in agreement.



VartioArtel said:


> Public Criticism and harassment are different things, but you don't get that. You act like you do, but you constantly conflate the two as the same thing and keep defending the whole damn thing of what happened to Scott. You continue to try to gaslight, IE:


Criticism and harassment are different things. I've said that, that has been my point for several posts, and I've condemned harassment numerous times. I'm not sure how you can think I conflate the two as the same thing.



VartioArtel said:


> Stop replying to me Lucius, ever again. I WILL consider your very responses to me harassment after this point. Your lying to everyone's faces and willful ignoring my words over and over again? I'm considering it harassment. I'm considering your VERY responses to me harassment now.


Nobody is requiring you to respond to my posts. Nobody is requiring you to read my posts. There is nothing in my posts, by any objective metric that I can come up with, that qualifies as "harassment." If you sincerely do not want to see my posts, there is an Ignore button you can use.

I think any impartial reader can see that I'm attempting to figure out where we agree and where we disagree, but you seem to want to make this an issue of Scott vs. harassment (and yell at me in all caps), which is not the issue I'm here to address. I wholeheartedly condemn harassment.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 21, 2021)

Break it up, kids. If you're getting a bit upsetti-spaghetti, the X-shaped solution is at the edge of the tab.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Break it up, kids. If you're getting a bit upsetti-spaghetti, the X-shaped solution is at the edge of the tab.


This is gonna end up the same way as the Biden thread


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 21, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> This is gonna end up the same way as the Biden thread


I would like to remind everyone that... How does that one go...? *cough cough*

"Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America"

*Takes cover*


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I would like to remind everyone that... How does that one go...? *cough cough*
> 
> "Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America"
> 
> *Takes cover*


HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT!!!!
THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN!!!!!!!!
TRUMP WON!!!!!!!
YOU SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!

(please don't ban me it's a joke)


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I would like to remind everyone that... How does that one go...? *cough cough*
> 
> "Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America"
> 
> *Takes cover*


I was just going to post a message to everyone saying can we please keep the political bullshit for the politics section then you posted that you crazy motherfucker. Talk about stirring the pot


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 21, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> I was just going to post a message to everyone saying can we please keep the political bullshit for the politics section then you posted that you crazy motherfucker. Talk about stirring the pot


Hey the election was stolen don't you agree?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 21, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> I was just going to post a message to everyone saying can we please keep the political bullshit for the politics section then you posted that you crazy motherfucker. Talk about stirring the pot


It's breaking world news. We even covered it on the EOFCast.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 21, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Hey the election was stolen don't you agree?


My opinion on that won't be posted here it's easily found in the politics section


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 21, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> My opinion on that won't be posted here it's easily found in the politics section


Ok I'll just assume you agree that Trump won


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 21, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Ok I'll just assume you agree that Trump won


Yes he won if the competition was to lose the election.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 21, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> Yes he won if the competition was to lose the election.


NO HE WON NO  MATTER WHAT
EVEN IF HE LOST 

(I'm joking I'm not that dumb)


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 21, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Hey the election was stolen don't you agree?


Well of cooooooooooourse not! Despite Trump rallies being full and no one showing up to Biden raliies and Biden picking fights with people who challenge him and sniffing kids and has dementia I totally believe 80 million+ people voted for him! The most popular president ever! There was absolutely no fraud in the election whatsoever and who ever agrees is clearly a red neck white supremacist Trump supporting nazi bigot!


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 21, 2021)

Okay, we had our laughs at POLtemp, now we can get back to Scott and his predicament, if you could call it that, since he willingly stepped down and has plans for the future of the series anyway. Sounds to me like it was exhausting to him at this stage, it's nice that he didn't get too rattled by all this and chose to carry on doing what brings him joy - making games for his kids. Heartwarming.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Okay, we had our laughs at POLtemp, now we can get back to Scott and his predicament, if you could call it that, since he willingly stepped down and has plans for the future of the series anyway. Sounds to me like it was exhausting to him at this stage, it's nice that he didn't get too rattled by all this and chose to carry on doing what brings him joy - making games for his kids. Heartwarming.


Well at least his kids are going to benefit from what has happened. So that is a good thing.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The extremely wealthy do not set monetary policy


Funny joke, I exhaled through my nose a little.



Foxi4 said:


> If you have corrupt politicians that sell out to the highest bidder then you should hang them, plain and simple - it's treason, the penalty for treason is codified, 18 U.S. Code § 2381.


Corruption is unfortunately legal here, we just call it lobbying instead.  And centuries of propaganda has half the working class licking the boots of those that oppress and exploit them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 21, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Funny joke, I exhaled through my nose a little.
> 
> Corruption is unfortunately legal here, we just call it lobbying instead.  And centuries of propaganda has half the working class licking the boots of those that oppress and exploit them.


A quick reminder that in 2020 the U.S. Federal Government contracted BlackRock Inc. to manage COVID relief funds, and handsomely compensated the company for managing debt and bonds. Fast forward to 2021, Blackrock Inc. is purchasing properties at 120-150% of the fair market price for the purposes of renting them out, and they're doing it at a staggering rate. In case you don't know what happened there, the government gave Blackrock Inc. a bunch of your money via subsidies and relief, and now Blackrock predictably is spending these proceeds on buying real estate that you will never be able to own, because that's the smart thing to do and you can't possibly blame them for taking advantage of a favourable market - one where nobody has any money after turning the economy down from an 11 to a 1 for a whole year. They're doing it with your money. Who was in charge of Congress in 2020? Oh, right, the same guys that are in charge right now. That's neither here nor there though, both sides of the aisle are corrupt, hence my uniparty remark. My broader point is "we should stop giving the government so much damned money", maybe then they'll stop using it against the people.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 21, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Well of cooooooooooourse not! Despite Trump rallies being full and no one showing up to Biden raliies and Biden picking fights with people who challenge him and sniffing kids and has dementia I totally believe 80 million+ people voted for him! The most popular president ever! There was absolutely no fraud in the election whatsoever and who ever agrees is clearly a red neck white supremacist Trump supporting nazi bigot!


There's no evidence for widespread fraud in the 2020 election, and it's a good thing we don't pick our presidents by measuring rally turnout in the middle of a pandemic.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> A quick reminder that in 2020 the U.S. Federal Government contracted BlackRock Inc. to manage COVID relief funds, and handsomely compensated the company for managing debt and bonds. Fast forward to 2021, Blackrock Inc. is purchasing properties at 120-150% of the fair market price for the purposes of renting them out, and they're doing it at a staggering rate. In case you don't know what happened there, the government gave Blackrock Inc. a bunch of your money via subsidies and relief, and now Blackrock predictably is spending these proceeds on buying real estate that you will never be able to own, because that's the smart thing to do and you can't possibly blame them for taking advantage of a favourable market - one where nobody has any money after turning the economy down from an 11 to a 1 for a whole year. They're doing it with your money.


You continue to make my point for me.  Corporations control government and they keep feeding bootlickers just enough table scraps to keep them from rioting or calling for revolution, while at the same time shaking them down behind the scenes.



Foxi4 said:


> My broader point is "we should stop giving the government so much damned money", maybe then they'll stop using it against the people.


Corporate interests will continue to be well represented in government no matter how much money is left in the treasury.  All you're ultimately suggesting is cutting more necessities and social safety nets from the working class so that we have even more money to burn on corporate welfare.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 21, 2021)

Xzi said:


> You continue to make my point for me.  Corporations control government and they keep feeding bootlickers just enough table scraps to keep them from rioting or calling for revolution, while at the same time shaking them down behind the scenes.
> 
> Corporate interests will continue to be well represented in government no matter how much money is left in the treasury.  All you're ultimately suggesting is cutting more necessities and social safety nets from the working class so that we have even more money to burn on corporate welfare.


Not sure what to tell you. Last time people set up some gallows in front of Congress everyone was all upset about it, now I don't know what you guys want. 

Jokes aside, back to Scott. His primary reason to vote one way or the other was economic policy, he's very clear about that. Ties a nice bow around the whole story - I like the guys that leave more money in my pockets.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 21, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Well of cooooooooooourse not! Despite Trump rallies being full and no one showing up to Biden raliies and Biden picking fights with people who challenge him and sniffing kids and has dementia I totally believe 80 million+ people voted for him! The most popular president ever! There was absolutely no fraud in the election whatsoever and who ever agrees is clearly a red neck white supremacist Trump supporting nazi bigot!


I was actually joking


----------



## Xzi (Jun 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Not sure what to tell you. Last time people set up some gallows in front of Congress everyone was all upset about it, now I don't know what you guys want.


A Trump dictatorship would've only cemented corporate power in government even further, the man is practically a corporation unto himself.  Though perhaps it might've also accelerated the timeline on what we really need: a workers' revolution.  Hard to know with hypotheticals.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 21, 2021)

Xzi said:


> A Trump dictatorship would've only cemented corporate power in government even further, the man is practically a corporation unto himself.  Though perhaps it might've also accelerated the timeline on what we really need: a workers' revolution.  Hard to know with hypotheticals.


Big yikes on that one, but still, a nice conclusion to the exchange - nobody changed their mind and we had a good laugh along the way.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 21, 2021)

The truth is I am Melania Trump and how dare you all to say that about my husband The Donald
How dare you
I am a spy for the Donald 
you shall all be ashamed for insulting the Donald


----------



## Xzi (Jun 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Big yikes on that one, but still, a nice conclusion to the exchange - nobody changed their mind and we had a good laugh along the way.


Yikes indeed, we shouldn't need to speak of revolution (even hypothetically) when all people want is quality public education, healthcare, and infrastructure; things that every other first-world nation already has and has had for quite some time.  But that pesky uniparty controlled by corporations keeps ignoring our basic humanity and backing us further and further into a corner, so here we are.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 22, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yikes indeed, we shouldn't need to speak of revolution (even hypothetically) when all people want is quality public education, healthcare, and infrastructure; things that every other first-world nation already has and has had for quite some time.  But that pesky uniparty controlled by corporations keeps ignoring our basic humanity and backing us further and further into a corner, so here we are.


All I want is a politician that actually looks out for everyone's needs 
and I mean *everyone*


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Jun 22, 2021)

The guy who literally said (and implemented policy regarding this) that doctors have a choice in whether or not they would like to provide care for transgender patients is somehow pro-LGBT according to his cult. This is absurd. Imagine going to a doctor and him being like "I don't like people with black shirts, your shirt is black so I won't help you" while you bleed out on the floor. Wild.

Edit: Should state that this was challenged by courts and ruled unconstitutional, but holy shit.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There's no evidence for widespread fraud in the 2020 election, and it's a good thing we don't pick our presidents by measuring rally turnout in the middle of a pandemic.


Well of course there wasn't, just like I said in my post. No fraud whatsoever.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 22, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Well of course there wasn't, just like I said in my post. No fraud whatsoever.


And I'm just saying, unsarcastically, that there actually wasn't.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 22, 2021)

Nice!


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 24, 2021)

Guys I just realized former Mozilla CEO left for the same reason


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Guys I just realized former Mozilla CEO left for the same reason


Not quite the same reason, but close. Brendan Eich gave money specifically to anti-gay causes, and people responded appropriately to his bigotry. They rightfully condemned his actions, people started boycotting Firefox, and websites like OkCupid displayed a warning message about Brendan Eich's deplorable actions and recommended switching internet browsers. Brendan Eich rightfully stepped down so as not to pull Mozilla down with him.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Not quite the same reason, but close. Brendan Eich gave money specifically to anti-gay causes, and people responded appropriately to his bigotry. They rightfully condemned his actions, people started boycotting Firefox, and websites like OkCupid displayed a warning message about Brendan Eich's deplorable actions and recommended switching internet browsers. Brendan Eich rightfully stepped down so as not to pull Mozilla down with him.


I wonder if they'll do the a
same for Brave


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> I wonder if they'll do the a
> same for Brave


For there to be consequences against a browser, people have to actually be using the browser first.

In all seriousness, if I had any desire to use Brave (I don't), I wouldn't because he's involved.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 25, 2021)

Lacius said:


> For there to be consequences against a browser, people have to actually be using the browser first.
> 
> In all seriousness, if I had any desire to use Brave (I don't), I wouldn't because he's involved.


I'm addicted to switching browsers


----------



## Lacius (Jun 25, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> I'm addicted to switching browsers


Chrome, Edge, and Firefox are the big ones. I recommend using whichever one of those you like most.

Based on your previous posts, Firefox is probably the browser for you. I personally use Chrome.


----------



## Squidge (Jun 25, 2021)

Lmao this is what happens when you support terrible people: people think you're terrible and you suffer the social consequences for it. Good riddance, sucks to suck.


----------



## Magnus87 (Jun 25, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> I'm addicted to switching browsers


I used IE5, then jumped to Netscape and finally to Firefox. I tried to use Chrome but I never liked it, so I continue with my dear fox on fire. I'm even using the Nightly version.


----------



## djpannda (Jun 25, 2021)

I use TOR.. the only way to go


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 25, 2021)

Magnus87 said:


> I used IE5, then jumped to Netscape and finally to Firefox. I tried to use Chrome but I never liked it, so I continue with my dear fox on fire. I'm even using the Nightly version.


Mozilla became a bitch recently


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2021)

God bless this man.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 26, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> God bless this man.


Scott Cawthon?


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jun 26, 2021)

conservatives: wait so donating to republicans makes you [insert bigotry type republican politicians support]

Yes.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 26, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> conservatives: wait so donating to republicans makes you [insert bigotry type republican politicians support]
> 
> Yes.


How dare you donate to Trump!


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 26, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> conservatives: wait so donating to republicans makes you [insert bigotry type republican politicians support]
> 
> Yes.


Why are you being such a bigot?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 26, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> conservatives: wait so donating to republicans makes you [insert bigotry type republican politicians support]
> 
> Yes.


If that's the case donating to democrats makes you a dirty genocidal communist then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jun 26, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> If that's the case donating to democrats makes you a dirty genocidal communist then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


ah yes
why, just today, a democrat finished off their PeopleSlaughterer42000 with all the money they seized from their systematic collectivisation of every commodity in america


WiiMiiSwitch said:


> How dare you donate to Trump!


making it always about trump
hysterical reply guys are crazy


Purple_Shyguy said:


> Why are you being such a bigot?


"isn't your intolerance of my intolerance... _also intolerance???_"


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 27, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> ah yes
> why, just today, a democrat finished off their PeopleSlaughterer42000 with all the money they seized from their systematic collectivisation of every commodity in america
> 
> making it always about trump
> ...


Being a trump supporter isn't intolerance. Being intolerant of anyone who supported Trump is intolerant.

Shake my head. Such bigotry.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 27, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Being a trump supporter isn't intolerance. Being intolerant of anyone who supported Trump is intolerant.
> 
> Shake my head. Such bigotry.


Someone will come at you and say something like 
"he hates gays"


----------



## Lacius (Jun 27, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Being a trump supporter isn't intolerance. Being intolerant of anyone who supported Trump is intolerant.
> 
> Shake my head. Such bigotry.


Being a Trump supporter means you support his intolerance and his intolerant policies.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Someone will come at you and say something like
> "he hates gays"


The former president's policies were demonstrably and objectively anti-LGBT.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 27, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Being a Trump supporter means you support his intolerance and his intolerant policies.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Being a Trump supporter doesn't mean you support everything he does


----------



## Lacius (Jun 27, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Being a Trump supporter doesn't mean you support everything he does


To support for the former president is to at least accept or tolerate his anti-LGBT policies. If you believe Trump supporters aren't anti-LGBT or indifferent to LGBT rights, I've got a bridge to sell you.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 27, 2021)

Lacius said:


> To support for the former president is to at least accept or tolerate his anti-LGBT policies. If you believe Trump supporters aren't anti-LGBT or indifferent to LGBT rights, I've got a bridge to sell you.


Let me stop you right there
I believe some hate LGBT some don't 
Some do, look on Facebook
I also believe Biden is racist


----------



## Reynardine (Jun 27, 2021)

DinohScene said:


> Let him support Trump.
> Seriously, there's a billion more important things going on in the world then a gamedev supporting Trump...


That's the best comment I've read in a long time. I'm so tired of people getting upset over this and that.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Let me stop you right there
> I believe some hate LGBT some don't
> Some do, look on Facebook
> I also believe Biden is racist


Again, if a person supports the former president, then they are at least tolerant of his anti-LGBT agenda, for example. There is nothing that excuses support for the former president.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Reynardine said:


> That's the best comment I've read in a long time. I'm so tired of people getting upset over this and that.


Just because there are "a billion more important things going on" doesn't mean Scott's actions aren't deserving of condemnation.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Jun 28, 2021)

Guess people don't understand it's possible to care about more than one thing at a time.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Again, if a person supports the former president, then they are at least tolerant of his anti-LGBT agenda, for example. There is nothing that excuses support for the former president.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


If you support Biden, then you think that voting against him means you aren't black

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

See, you're overlooking it


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> If you support Biden, then you think that voting against him means you aren't black
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> See, you're overlooking it



There's a big difference between the Biden comments you're talking about and being racist.
There's a big difference between the Biden comments you're talking about and having anti-Black policies.
Biden already apologized for and took back those comments, which is not something the former president did with regard to any of his bigoted comments and policies.
False equivocations and whataboutism don't do anything to defend support for the former president.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Sophie-bear said:


> Guess people don't understand it's possible to care about more than one thing at a time.


It's possible to care about something while also throwing the LGBT community, racial minorities, Muslims, immigrants, immigrant children, the poor, COVID-19 fatalities, democracy, women, the environment, etc. under the bus. Saying you disagree with one or more of these things doesn't defend supporting the former president.

There is no excuse for supporting the former president.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Being a Trump supporter means you support his intolerance and his intolerant policies.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Trump was pro gay marriage though. Even Obama was against gay marriage for 7 of his 8 years in office. And he only changed that tune becusse the law was changing regardless of his opinions anyway.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> There's a big difference between the Biden comments you're talking about and being racist.
> There's a big difference between the Biden comments you're talking about and having anti-Black policies.
> Biden already apologized for and took back those comments, which is not something the former president did with regard to any of his bigoted comments and policies.
> False equivocations and whataboutism don't do anything to defend support for the former president.
> ...



Lmao literally "it's ok when Biden does it"

Umm, Biden has kids in cages right now, sweetie.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Jun 28, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Trump was pro gay marriage though. Even Obama was against gay marriage for 7 of his 8 years in office. And he only changed that tune becusse the law was changing regardless of his opinions anyway.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Saying you're pro-LGBT then signing anti-LGBT legislation to own the libs. Go Trump!? Hahaha. He wanted to ban trans people from military service, ban gay adoption, and allow doctors the choice whether or not to provide care for people based on the patient's LGBTQ status/identity. Real champion for the gays.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 28, 2021)

Sophie-bear said:


> Saying you're pro-LGBT then signing anti-LGBT legislation to own the libs. Go Trump!? Hahaha. He wanted to ban trans people from military service, ban gay adoption, and allow doctors the choice whether or not to provide care for people based on the patient's LGBTQ status/identity. Real champion for the gays.



Absolutely no context missing on all those things listed there at all right?


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Jun 28, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Absolutely no context missing on all those things listed there at all right?


Oh yeah, he cited medical expenses for the trans military ban. There's no real basis for that argument and basically every military general disagreed with the decision, which was also found to be unconstitutional. The latter two, "religious freedom", because gay people should not have rights if Christians don't want them to.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 28, 2021)

Sophie-bear said:


> Oh yeah, he cited medical expenses for the trans military ban. There's no real basis for that argument and basically every military general disagreed with the decision, which was also found to be unconstitutional. The latter two, "religious freedom", because gay people should not have rights if Christians don't want them to.


So it was to save expenses and religious freedom? Don't see how this is homophobic to be honest. Did any of those pass? No? Ok then move on.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Jun 28, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> So it was to save expenses and religious freedom? Don't see how this is homophobic to be honest. Did any of those pass? No? Ok then move on.


That's not how this works. You're trying to say Trump is pro-gay, I gave examples how he's demonstrably not. Telling me to "move on" changes nothing about what he did, whether he was able to implement these examples or not.

And no, the real reason was to cater to ultra-conservative evangelical Christians, whose support he relied on. He won't tell you that, though.


----------



## Argonitious (Jun 28, 2021)

It's interesting (and also horrifying) seeing how ridiculous people in this thread are being. Some of you even seem to be happy Scott Cawthon had death threats against him.

At least in my book, a death threat is as bad as actual murder. No matter which side I look at this situation from, the people making  those threats are a MILLION times worse than Scott ever could be. I don't care how controversial the guy's views were. I honestly wish whoever threatened him was imprisoned for a very long time.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 28, 2021)

Argonitious said:


> It's interesting (and also horrifying) seeing how ridiculous people in this thread are being. Some of you even seem to be happy Scott Cawthon had death threats against him.
> 
> At least in my book, a death threat is as bad as actual murder. No matter which side I look at this situation from, the people making  those threats are a MILLION times worse than Scott ever could be. I don't care how controversial the guy's views were. I honestly wish whoever threatened him was imprisoned for a very long time.



But he gave money to orange man. And orange man bad. Therefore Five Nights man bad. Very bad. Racist and sexist!


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 28, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Trump was pro gay marriage though. Even Obama was against gay marriage for 7 of his 8 years in office. And he only changed that tune becusse the law was changing regardless of his opinions anyway.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


He has kids in cages?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Trump was pro gay marriage though. Even Obama was against gay marriage for 7 of his 8 years in office. And he only changed that tune becusse the law was changing regardless of his opinions anyway.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Trump was not pro-gay marriage. He made contradictory statements on the topic, and he called the issue "settled" and changed the topic when avoiding the issue. You can see my earlier post in this thread for an extensive list of all the ways the former president rolled back LGBT rights, and I don't remember if my post even included the anti-LGBT judges and justices he appointed. Go look at that post. If you believe the former president was in any way pro-LGBT, I've got a bridge to sell you. It's demonstrably untrue.

Obama was not against LGBT marriage for "7 out of 8 years of his presidency." He was personally against it for 3-4 years of his presidency, while never advocating for any anti-LGBT policies (In 2008, Obama was against the anti-same-sex marriage Proposition 8 in California, and he called for DOMA's repeal, for example). In fact, Obama advocated for numerous pro-LGBT policies during that time, including but not limited to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Let's also not forget that he appointed numerous pro-LGBT judges and Supreme Court justices. Obama's stance on same-sex marriage from 2009-2012 is similar to Biden's stance on abortion now: He's personally opposed, but he thinks it should be legal.

In 2012, Obama came out in full support of same-sex marriage, long before "the law changed" on the issue. The law only changed, in part, because of Obama.

There is a humanitarian crisis at the border as a direct result of the policies of the former president. At the beginning of Biden's term, there were a lot of unaccompanied minors at the border with very little space to put them. Those were the very foreseeable consequences of Trump's illegal asylum policies, and everyone knew back then that this would happen when those policies were inevitably repealed. Fortunately, the Biden administration has been working to actually do something about it, and the number of unaccompanied minors held at the border has dropped significantly as of this summer (the number has dropped 88%), and conditions have improved at the border.

On the same topic, Biden was not the one who instituted the inhumane family separation policy that forcefully ripped children from their families and kept them in poor conditions, all without a formal plan to reunite families. The Biden administration continues to make progress reuniting those families.

Your comments, particularly the ones on LGBT views, are verifiably untrue.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Argonitious said:


> It's interesting (and also horrifying) seeing how ridiculous people in this thread are being. Some of you even seem to be happy Scott Cawthon had death threats against him.
> 
> At least in my book, a death threat is as bad as actual murder. No matter which side I look at this situation from, the people making  those threats are a MILLION times worse than Scott ever could be. I don't care how controversial the guy's views were. I honestly wish whoever threatened him was imprisoned for a very long time.


I haven't read every post in this thread, but I've read a lot of them, and I haven't seen anyone condone harassment or death threats. All I've seen condoned is the rightful condemnation of his actions.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jun 28, 2021)

Reynardine said:


> That's the best comment I've read in a long time. I'm so tired of people getting upset over this and that.


remember when "this and that" didn't cover "supporting the continued transfer of wealth and power to an elite few at the direct expense of everyone else"


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> But he gave money to orange man. And orange man bad. Therefore Five Nights man bad. Very bad. Racist and sexist!


If a person gives money to a sexist and racist candidate, then that person gets to be held accountable for giving money to a candidate who is racist and sexist. It's not difficult to understand.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jun 28, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> He has kids in cages?


yes
it continues to be a reality that the ruling parties of the united states are both right-wing and generally only agree on issues where most suffer, like warfare and governmental oversight
only a select few insurgent candidates are any kind of left-wing, and even they are constantly compromising their beliefs to play politics



Purple_Shyguy said:


> But he gave money to orange man. And orange man bad. Therefore Five Nights man bad. Very bad. Racist and sexist!


the dude gave weapons to saudi arabia in exchange for payouts at his hotels for fuck's sake
how hard is it to shut your eyes that tightly, you'd think your eyelids would fucking detonate from the pressure


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 28, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> yes
> it continues to be a reality that the ruling parties of the united states are both right-wing and generally only agree on issues where most suffer, like warfare and governmental oversight
> only a select few insurgent candidates are any kind of left-wing, and even they are constantly compromising their beliefs to play politics
> That sucks
> ...


----------



## Reynardine (Jun 28, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> remember when "this and that" didn't cover "supporting the continued transfer of wealth and power to an elite few at the direct expense of everyone else"


I don't like Trump, but people should be free to vote for whoever they choose to. There is no need to go witch hunting after someone who supports an unpopular candidate. 

Maybe things are different in the states, I don't know. Maybe Trump is a special case. I was just saying that I'm tired of people getting upset over every single fault in a person.

Saying things like "good riddance" when a game developer who supported Trump retires seems uncalled for to me.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 28, 2021)

Reynardine said:


> I don't like Trump, but people should be free to vote for whoever they choose to. There is no need to go witch hunting after someone who supports an unpopular candidate.
> 
> Maybe things are different in the states, I don't know. Maybe Trump is a special case. I was just saying that I'm tired of people getting upset over every single fault in a person.
> 
> Saying things like "good riddance" when a game developer who supported Trump retires seems uncalled for to me.


Exactly. This was also supposed to be private but it was leaked, unfortunate how OpenSECRETS.ORG HATES PRIVACY


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2021)

Reynardine said:


> I don't like Trump, but people should be free to vote for whoever they choose to. There is no need to go witch hunting after someone who supports an unpopular candidate.
> 
> Maybe things are different in the states, I don't know. Maybe Trump is a special case. I was just saying that I'm tired of people getting upset over every single fault in a person.
> 
> Saying things like "good riddance" when a game developer who supported Trump retires seems uncalled for to me.





WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Exactly. This was also supposed to be private but it was leaked, unfortunate how OpenSECRETS.ORG HATES PRIVACY


Nobody is saying people aren't free to vote for or give money to whomever they choose. However, that right doesn't mean they're free from criticism. If a person supports or gives money to a deplorable candidate, condemnation and boycotts are more than justified. If Scott didn't want that to happen, he didn't have to financially support a deplorable wannabe-despot.

Good riddance to Scott and anybody else who financially supports candidates who are anti-LGBT, anti-woman, anti-Black, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-immigrant child, anti-environment, anti-poor, and anti-democracy.

Whether or not the information was "leaked" is irrelevant to whether or not the action was deplorable. It should be noted that there are very specific election finance laws in this country involving disclosure, and as far as I'm aware, this wasn't a "leak."


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Nobody is saying people aren't free to vote for or give money to whomever they choose. However, that right doesn't mean they're free from criticism. If a person supports or gives money to a deplorable candidate, condemnation and boycotts are more than justified. If Scott didn't want that to happen, he didn't have to financially support a deplorable wannabe-despot.
> 
> Good riddance to Scott and anybody else who financially supports candidates who are anti-LGBT, anti-woman, anti-Black, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-immigrant child, anti-environment, anti-poor, and anti-democracy.
> 
> Whether or not the information was "leaked" is irrelevant to whether or not the action was deplorable. It should be noted that there are very specific election finance laws in this country involving disclosure, and as far as I'm aware, this wasn't a "leak."


Trump may have been racist at one point but so was Biden. Many Black People voted for Trump. LGBT is hard to discuss as he has;t did anything major unless it came to transgenders. Woman yes, but that's changing as well. Trump might be racist and sexist but he tries to hide it and he hasn't brought back segeration


----------



## Reynardine (Jun 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Nobody is saying people aren't free to vote for or give money to whomever they choose. However, that right doesn't mean they're free from criticism. If a person supports or gives money to a deplorable candidate, condemnation and boycotts are more than justified. If Scott didn't want that to happen, he didn't have to financially support a deplorable wannabe-despot.
> 
> Good riddance to Scott and anybody else who financially supports candidates who are anti-LGBT, anti-woman, anti-Black, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-immigrant child, anti-environment, anti-poor, and anti-democracy.
> 
> Whether or not the information was "leaked" is irrelevant to whether or not the action was deplorable. It should be noted that there are very specific election finance laws in this country involving disclosure, and as far as I'm aware, this wasn't a "leak."


We have differing stances on this, but I see what you mean.

Personally I try to avoid condemning people, if it turns out that I was too quick to judge and in error the damage has been done already. It is so easy to misjudge people nowadays and once a news has spread online it never goes away.


I do have a serious question though. Is it possible for someone to support Trump without being anti-LGBT, anti-Black and so on? Does supporting Trump mean you have to personally agree with all of his views?

The reason I ask is I have relatives in America that voted for Trump. Not because they are racist or anti-LGBT but for the simple reason that they were dependend on Mr Trump's factory. In the middle of nowhere entire towns may depend on a single work place like that.

It appears that this was one of the reasons the poor working class was somewhat supportive of Trump. If I am mixing anything up here I apologize, but that's what I've been told.

In that regard, do we know that Scott shares Trump's views?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Trump may have been racist at one point but so was Biden.



Trump has said overtly racist things without ever apologizing for them.
Trump has racist policies he enacted or tried to enact.
Biden has never said anything overtly racist, that I'm aware of.

Biden has never said anything potentially racist, that I'm aware of, that he didn't apologize for and take back.
I'm unaware of any of Biden's policies that are racist.



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Many Black People voted for Trump.



Only 12% of Black people who voted in 2020 voted for Trump.
87% of Black voters voted for Biden in 2020.
Whether or not some of the people in a group voted for a particular candidate has no bearing on whether or not that candidate is racist or deplorable.



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> LGBT is hard to discuss as he has;t did anything major unless it came to transgenders.


It's like you didn't even read my earlier post, even though you "liked" it.


Lacius said:


> Trump does not support any part of the LGBT community. You might be able to find some comments here and there about how he supports the LGBT community, but actions speak louder than words. At every chance he had, he did what he could to strip rights away from the LGBT community. They spent years ignoring Pride Month. As soon as the former president was sworn in, LGBT resource pages on the White House website were removed. They tried to remove LGBT questions from the census in order to erase LGBT people. They tried to remove LGBT people from the equal employment policies at the commerce department. They banned trans people from the military for no reason other than to be anti-LGBT. They ordered the Department of Education to remove anti-discrimination policies relating to LGBT people. They explicitly said they'd reject civil rights complaints at the Department of Education relating to LGBT issues. They gave federal funds to private schools that explicitly discriminate against LGBT people. They removed healthcare protections for LGBT people, effectively making it so anyone could refuse health care to anybody who is LGBT, for any reason. They established an office within HHS to specifically defend people who refused medical care to LGBT people. They granted federal funds to foster programs that discriminated against LGBT people. They engaged in an outright effort to specifically erase trans people from all existing protections and acknowledgements online. They ordered the CDC to stop using words like "transgender." They created a rule to stop doing data collection on LGBT foster youth, creating significant impediments to helping them, all for no reason but to cause harm. They ordered the removal of questions relating to LGBT people from forms belonging to programs that help the elderly and disabled, hindering the ability to help those people's specific needs as well. They ordered the removal of anti-discrimination policies relating to LGBT people from HUD. They ordered HUD to permit shelters to deny entry to trans people. They ordered the cancellation of HUD surveys relating to LGBT needs. They ordered the Justice Department to argue in court against anti-LGBT discrimination. They rolled back previously existing protections for LGBT people in prisons. They rolled back anti-discrimination policies affecting LGBT federal contractors. They ordered the denial of visas to same-sex partners of diplomats. They ordered a rule change so that a child born of a same-sex couple born overseas via a surrogate wouldn't be eligible for US citizenship. They removed the US from the UN Human Rights Council with one of the main reasons being because of LGBT issues (they were friendly to LGBT people and LGBT issues). They refused to sign a statement condemning physical attacks against LGBT people overseas. They ordered the removal of a pro-LGBT program in the 4H program, hurting LGBT children. They've nominated numerous justices, including ones even controversial among the Republican Party, who are vehemently anti-LGBT. Under their policies, ICE as specifically mistreated LGBT inmates in their custody. They did and said nothing relating to anti-trans violence and murders in this country.
> 
> I try to remember that the amount of ignorance needed to make a statement like "the former president was actually pro-gay" comes from a place of privilege, not a place of malice, but it was incredibly offensive.





WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Woman yes, but that's changing as well.


What's changing? Trump hasn't changed anything about is view of women, how he treats women, etc. His policies and judicial nominees were anti-woman.



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Trump might be racist and sexist but he tries to hide it and he hasn't brought back segeration



If the only bar a politician can clear is "well, he hasn't brought back segregation," that's a low bar, and anybody who financially supports that candidate should be criticized.
Trump's policies do indeed foster segregation in various aspects of life. To this day, Trump is promoting policies that result in segregation at the voting booth, for example.



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Trump might be racist and sexist


These are all good enough reasons alone to condemn anyone who supports Trump financially.



Reynardine said:


> Personally I try to avoid condemning people, if it turns out that I was too quick to judge and in error the damage has been done already. It is so easy to misjudge people nowadays and once a news has spread online it never goes away.


If deplorable behavior is not condemned, then it will continue. There is no room for silence when it comes to social justice. Those who are silent on the issues being discussed in this thread are part of the problem.

I hear your point about not wanting to be too quick to judge, condemn, etc., but you have to agree that there are actions undeniably deserving of criticism.

The issue of Scott's political donations also isn't complicated. For whatever reason, Scott decided to support a candidate who said and did deplorable things. At best, Scott supported some things but merely tolerated and accepted the other deplorable things. At worst, he supported some or all of the deplorable things. Both are deserving of condemnation.



Reynardine said:


> I do have a serious question though. Is it possible for someone to support Trump without being anti-LGBT, anti-Black and so on? Does supporting Trump mean you have to personally agree with all of his views?


Supporting a candidate definitely does not mean you support everything that candidate says/does, but if you support a candidate who is anti-LGBT, anti-Black, etc., it means you at least tolerate those things in that candidate. Being anti-LGBT, anti-Black, etc. are inexcusable, and supporting a candidate who embodies these types of bigotry (and others) is also inexcusable.

For example, I support Joe Biden. I voted for him twice for Vice President and once for President. However, he was not my first choice during the 2020 primary elections (he wasn't my second or third choices either). I support candidates who support Medicare for All, for starters, and Biden does not support Medicare for All. While I don't like that about Joe Biden, I tolerate it. Biden and I are 80-90% in alignment on policies, and it was nearly incalculable how much better he was than Trump.



Reynardine said:


> The reason I ask is I have relatives in America that voted for Trump. Not because they are racist or anti-LGBT but for the simple reason that they were dependend on Mr Trump's factory. In the middle of nowhere entire towns may depend on a single work place like that.


A person who votes for Trump might have what they believe to be a good reason for doing so, but a.) That reason probably isn't a good one, and b.) Even if the reason was a good one (it probably wasn't), it requires them to throw a lot under the bus for it. It requires throwing LGBT people under the bus, women under the bus, Black people under the bus, immigrants under the bus, immigrant children under the bus, people likely to die of COVID-19 under the bus, the environment under the bus, poor people under the bus, etc.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say "Mr. Trump's factory." If you're talking about a factory owned and operated by Trump, that wouldn't cease because he lost the election. If you're talking about factory jobs more broadly, Trump was demonstrably bad for manufacturing jobs.

There is not excuse for supporting the former president, and it's deserving of criticism.



Reynardine said:


> It appears that this was one of the reasons the poor working class was somewhat supportive of Trump.


A lot of working class people voted for Trump, and for various reasons. He said a lot of things that made it sound like he was a populist, even though he isn't one. He said a lot of things, and made a lot of promises, to the American working class, and he tricked them into voting against their best interests. His tax breaks went disproportionately to the rich, he destroyed farming jobs and had to bail out farmers as a consequence of his own idiotic policies, he failed to preserve factory jobs, he utterly mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic and caused/exacerbated an economic downturn. This wasn't a politician who was for the working class, despite what he said. Trump said a lot of things he didn't mean. Pay attention to what people do, not what they say.

Pretending a candidate was for the working class, does it excuse blatant bigotry against LGBT people, Black people, women, etc.? No.


----------



## Reynardine (Jun 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Trump has said overtly racist things without ever apologizing for them.
> Trump has racist policies he enacted or tried to enact.
> Biden has never said anything overtly racist, that I'm aware of.
> 
> ...


Definitely agree with you. But people are selfish, first and foremost. If they think that voting Trump will benefit them other matters like support for minorities are of lesser consequence to them unless they are personally affected.

From what I have seen in the media so far president Biden has come as a bit of relief after all the damage caused by Trump. Trying to get things back on track. I'm happy that Trump is out of the race now. The republicans should have let him fall to save face, but many of them did not.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Nobody is saying people aren't free to vote for or give money to whomever they choose. However, that right doesn't mean they're free from criticism. If a person supports or gives money to a deplorable candidate, condemnation and boycotts are more than justified. If Scott didn't want that to happen, he didn't have to financially support a deplorable wannabe-despot.
> 
> Good riddance to Scott and anybody else who financially supports candidates who are anti-LGBT, anti-woman, anti-Black, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-immigrant child, anti-environment, anti-poor, and anti-democracy.
> 
> Whether or not the information was "leaked" is irrelevant to whether or not the action was deplorable. It should be noted that there are very specific election finance laws in this country involving disclosure, and as far as I'm aware, this wasn't a "leak."


You're literally saying 80,000,000 people are deplorable sexist racist bigots because they voted the opposite to you.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> You're literally saying 80,000,000 people are deplorable sexist racist bigots because they voted the opposite to you.


I am saying 74,216,154 people did something deplorable and deserving of condemnation, yes. I didn't say they were deplorable people, I didn't say they were sexists, I didn't say they were racists, and I didn't say they were bigots.

You can round Trump's votes to 70 million, not 80 million. Biden is the one who got over 81 million votes.


----------



## Argonitious (Jun 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I haven't read every post in this thread, but I've read a lot of them, and I haven't seen anyone condone harassment or death threats. All I've seen condoned is the rightful condemnation of his actions.



I probably misunderstood the posts I've read. I've quoted examples from the first 3 pages. To me, they are vague enough that they sound like they mostly approve of this situation (including the harassment and threats). Even your first post in this thread sounded that way to me.



templeofhylia said:


> good riddance <3





D34DL1N3R said:


> Good. Not because of his political choices, but because those games are (imo) garbage.





Lacius said:


> Good riddance to this guy. Deplorable behavior should be met with condemnation.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I am saying 74,216,154 people did something deplorable and deserving of condemnation, yes. I didn't say they were deplorable people, I didn't say they were sexists, I didn't say they were racists, and I didn't say they were bigots.
> 
> You can round Trump's votes to 70 million, not 80 million. Biden is the one who got over 81 million votes.


74 million people had to vote for a reason. I agree with you on them not being sexists or racist, but it could have just been because they hated Biden. Can you blame them though. Biden seems unhealthy and unready to be President. Everyone voted for a reason. Besides, this was supposed to be private, unfortunately OpenSecrets is a bitch


----------



## kevin corms (Jun 28, 2021)

DinohScene said:


> Let him support Trump.
> Seriously, there's a billion more important things going on in the world then a gamedev supporting Trump...


I find it beyond disturbing that supporting Biden is acceptable but supporting Trump isn't. Does anyone actually pay attention to anything?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Mark McDonut said:


> I don't agree with the threats, but you can't donate to the Death Star then get surprised that people look at you like an Imperial Stormtrooper.
> 
> Money is free speech after all, and free speech doesn't stop you from getting punched in the mouth for what you said.


Free speech != punching people in the face.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 28, 2021)

kevin corms said:


> I find it beyond disturbing that supporting Biden is acceptable but supporting Trump isn't. Does anyone actually pay attention to anything?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Let's get rid of  cancel culture and aggressive politics one step at a time


----------



## kevin corms (Jun 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Trump has said overtly racist things without ever apologizing for them.
> Trump has racist policies he enacted or tried to enact.
> Biden has never said anything overtly racist, that I'm aware of.
> 
> ...


Biden has said much more racist things than Trump ever has, he has actually enacted racist laws... the worst being the 1994 crime bill.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 28, 2021)

kevin corms said:


> Biden has said much more racist things than Trump ever has, he has actually enacted racist laws... the worst being the 1994 crime bill.


those poor people
Trump freed them I believe


----------



## kevin corms (Jun 28, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> those poor people
> Trump freed them I believe


Like it or not, he did start prison reform.. which is much more than Biden has ever done to help anyone so far in his long career. Trump is a low bar, I dont think Biden even clears it though. I think people talking politics should at least look into what politicians have done beyond propaganda from cable news.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 28, 2021)

kevin corms said:


> Like it or not, he did start prison reform.. which is much more than Biden has ever done to help anyone so far in his long career. Trump is a low bar, I dont think Biden even clears it though.


Hi kids I'm Joe Biden, remember if you do not support me you are not black
Can I sniff you?


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 28, 2021)

God Bless Scott


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 28, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> God Bless Scott


For what?


----------



## kevin corms (Jun 28, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Hi kids I'm Joe Biden, remember if you do not support me you are not black
> Can I sniff you?


"poor kids are just as smart as white kids!"
"
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

—_ Joe Biden, describing fellow candidate Barack Obama. The remark was made the same day Biden filed the official paperwork to launch his presidential campaign."

"Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions built so high that it is going to explode at some point."

and on and on....

I wanted Bernie, screw anyone who supported Biden and thinks they did something good.. he is literally the worst._


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 28, 2021)

kevin corms said:


> "poor kids are just as smart as white kids!"


----------



## gokuguy (Jun 28, 2021)

kevin corms said:


> "poor kids are just as smart as white kids!"


Ah, one of many slip-ups he has made on the ice rink that is public television.

As far as Scott goes, I'm not a fan of the games themselves, but I am impressed at the narrative he has created for them. If he'd rather stay away from the game dev scene in the future, I fully support his decision. He may not have planned everything he has placed in the FNAF plot, but he has done a dang good job of making additions along the way.


----------



## kevin corms (Jun 28, 2021)

gokuguy said:


> Ah, one of many slip-ups he has made on the ice rink that is public television.
> 
> As far as Scott goes, I'm not a fan of the games themselves, but I am impressed at the narrative he has created through them. If he'd rather stay away from the game dev scene in the future, I fully support his decision. He may not have planned everything he has placed in the FNAF plot, but he has done a dang good job of making additions along the way.


When you are a racist you tend to let racist things slip out. Its not just what he says, its what he does.. pay attention dammit. Hes the type of white liberal that Malcolm X was talking about.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 28, 2021)

kevin corms said:


> When you are a racist you tend to let racist things slip out.


_you’ve got the first sort of main stream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and nice looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man._

To Biden, a clean and bright African American is like something out of fiction.

A Black President is a fiction?


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 28, 2021)

kevin corms said:


> When you are a racist you tend to let racist things slip out. Its not just what he says, its what he does.. pay attention dammit. Hes the type of white liberal that Malcolm X was talking about.


His VP iso one of the most racist people in the USA after all


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 28, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> His VP iso one of the most racist people in the USA after all


Fuck Kamala Harris
I don't think she's racist
Just an asshole


----------



## kevin corms (Jun 28, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> _you’ve got the first sort of main stream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and nice looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man._
> 
> To Biden, a clean and bright African American is like something out of fiction.
> 
> A Black President is a fiction?


There was also this rant  I could do this all day...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Fuck Kamala Harris
> I don't think she's racist
> Just an asshole


She hates everyone.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 28, 2021)

kevin corms said:


> There was also this rant  I could do this all day...
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



wtf lol


----------



## gokuguy (Jun 28, 2021)

kevin corms said:


> When you are a racist you tend to let racist things slip out. Its not just what he says, its what he does.. pay attention dammit. Hes the type of white liberal that Malcolm X was talking about.


I agree 100%. Never did I say these slip ups were to be ignored. Whether it be that his mind is growing weaker in his old age or that he doesn't care enough to watch himself in public, unlike other politicians, he has a hard time hiding his true colors. Its a shame that even with this transparency, he has gotten to where he is today.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 28, 2021)

Quick reminder that Trump won an award alongside Mohammed Ali and ROSA PARKS in* celebration of 'patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity.'*


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2021)

Argonitious said:


> I probably misunderstood the posts I've read. I've quoted examples from the first 3 pages. To me, they are vague enough that they sound like they mostly approve of this situation (including the harassment and threats). Even your first post in this thread sounded that way to me.


There is nothing in these posts that advocate for harassment, death threats, etc.



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> 74 million people had to vote for a reason. I agree with you on them not being sexists or racist, but it could have just been because they hated Biden. Can you blame them though.


Yes. What they did is deplorable, regardless of why they did it. There's no defense for it.



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Besides, this was supposed to be private, unfortunately OpenSecrets is a bitch


Like I said in a previous post, it doesn't matter if it was meant to be secret or not. It was still deplorable.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



kevin corms said:


> Biden has said much more racist things than Trump ever has, he has actually enacted racist laws... the worst being the 1994 crime bill.



I can't think of anything Biden has said that comes close to the racism of the former president.
Trump enacted racist policies.
It's a stretch to say the 1994 crime bill was "racist." It was not a perfect bill, and it may have arguably played a role in mass incarceration, but it had a lot of great things in it too, like the Violence Against Women Act, the part that Joe Biden actually sponsored.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Purple_Shyguy said:


> Quick reminder that Trump won an award alongside Mohammed Ali and ROSA PARKS in* celebration of 'patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity.'*


Trump was a business associate of NECO's founder, and the award was in the 1980s. This doesn't make it so Trump isn't a deplorable politician with racist and anti-LGBT policies.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Fuck Kamala Harris
> I don't think she's racist
> Just an asshole


What did she do to hurt you?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> His VP iso one of the most racist people in the USA after all


How is she racist?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> _you’ve got the first sort of main stream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and nice looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man._
> 
> To Biden, a clean and bright African American is like something out of fiction.
> 
> A Black President is a fiction?


He apologized for those comments.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Hi kids I'm Joe Biden, remember if you do not support me you are not black
> Can I sniff you?


He apologized for and took those comments back.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 28, 2021)

Reynardine said:


> We have differing stances on this, but I see what you mean.
> 
> Personally I try to avoid condemning people, if it turns out that I was too quick to judge and in error the damage has been done already. It is so easy to misjudge people nowadays and once a news has spread online it never goes away.
> 
> ...



The kids especially on this forum can't seem to get the fact that you can vote for someone or agree with someone on certain things, but that doesn't mean you agree with 100% of what they do or stand for. I think it's because of this LGBTQ stuff where you have to agree 100% with whatever is popular this month or you're labeled a bigot. The kids just fail to understand you can follow, like or vote for someone and not share 100% of their views, nor are required to. If a group of people are requiring you jump on command, bow to the leader and bah like the rest of the sheep I'd personally tell them to get fucked and find a new group of people to associate with. It's okay to be different. It's okay to have your own unique opinions.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Purple_Shyguy said:


> Quick reminder that Trump won an award alongside Mohammed Ali and ROSA PARKS in* celebration of 'patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity.'*



Honestly, all of the Trump is a racist or Trump is phobic were all leftist media lies. Most of what they tried to pass off as news was completely made up out of thin air.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 28, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Quick reminder that Trump won an award alongside Mohammed Ali and ROSA PARKS in* celebration of 'patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity.'*



Still better than having Boris Johnson, which is just the British version of Trump. My condolences.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> The kids especially on this forum can't seem to get the fact that you can vote for someone or agree with someone on certain things, but that doesn't mean you agree with 100% of what they do or stand for. I think it's because of this LGBTQ stuff where you have to agree 100% with whatever is popular this month or you're labeled a bigot. The kids just fail to understand you can follow, like or vote for someone and not share 100% of their views, nor are required to. If a group of people are requiring you jump on command, bow to the leader and bah like the rest of the sheep I'd personally tell them to get fucked and find a new group of people to associate with. It's okay to be different. It's okay to have your own unique opinions.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Trump was inarguably anti-LGBT, for example, and if a person voted for him, they either agreed with his homophobia, or they accepted his homophobia. Both are deplorable. As for how he was anti-LGBT, here's my previous post on the topic:



Lacius said:


> Trump does not support any part of the LGBT community. You might be able to find some comments here and there about how he supports the LGBT community, but actions speak louder than words. At every chance he had, he did what he could to strip rights away from the LGBT community. They spent years ignoring Pride Month. As soon as the former president was sworn in, LGBT resource pages on the White House website were removed. They tried to remove LGBT questions from the census in order to erase LGBT people. They tried to remove LGBT people from the equal employment policies at the commerce department. They banned trans people from the military for no reason other than to be anti-LGBT. They ordered the Department of Education to remove anti-discrimination policies relating to LGBT people. They explicitly said they'd reject civil rights complaints at the Department of Education relating to LGBT issues. They gave federal funds to private schools that explicitly discriminate against LGBT people. They removed healthcare protections for LGBT people, effectively making it so anyone could refuse health care to anybody who is LGBT, for any reason. They established an office within HHS to specifically defend people who refused medical care to LGBT people. They granted federal funds to foster programs that discriminated against LGBT people. They engaged in an outright effort to specifically erase trans people from all existing protections and acknowledgements online. They ordered the CDC to stop using words like "transgender." They created a rule to stop doing data collection on LGBT foster youth, creating significant impediments to helping them, all for no reason but to cause harm. They ordered the removal of questions relating to LGBT people from forms belonging to programs that help the elderly and disabled, hindering the ability to help those people's specific needs as well. They ordered the removal of anti-discrimination policies relating to LGBT people from HUD. They ordered HUD to permit shelters to deny entry to trans people. They ordered the cancellation of HUD surveys relating to LGBT needs. They ordered the Justice Department to argue in court against anti-LGBT discrimination. They rolled back previously existing protections for LGBT people in prisons. They rolled back anti-discrimination policies affecting LGBT federal contractors. They ordered the denial of visas to same-sex partners of diplomats. They ordered a rule change so that a child born of a same-sex couple born overseas via a surrogate wouldn't be eligible for US citizenship. They removed the US from the UN Human Rights Council with one of the main reasons being because of LGBT issues (they were friendly to LGBT people and LGBT issues). They refused to sign a statement condemning physical attacks against LGBT people overseas. They ordered the removal of a pro-LGBT program in the 4H program, hurting LGBT children. They've nominated numerous justices, including ones even controversial among the Republican Party, who are vehemently anti-LGBT. Under their policies, ICE as specifically mistreated LGBT inmates in their custody. They did and said nothing relating to anti-trans violence and murders in this country.
> 
> I try to remember that the amount of ignorance needed to make a statement like "the former president was actually pro-gay" comes from a place of privilege, not a place of malice, but it was incredibly offensive.



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



kevin corms said:


> "poor kids are just as smart as white kids!"


We all know that wasn't what he meant to say, and there was also context before and after the statement that makes it a moot point regardless.


----------



## DoctorBagPhD (Jun 28, 2021)

Good, fuck 'im.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 28, 2021)

Kamala broke my heart
She said  "Polly, please fuck yourself,you will never amount to anything and your polls suck"


----------



## DoctorBagPhD (Jun 28, 2021)

Edit: Know what? I regret saying that. Sorry for taking the bait.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Kamala broke my heart
> She said  "Polly, please fuck yourself,you will never amount to anything and your polls suck"


Polly, please fuck yourself,you will never amount to anything and your polls suck


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Polly, please fuck yourself,you will never amount to anything and your polls suck


My polls are cool
just because you said that I'm donating to Trump


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> My polls are cool
> just because you said that I'm donating to Trump


He probably needs it, considering the debts that are coming due, the legal defense he's going to need to mount, and the possibility his businesses are going to be shut down.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> He probably needs it, considering the debts that are coming due, the legal defense he's going to need to mount, and the possibility his businesses are going to be shut down.


Good, as long as I'm not supporting Kamala after she insulted my POLLS


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I can't think of anything Biden has said that comes close to the racism of the former president.


Then explain this:
https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/fea.../2020-08-20-joe-bidens-six-decades-of-racism/

Because you claim Trump supporters ignore his supposed "racism" yet from what I've seen you do the same, ignore Joe Biden's racism when it's in your face. This is why I gave up on long winded arguments, because people like you will out right deny the facts that's right in your face after taking the time and energy to build up arguments and get evidence and I just don't have the time and energy anymore for this anymore, to just have it ignored and say "it's not true" even though it's right there.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Then explain this:
> https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/fea.../2020-08-20-joe-bidens-six-decades-of-racism/
> 
> Because you claim Trump supporters ignore his supposed "racism" yet from what I've seen you do the same, ignore Joe Biden's racism when it's in your face. This is why I gave up on long winded arguments, because people like you will out right deny the facts that's right in your face after taking the time and energy to build up arguments and get evidence and I just don't have the time and energy anymore for this anymore, to just have it ignored and say "it's not true" even though it's right there.


If you want me to respond to something about Biden's past, I'd appreciate it if you articulated the alleged instances yourself, instead of doing a quick Google Search for "Biden racist," grabbing the first link, posting it, and being proud of yourself. You can use whatever resources you want, but I'm not going to have a conversation with myself.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If you want me to respond to something about Biden's past, I'd appreciate it if you articulated the alleged instances yourself, instead of doing a quick Google Search for "Biden racist," grabbing the first link, posting it, and being proud of yourself. You can use whatever resources you want, but I'm not going to have a conversation with myself.


hey can you complement my polls
then I will vote for democrat in 2024


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> hey can you complement my polls
> then I will vote for democrat in 2024


You should vote Democratic regardless. What's more democratic than a poll anyway?


Spoiler


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You should vote Democratic regardless. What's more democratic than a poll anyway?
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Ok Now I am a democrat
Thank You
Time to get a Biden Sign


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If you want me to respond to something about Biden's past, I'd appreciate it if you articulated the alleged instances yourself, instead of doing a quick Google Search for "Biden racist," grabbing the first link, posting it, and being proud of yourself. You can use whatever resources you want, but I'm not going to have a conversation with myself.


You mean how like, a lot of people do here and outside this website? And you can't even open up a fucking link yourself? Yeah sometimes you need to quote, but you're not my teacher and you can read what's inside a link, or at least that's what I assume.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 29, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> You mean how like, a lot of people do here and outside this website? And you can't even open up a fucking link yourself? Yeah sometimes you need to quote, but you're not my teacher and you can read what's inside a link, or at least that's what I assume.


what does this do with me?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 29, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> what does this do with me?


I quoted you by mistake. I'm not sure how that happened tbh but I did edit it out, guess I wasn't fast enough, my bad.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 29, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I quoted you by mistake. I'm not sure how that happened tbh but I did edit it out, guess I wasn't fast enough, my bad.


Anyways I just became a Democrat because Lacius put polls and politics together


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 29, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Anyways I just became a Democrat because Lacius put polls and politics together


Be a republican, we have cookies and cake!

(imo be neither, or don't be concerned about labels and just do what's right. that's why some are either repub or dem in name only because of the ingrained two party system)


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 29, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Be a republican, we have cookies and cake!
> 
> (imo be neither, or don't be concerned about labels and just do what's right. that's why some are either repub or dem in name only because of the ingrained two party system)


do you have polls?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 29, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> do you have polls?


Yes, and we make sure they don't get hacked!


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> You mean how like, a lot of people do here and outside this website? And you can't even open up a fucking link yourself? Yeah sometimes you need to quote, but you're not my teacher and you can read what's inside a link, or at least that's what I assume.


I can read the article you posted, but I'm not having a conversation with the author of the article. I'm having a conversation with you. Again, feel free to post points from the article, and use the article as justification, but don't act like link-dropping without context isn't lazy.

I post links and articles all the time, but I at least make a point.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 29, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Yes, and we make sure they don't get hacked!


My polls always get hacked!


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> do you have polls?


Republicans went through 2016 and 2020 saying to distrust the polls, and they're spending 2021 saying to distrust the actual election results. I've never seen a party more anti-poll.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Republicans went through 2016 and 2020 saying to distrust the polls, and they're spending 2021 saying to distrust the actual election results. I've never seen a party more anti-poll.


I'll stay dem then
Bernie Sanders!


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I can read the article you posted, but I'm not having a conversation with the author of the article. I'm having a conversation with you. Again, feel free to post points from the article, and use the article as justification, but don't act like link-dropping without context isn't lazy.
> 
> I post links and articles all the time, but I at least make a point.


Sometimes the author of the article can get my point across. I don't know what more you want. It just seems like you're making more and more excuses just to justify you being right. Why would I need to repeat what's already been said on something I can show it. Yes, I will talk about anything specific if pointed out, but I think the link discusses the topic at hand. I'm willing to discuss but do I need to spoon feed you like a baby? And let's not talk about who makes points here, let's not.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 29, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Then explain this:
> https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/fea.../2020-08-20-joe-bidens-six-decades-of-racism/
> 
> Because you claim Trump supporters ignore his supposed "racism" yet from what I've seen you do the same, ignore Joe Biden's racism when it's in your face. This is why I gave up on long winded arguments, because people like you will out right deny the facts that's right in your face after taking the time and energy to build up arguments and get evidence and I just don't have the time and energy anymore for this anymore, to just have it ignored and say "it's not true" even though it's right there.



Unlike Trump Biden's racism is cemented in stone.

The thing about the leftist media claiming this or that is "racist" you have to dig into their claims to see that most of their stories are fabricated. Case in point; when Trump tweeted 3 tweets telling members of Congress to go back to their home countries, fix their problems and then come back and tell us how it's done the media only used 1 out of 3 tweets to make it sound like Trump was only telling them to go back to their home countries. Well, that in itself wouldn't be racist, but that's not the point. The point was they selectively took only a small portion of what Trump said and made it out to seem like he said something completely different and that's not the only time the fake leftist media did things like that.

Yet, we have Biden on record saying actual racist things yet he gets a pass because people are hypocrites. 

Basically, if you see the left calling someone or something racist you should really look into their claims because most of the time the shit is completely false. They just like shaming others and know their userbase is too stupid to look at the details.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Sometimes the author of the article can get my point across. I don't know what more you want. It just seems like you're making more and more excuses just to justify you being right. Why would I need to repeat what's already been said on something I can show it. Yes, I will talk about anything specific if pointed out, but I think the link discusses the topic at hand. I'm willing to discuss but do I need to spoon feed you like a baby? And let's not talk about who makes points here, let's not.


I'm generally going to put as much effort into my posts as you do yours, so unless you want me to respond to your posts with links, you should accompany your links with substance.

But I'll throw you one bone. Your article addresses Biden's views on bussing and him praising segregationists for working with him on some issues, but many civil rights leaders opposed some of the kinds of bussing that Biden opposed, believing it took choice away from Black communities. Biden and others wanted resources dedicated to schools in Black areas. Biden was not opposed to bussing, but instead to the Department of Education mandating it. When Harris talked about bussing and how it affected her life, it was bussing that wasn't actually affected by Biden's stance, since it wasn't compulsory. Biden apologized for praising segregationists in the past for working with him on things, even though he acknowledged back in the 1970s even during his praise that he disagreed with them on civil rights issues.

Biden's record on civil rights issues is pretty good, including but not limited to fighting for the Voting Rights Act. Don't get be wrong; Biden's record is not perfect, but it's absurd to call him racist.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Unlike Trump Biden's racism is cemented in stone.
> 
> The thing about the leftist media claiming this or that is "racist" you have to dig into their claims to see that most of their stories are fabricated. Case in point; when Trump tweeted 3 tweets telling members of Congress to go back to their home countries, fix their problems and then come back and tell us how it's done the media only used 1 out of 3 tweets to make it sound like Trump was only telling them to go back to their home countries. Well, that in itself wouldn't be racist, but that's not the point. The point was they selectively took only a small portion of what Trump said and made it out to seem like he said something completely different and that's not the only time the fake leftist media did things like that.
> 
> ...


Trump said racist things and never apologized for them. Trump had racist policies and never apologized for them.

Biden hasn't said anything overtly racist. Anything I can think of that can be interpreted to have been racist, Biden has apologized for it and taken it back.

They are not comparable people.


----------



## Argonitious (Jun 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There is nothing in these posts that advocate for harassment, death threats, etc.



Right, nothing was _*explicitly*_ stated with words. I was just saying that those posts were unclear enough that they could easily be misinterpreted. As is typical for me, I probably misinterpreted them in the worst way possible. I've accepted that possibility.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 29, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Unlike Trump Biden's racism is cemented in stone.
> 
> The thing about the leftist media claiming this or that is "racist" you have to dig into their claims to see that most of their stories are fabricated. Case in point; when Trump tweeted 3 tweets telling members of Congress to go back to their home countries, fix their problems and then come back and tell us how it's done the media only used 1 out of 3 tweets to make it sound like Trump was only telling them to go back to their home countries. Well, that in itself wouldn't be racist, but that's not the point. The point was they selectively took only a small portion of what Trump said and made it out to seem like he said something completely different and that's not the only time the fake leftist media did things like that.
> 
> ...



He also never called white supremacists good people or said that all Mexicans are rapists and murderers. But these people are deranged and will literally beleive what they want to beleive


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> He also never called white supremacists good people or said that all Mexicans are rapists and murderers. But these people are deranged and will literally beleive what they want to beleive


He said there are good people on the white supremacists' side, and he said Mexican immigrants are rapists and killers while only some are good people.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 29, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> He also never called white supremacists good people or said that all Mexicans are rapists and murderers. But these people are deranged and will literally beleive what they want to beleive



I haven't looked into the left's claim that Trump called white supremacists good people as this is the first time I've heard about it, but I did look into the claims that Trump called all Mexicans rapists and murders (see PolitFact). What Trump said is Mexico is sending rapists and murderers into our country and he was referring to the people who illegally enter the country. He never stated anything about anyone's race nor did he call every single Mexican or Mexico citizen rapists and murderers.

Look at it this way. If you're talking about American citizens, you say "American's" and if you're talking about Mexico citizens you say "Mexican's". Those two terms are race neutral as you could be talking about black American's, white Mexican's, brown America's, yellow Mexicans, etc ... So not was only Trump's statement not based on race, but what the Left claimed he said wasn't even factual. It's just another example of how the fake leftist media operates.

One of the best things Trump did for the planet Earth was to expose the fake media for who they are. I used to not question many things they reported on because I was under the assumption they were honorable and creditable institutions. Boy was I wrong ...


----------



## LightyKD (Jun 29, 2021)

LightyKD: Walks in. Reads thread

"God damn, what a shit show." 

LightyKD: Walks right the fuck out!


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I haven't looked into the left's claim that Trump called white supremacists good people as this is the first time I've heard about it, but I did look into the claims that Trump called all Mexicans rapists and murders (see PolitFact). What Trump said is Mexico is sending rapists and murderers into our country and he was referring to the people who illegally enter the country. He never stated anything about anyone's race nor did he call every single Mexican or Mexico citizen rapists and murderers.
> 
> Look at it this way. If you're talking about American citizens, you say "American's" and if you're talking about Mexico citizens you say "Mexican's". Those two terms are race neutral as you could be talking about black American's, white Mexican's, brown America's, yellow Mexicans, etc ... So not was only Trump's statement not based on race, but what the Left claimed he said wasn't even factual. It's just another example of how the fake leftist media operates.
> 
> One of the best things Trump did for the planet Earth was to expose the fake media for who they are. I used to not question many things they reported on because I was under the assumption they were honorable and creditable institutions. Boy was I wrong ...


The former president said that Mexican immigrants were rapists and murderers, but some of them were good people.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> He said there are good people on the white supremacists' side, and he said Mexican immigrants are rapists and killers while only some are good people.


And there was. The protest was against tearing down statues. There were good people absolutely there not to stir up trouble but simply being there for a perfectly reasonable purpose.

Also it was illegal immigrants. ILLEGAL.

Lots of illegal immigrants ARE rapists and murderers. Isn't there a statistic that says that like 70% of women and children that make the trip to the border get sucked up by cartels and coyotes and forced into sex slavery?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> And there was. The protest was against tearing down statues. There were good people absolutely there not to stir up trouble but simply being there for a perfectly reasonable purpose.


I suggest you you read up on the rally.


> The Unite the Right rally was a white supremacist rally that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, from August 11 to 12, 2017. Far-right groups participated, including self-identified members of the alt-right, neo-Confederates, neo-fascists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and various right-wing militias. Some groups chanted racist and antisemitic slogans and carried weapons, Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols, the Valknut, Confederate battle flags, Deus Vult crosses, flags, and other symbols of various past and present anti-Islamic and anti-Semitic groups. The organizers' stated goals included unifying the American white nationalist movement and opposing the proposed removal of the statue of General Robert E. Lee from Charlottesville's former Lee Park.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally

These are the people the former president said included "very fine people," and there's no justification for that.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> Also it was illegal immigrants. ILLEGAL.



Them being illegal immigrants doesn't excuse the former president's racist comments about them being "rapists and killers," with only "some of them" being good people.
The former president was not against illegal immigration; he was against immigration of any kind from what he would consider to be "shithole countries." He did what he could to reduce legal immigration from specific countries, and this is one of the reasons why he instituted the deplorable child separation policy (despite it also affecting legal asylum seekers).



Purple_Shyguy said:


> Lots of illegal immigrants ARE rapists and murderers.



Lots of Americans are rapists. Does that mean it would be appropriate to say, "Americans rapists. And some, I assume, are good people"?
Immigrants, including illegal immigrants, are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> Isn't there a statistic that says that like 70% of women and children that make the trip to the border get sucked up by cartels and coyotes and forced into sex slavery?



This wouldn't be evidence that immigrants are criminals.
Isn't this all the more reason to fix our broken immigration system so this does not happen?


----------



## AHB (Jun 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The former president said that Mexican immigrants were rapists and murderers, but some of them were good people.





			
				PolitiFact said:
			
		

> We asked the Clinton-Kaine campaign for evidence. It cited 16 instances since June 2015 when Trump said that some of the unauthorized immigrants crossing the Mexican border into the U.S. are hardened criminals and rapists.
> 
> ...
> 
> Kaine has embellished the controversy by saying Trump has said "all Mexicans are rapists." The Democrat doesn’t come close to proving his claim; _all of the Trump quotes Kaine’s campaign sent us pertain to unauthorized immigrants crossing the Mexican border into the U.S._


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2021)

AHB said:


>


I never said that the former president said "all Mexicans are rapists," so if your intention isn't to embarrass yourself, I don't know what your intention is.


----------



## AHB (Jun 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I never said that the former president said "all Mexicans are rapists,"


He never said Mexican immigrants on the whole were rapists and killers, either, as you claimed. I even made the text big so you wouldn't miss it.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2021)

AHB said:


> He never said Mexican immigrants on the whole were rapists and killers, either, as you claimed. I even made the text big so you wouldn't miss it.


He said Mexican immigrants were rapists, but some were good people, which is exactly what I said he said. Are you confused?


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 29, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> And there was. The protest was against tearing down statues. There were good people absolutely there not to stir up trouble but simply being there for a perfectly reasonable purpose.
> 
> Also it was illegal immigrants. ILLEGAL.
> 
> Lots of illegal immigrants ARE rapists and murderers. Isn't there a statistic that says that like 70% of women and children that make the trip to the border get sucked up by cartels and coyotes and forced into sex slavery?



Yeah, we and Trump were discussing *ILLEGAL immigrants*. You know, the ones that decide as their first act in our country is that our rule of law doesn't need to be followed. We (and Trump) weren't referring to the people who follow the rules and wait their turn in line.

So I was thinking about this;



			
				Purple_Shyguy said:
			
		

> But these people are deranged and will literally beleive what they want to beleive



It should have read ...



> "But these people are deranged *liars *and will literally believe what they want to believe"



Lying is completely okay with the left. They don't care if their facts are fabricated. That's the problem when communicating or doing business with them. They'll lie to you and try to fuck you over so you have to pay close attention because lying is completely acceptable to them.


----------



## Tigran (Jun 29, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Let's get rid of  cancel culture and aggressive politics one step at a time



Need to get rid of Christians and conservatives then. Or do I need to remind you of the whole "Ban Pokemon" thing back in the day, oh also how they cancelled many other religions?


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 29, 2021)

Tigran said:


> Need to get rid of Christians and conservatives then. Or do I need to remind you of the whole "Ban Pokemon" thing back in the day, oh also how they cancelled many other religions?


No no, I meant to stop getting angry over political opinions. I think that you misunderstood me


----------



## Tigran (Jun 29, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> No no, I meant to stop getting angry over political opinions. I think that you misunderstood me



Again.. That's still Christians. "YOU SUPPORT ANOTHER GOD THEN ME! YOU NEED TO DIE! YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT! WE NEED TO STOP COMMUNION! YOU DON'T CONFORM TO OUR BOOK! YOU ARE GOING TO SUFFER FOREVER! IGNORE THAT I DON'T ABIDE THE RULES EITHER!"

Sounds pretty political to me.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 29, 2021)

Tigran said:


> Again.. That's still Christians. "YOU SUPPORT ANOTHER GOD THEN ME! YOU NEED TO DIE! YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT! WE NEED TO STOP COMMUNION! YOU DON'T CONFORM TO OUR BOOK! YOU ARE GOING TO SUFFER FOREVER! IGNORE THAT I DON'T ABIDE THE RULES EITHER!"
> 
> Sounds pretty political to me.


What do Christians have to do with this?


----------



## Tigran (Jun 29, 2021)

Biggest cancel culture in the world.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 29, 2021)

Tigran said:


> Biggest cancel culture in the world.


Some, not all


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 30, 2021)

Tigran said:


> Biggest cancel culture in the world.



Christians have rules they live by, but they generally don't go out of their way to gang up and harass, verbally assault, doxx others or shame them into compliance. There are some Christians that are control freaks like the liberals are, but they are not the majority and that's more of a personality trait then some religious rule.

What I find interesting about all religions is the fact they lay out exactly what is good and what is bad and it's based on analyzing behaviors and documenting their outcomes. Most modern psychology is rooted in religions, especially mindfulness and Dialectical Behavior Therapy. There's a lot of truth to be found in all religions and if you study them, which granted I haven't really scratched the surface, you can learn tools to help you in life. Christians figured out what behaviors have negative outcomes 2,000 some years ago and the world would be a better place if people would willingly learn from them.

You see, I said "willingly". I am a Christian, but I'm not going to order or try to shame and harass you into believing what I do nor am I going to show my intolerance by attacking you because you happen to have views that differ from mine. It's okay if you dislike Christians, even if you're generalizing about all of them. It's okay if you don't like me or agree with me, but if you ever do want a little extra help in life you may want to look into behaviors that produce positive outcomes as opposed to behaving in ways that produce negative outcomes.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jun 30, 2021)

No matter how hard you try
This thread doesn't die


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jun 30, 2021)

Sure is a nice day on the "Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America" thread. I continue to be surprised how it evolved, I thought it closed, but here it is, alive and well.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 30, 2021)

Wait here, let me get my shotgun and you'll see this thread dead.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I suggest you you read up on the rally.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
> ...



>Wikipedia

Also lol at the "Americans are rapists too".
You know the point is that if illegal immigrants were prevented from entering a country they couldn't commit rape or murder to begin with. Unfortunately native citizens will commit crime and be punished for it. Where as any crime commited by illegals is 100% preventable by stopping them from coming in the first place.

Also how is it racist against Mexicans? What race is Mexican? There's lots of white Mexicans, Louis C.K is mexican.



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Tigran said:


> Again.. That's still Christians. "YOU SUPPORT ANOTHER GOD THEN ME! YOU NEED TO DIE! YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT! WE NEED TO STOP COMMUNION! YOU DON'T CONFORM TO OUR BOOK! YOU ARE GOING TO SUFFER FOREVER! IGNORE THAT I DON'T ABIDE THE RULES EITHER!"
> 
> Sounds pretty political to me.



Sounds more like Muslims than Christians to me.


----------



## Tigran (Jun 30, 2021)

And you probably believe Paul Revere road around yelling "The British are coming! The British are coming!"


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jun 30, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> >Wikipedia


wikipedia isn't a bad source inherently
it's open to editing, but many articles feature levels of protection that prevent most forms of vandalism
the unite the right page is one of these
in addition, malicious edits to wikipedia pages are usually restricted to changing text to garbage
actual factual misinformation is rare and usually cracked down on very quickly- sources are given on every claim, a full list is in the references
if nothing else, it is a good place to get a general idea, and if anything is confusing or seems wrong, you can check the source to confirm

for example, the claim that unite the right was a white-supremacist rally has four sources for it alone, and the introductory paragraph has 19 different sources
it's pretty much rock-solid


----------



## Jayro (Jun 30, 2021)

Scott is trash, can we just get this locked?


----------



## atoxique (Jun 30, 2021)

All online leftists do is whinge. "He's homophobic!!!" according to what? He donated his money out of his own free choice to the Republican Party? So that means he agrees with _everything_ they do? BTW Donald Trump supported LGBT rights. Scott has already said he's not homophobic. Oh but that's right... internet leftists only believe in black and white, they don't believe in nuance like every normal person does. They also believe in inventing problems and then deluding themselves into believing that problem is real. Ever notice how 99% of problems internet leftists cry about, they wouldn't even care about if they weren't on Tik Tok and Twitter and many of those "issues" are blown up or straight-up false? Scott is not homophobic, he's not a "shit person". The people who harass, doxx and threaten him though? Hmm, funny now the internet lefties aren't shaming those people. You tell on yourselves every day what you're really all about: controlling everyone and bullying those who refuse to be subordinate to leftist indoctrination.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Tigran said:


> Biggest cancel culture in the world.



Biggest cancel culture in the world but I don't see dA eViL KrIsChAnZ trying to "cancel" Scott Cawthon over a false accusation, doxxing, harassing and threatening him and his pregnant wife. Funny how the internet lefties looove to hate Christianity but then pull out the apologetics all day when someone points out that all Abrahamic religions e.g. Islam and Judaism have the same actually violent, actually homophobic, and actually misogynistic verses in them. Hypocrisy at its finest.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jun 30, 2021)

atoxique said:


> snip


no thanks


Spoiler


----------



## Lacius (Jun 30, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> >Wikipedia



Wikipedia is the best compendium of information on the planet. It isn't infallible, but it has high standards for citing primary sources. If you disagree with something on Wikipedia, you can try to change it and cite your sources.
Regardless of how you feel about Wikipedia, what I said was verifiably correct. The Unite the Right rally was a white supremacist rally.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> You know the point is that if illegal immigrants were prevented from entering a country they couldn't commit rape or murder to begin with. Unfortunately native citizens will commit crime and be punished for it. Where as any crime commited by illegals is 100% preventable by stopping them from coming in the first place.



"A lot of white people commit violent crimes. Those crimes would be 100% preventable by removing white people from the country."
Again, immigrants (including illegal immigrants) are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> Also how is it racist against Mexicans? What race is Mexican?


You are right that Mexican is a nationality, not a race. I didn't say it was. That doesn't mean the former president's comments weren't racist, however.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> Sounds more like Muslims than Christians to me.


Catholic Christians are the ones who are trying to prevent notable pro-choice Catholics from being able to take communion, not "Muslims." Your statement was absurd.



atoxique said:


> All online leftists do is whinge. "He's homophobic!!!" according to what? He donated his money out of his own free choice to the Republican Party? So that means he agrees with _everything_ they do?


If a person donates money to a vehemently anti-LGBT candidate like the former president, then that means the person either agrees with the candidate's anti-LGBT policies or tolerates them. The act of giving money to the anti-LGBT candidate is homophobic regardless. There are also a lot more issues than just the former president's homophobia.



atoxique said:


> BTW Donald Trump supported LGBT rights.


He might have sometimes said or implied he supported LGBT rights, but he demonstrably didn't. See my previous post on the topic:


Lacius said:


> Trump does not support any part of the LGBT community. You might be able to find some comments here and there about how he supports the LGBT community, but actions speak louder than words. At every chance he had, he did what he could to strip rights away from the LGBT community. They spent years ignoring Pride Month. As soon as the former president was sworn in, LGBT resource pages on the White House website were removed. They tried to remove LGBT questions from the census in order to erase LGBT people. They tried to remove LGBT people from the equal employment policies at the commerce department. They banned trans people from the military for no reason other than to be anti-LGBT. They ordered the Department of Education to remove anti-discrimination policies relating to LGBT people. They explicitly said they'd reject civil rights complaints at the Department of Education relating to LGBT issues. They gave federal funds to private schools that explicitly discriminate against LGBT people. They removed healthcare protections for LGBT people, effectively making it so anyone could refuse health care to anybody who is LGBT, for any reason. They established an office within HHS to specifically defend people who refused medical care to LGBT people. They granted federal funds to foster programs that discriminated against LGBT people. They engaged in an outright effort to specifically erase trans people from all existing protections and acknowledgements online. They ordered the CDC to stop using words like "transgender." They created a rule to stop doing data collection on LGBT foster youth, creating significant impediments to helping them, all for no reason but to cause harm. They ordered the removal of questions relating to LGBT people from forms belonging to programs that help the elderly and disabled, hindering the ability to help those people's specific needs as well. They ordered the removal of anti-discrimination policies relating to LGBT people from HUD. They ordered HUD to permit shelters to deny entry to trans people. They ordered the cancellation of HUD surveys relating to LGBT needs. They ordered the Justice Department to argue in court against anti-LGBT discrimination. They rolled back previously existing protections for LGBT people in prisons. They rolled back anti-discrimination policies affecting LGBT federal contractors. They ordered the denial of visas to same-sex partners of diplomats. They ordered a rule change so that a child born of a same-sex couple born overseas via a surrogate wouldn't be eligible for US citizenship. They removed the US from the UN Human Rights Council with one of the main reasons being because of LGBT issues (they were friendly to LGBT people and LGBT issues). They refused to sign a statement condemning physical attacks against LGBT people overseas. They ordered the removal of a pro-LGBT program in the 4H program, hurting LGBT children. They've nominated numerous justices, including ones even controversial among the Republican Party, who are vehemently anti-LGBT. Under their policies, ICE as specifically mistreated LGBT inmates in their custody. They did and said nothing relating to anti-trans violence and murders in this country.





atoxique said:


> Scott has already said he's not homophobic.


Pay attention to what a person does, not what a person says. Regardless of whether or not Scott is homophobic, or thinks he's homophobic, the act of giving money to the former president was an anti-LGBT act.

However, given Scott's previous statements on his Christian beliefs, how those beliefs affect other political positions, and the money he gave to anti-LGBT candidates, it isn't a stretch to think Scott might be homophobic. If it walks like a homophobic duck and quacks like a homophobic duck, it's probably a homophobic duck.



atoxique said:


> Oh but that's right... internet leftists only believe in black and white, they don't believe in nuance like every normal person does.


Sometimes, an issue is simple. Supporting anti-LGBT politicians and policies is deplorable and deserving of condemnation. If a person who is pro-LGBT wants to say "I disagree with X's anti-LGBT actions and I don't want to spend money X in the future," where is the problem? It sounds like you're anti-speech and anti-freedom to me.



atoxique said:


> They also believe in inventing problems and then deluding themselves into believing that problem is real.


Anti-LGBT policies are real problems. Deluding oneself into thinking they don't cause objective harm and aren't a problem worth addressing comes from a very special place rooted in homophobia and/or privilege.



atoxique said:


> Ever notice how 99% of problems internet leftists cry about, they wouldn't even care about if they weren't on Tik Tok and Twitter


"Have you ever noticed how 99% of problems people wouldn't be concerned about if they didn't know those problems existed in order to be concerned about them?" Thank you, Captain Obvious.



atoxique said:


> and many of those "issues" are blown up or straight-up false?


I don't know what issues you're referring to, but the issue being discussed in this thread isn't one of them.



atoxique said:


> Scott is not homophobic


It sounds like he might be, but even if he isn't or doesn't think he is, that doesn't mean his actions weren't anti-LGBT, and that's all that matters.



atoxique said:


> he's not a "shit person".


I didn't say he was a shit person, even though he might be one. We are condemning his shit actions. There is a meaningful difference.



atoxique said:


> The people who harass, doxx and threaten him though? Hmm, funny now the internet lefties aren't shaming those people.


You're only going to find condemnations of harassment, doxing, threats, etc. in this thread. Nobody is condoning those things. However, the existence harassment, doxing, threats, etc., while deplorable, doesn't make Scott's actions any less deplorable.



atoxique said:


> You tell on yourselves every day what you're really all about: controlling everyone and bullying those who refuse to be subordinate to leftist indoctrination.



This is about condemning actions that cause objective harm. If it's "leftist indoctrination" to not condone or stay silent about deplorable acts, sign me up.



atoxique said:


> Biggest cancel culture in the world but I don't see dA eViL KrIsChAnZ trying to "cancel" Scott Cawthon over a false accusation, doxxing, harassing and threatening him and his pregnant wife. Funny how the internet lefties looove to hate Christianity but then pull out the apologetics all day when someone points out that all Abrahamic religions e.g. Islam and Judaism have the same actually violent, actually homophobic, and actually misogynistic verses in them. Hypocrisy at its finest.



The "accusations" against Scott are not false.
I can't speak for all "internet lefties," but I don't hate Christians. I think Christianity (and the other Abrahamic religions) have a lot of immorality in their holy books, I don't think the religions have met their burdens of proof, and I think the religions promote anti-skepticism. Those are things that make me think Christianity can be harmful and absurd, but I and most "internet lefties" don't "hate Christians."
There are plenty of "internet lefties" who are Christian.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Wikipedia is the best compendium of information on the planet. It isn't infallible, but it has high standards for citing primary sources. If you disagree with something on Wikipedia, you can try to change it and cite your sources.
> Regardless of how you feel about Wikipedia, what I said was verifiably correct. The Unite the Right rally was a white supremacist rally.
> 
> "A lot of white people commit violent crimes. Those crimes would be 100% preventable by removing white people from the country."
> ...



Too long didn't read LOL

I would be 10000% ok with removing 100% of white ILLEGAL immigrants. Their crimes are preventable. Obviously you can't just remove native people from a country. Nor would you want to. But illegal immigration should be stopped in any nation worldwide.


----------



## kevin corms (Jun 30, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Unlike Trump Biden's racism is cemented in stone.
> 
> The thing about the leftist media claiming this or that is "racist" you have to dig into their claims to see that most of their stories are fabricated. Case in point; when Trump tweeted 3 tweets telling members of Congress to go back to their home countries, fix their problems and then come back and tell us how it's done the media only used 1 out of 3 tweets to make it sound like Trump was only telling them to go back to their home countries. Well, that in itself wouldn't be racist, but that's not the point. The point was they selectively took only a small portion of what Trump said and made it out to seem like he said something completely different and that's not the only time the fake leftist media did things like that.
> 
> ...


Not to mention the "good people on both sides" fiasco, when he first said that he immediately said he didn't mean KKK or racist organizations and that they obviously are bad... didn't stop the media. I wouldn't care except that a lot of racist folks believed CNN and other media when they made him look racist, they took it as a sign they could cause chaos all they wanted now. https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/

"
*Trump*: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and *you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.* You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

*Reporter*: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same."

*Trump*: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"

*Reporter*: "I do love Thomas Jefferson."

*Trump*: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."
"


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 30, 2021)

kevin corms said:


> Not to mention the "good people on both sides" fiasco, when he first said that he immediately said he didn't mean KKK or racist organizations and that they obviously are bad... didn't stop the media. I wouldn't care except that a lot of racist folks believed CNN and other media when they made him look racist, they took it as a sign they could cause chaos all they wanted now. https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/
> 
> "
> *Trump*: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and *you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.* You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."
> ...



Is there anything the left attacked about Donald Trump for actually real or is everything just made up bullshit? Between the Impeachments and these instances in this thread it makes me wonder if anything the left has said about Trump is true.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



atoxique said:


> All online leftists do is whinge. "He's homophobic!!!" according to what? He donated his money out of his own free choice to the Republican Party? So that means he agrees with _everything_ they do? BTW Donald Trump supported LGBT rights. Scott has already said he's not homophobic. Oh but that's right... internet leftists only believe in black and white, they don't believe in nuance like every normal person does. They also believe in inventing problems and then deluding themselves into believing that problem is real. Ever notice how 99% of problems internet leftists cry about, they wouldn't even care about if they weren't on Tik Tok and Twitter and many of those "issues" are blown up or straight-up false? Scott is not homophobic, he's not a "shit person". The people who harass, doxx and threaten him though? Hmm, funny now the internet lefties aren't shaming those people. You tell on yourselves every day what you're really all about: controlling everyone and bullying those who refuse to be subordinate to leftist indoctrination.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



It's TDS. Pretty clear and cut case. I don't know much about Scott and have never played his games, but from what I've seen he doesn't look or sound like a racist person suffering from phobia's.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Oh, and LOL @ all of the lefties that want this thread closed. They can't stand to read opinions that aren't their own.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 30, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> wikipedia isn't a bad source inherently
> it's open to editing, but many articles feature levels of protection that prevent most forms of vandalism
> the unite the right page is one of these
> in addition, malicious edits to wikipedia pages are usually restricted to changing text to garbage
> ...



The problem with Wikipedia is that we see entire entries that are motivated purely by left wing politics so they aren't even true. An example would be the hilarious notion that there was a party swap so that now the Republicans have racist values as somehow hundreds of millions of people suddenly stopped having Republican values because a few Democrat senators decided that the Democrats were evil and that they wanted to become Republicans. That Wiki page, which I can't seem to find right now, is used by Liberals to claim that Republicans are racist because of some mythical change ... yet in reality the Republicans fought an actual war against the Democrat slave owners because they didn't want to give up their slaves.

The left uses the Wiki entry as an excuse to justify those events as they can simply claim that "oh, the Republicans switched ideologies to be exactly what we used to be and now we all have Republican values so we're the good guys". Completely and utter nonsense. The Republicans may have changed some over the years, but they didn't give up their core beliefs. We have clear evidence that the Democrats still pushed racist policies up until the early 1970's. It's odd that if the parties some how managed to switch sides that their side still governed by racist policies.

So if one page can be so misleading I'd imagine others are too. I've also randomly read things over the years about how hard it is to change misleading information that the Left has published on Wikipedia as they have their important political entries under lock and key. I don't have links because I didn't keep track of the things I read, but the gist of it was that Conservatives were angry that they couldn't edit content or the content they added or changed wasn't allowed through or it was removed shortly after they added/changed it. Here's a good search engine query that give lots of results related to what I'm talking about.

Search: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wikipedia+slanted+to+the+left

Examples being;

_"May 26, 2020 - Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, published a blog post this month declaring that the online encyclopedia's "neutral point of view" policy is "dead" due to the rampant left-wing bias of the site." 

and ...

"In 2014, Harvard faculty members Shane Greenstein and Feng Zhu published research showing that Wikipedia articles are both more politically biased than those of Encyclopaedia Britannica and more slanted to the left. The Critic argues that bias can be seen not only in Wikipedia's entries but in its very choice of sources._"

You are right about a starter though. If you want a primer on non-political topics, like how to fix your bicycle or the history of Dragon Quest, Wikipedia is a good place to get a primer, but a lot of their political shit is slanted to the left (and only uses left wing sources for reference). So just like when reading Fox News I need to be careful about what I believe is true due to political bias.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 30, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Too long didn't read LOL
> 
> I would be 10000% ok with removing 100% of white ILLEGAL immigrants. Their crimes are preventable. Obviously you can't just remove native people from a country. Nor would you want to. But illegal immigration should be stopped in any nation worldwide.


If your issue is with violent crimes, then illegal immigration isn't a very efficient avenue, considering they're less likely to commit violent crimes than American citizens. You can read the rest of my previous post for details when your attention span is higher.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 30, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If your issue is with violent crimes, then illegal immigration isn't a very efficient avenue, considering they're less likely to commit violent crimes than American citizens. You can read the rest of my previous post for details when your attention span is higher.



One is literally preventable. The other is not.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 30, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> One is literally preventable. The other is not.


Legal immigrants sometimes commit violent crimes too. Should we bar them from entry too? You don't seem to understand that the "some people in Group X commit crimes" argument can apply to just about any group. People out after 9:00 PM sometimes commit violent crimes, so why not institute a mandatory curfew after 9:00? There's no argument you can't make using your reasoning, and it's not compelling.

I am also not making a case for illegal immigration. I'm making a case for fixing the broken immigration system, and a case for treating all immigrants like human beings without demonizing them.


----------



## Magnus87 (Jun 30, 2021)

You vote for the same candidate as me, you are the coolest person of all! Your vote reaffirms that I am on the right side.

You don't vote for the same candidate as me. You are the worst this world can have, you deserve that your projects disappear.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 1, 2021)

People saying they don't approve of the violence and threats, and then say:



Lacius said:


> If anybody "destroyed" Scott's life, it was Scott.



So yeah.  "I don't approve of the violence, I just rely on it and am grateful for its results."


----------



## atoxique (Jul 1, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If a person donates money to a vehemently anti-LGBT candidate like the former president, then that means the person either agrees with the candidate's anti-LGBT policies or tolerates them. The act of giving money to the anti-LGBT candidate is homophobic regardless.



Donald Trump was never vehemntly anti-LGBT rights and in fact he supported gay marriage, always respecting the Supreme Court's ruling in 2015 that the ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. Stop lying. Scott donating money is not an "anti-LGBT act", here you prove my point that you leftists do not believe in nuance and only believe in black and white. How do you know Scott supports absolutely everything the Republican Party does? Did you ask him yourself? Do you support absolutely everything the Democrats do? If so, you might as well start calling yourself racist and homophobic because there are plenty of racist, homophobic Democrats too.

Also, it's quite funny how you pretend to not hate Christians in your post too, even though by your logic, the mere act of being a Christian (or Muslim, or Jew, or any other religion really) is "homophobic" even when said religious person does nothing actually homophobic.



Lacius said:


> If a person who is pro-LGBT wants to say "I disagree with X's anti-LGBT actions and I don't want to spend money X in the future," where is the problem? It sounds like you're anti-speech and anti-freedom to me.



Here you lefties go again coming up with bullshit. No one has ever said anything of the sort in this thread. The issue here is that Scott donated to a political party you don't like, and leftists rushed to go and slander, dox, harass and threaten him and his family for this.



Lacius said:


> You're only going to find condemnations of harassment, doxing, threats, etc. in this thread. Nobody is condoning those things. However, the existence harassment, doxing, threats, etc., while deplorable, doesn't make Scott's actions any less deplorable.



And here you prove my point that leftism is all about controlling what you're allowed to believe in and bullying those who don't believe in what you do. You really believe that Scott and his family should be threatened, doxed and harassed because he donated money to a political party you don't like. The fact you actually believe what Scott did and what leftists are doing to him are even remotely comparable is pathetic and actually deplorable (in the actual sense of the word, not the exaggerated way you're using it - proving my point that leftists just exaggerate their invented problems hoping people will jump on the bandwagon with them even though the "problem" isn't actually even real).



Lacius said:


> Anti-LGBT policies are real problems. Deluding oneself into thinking they don't cause objective harm and aren't a problem worth addressing comes from a very special place rooted in homophobia and/or privilege.



Where are the anti-LGBT policies and who exactly has been directly harmed by them? Oh that's right... there has been no anti-LGBT policies. Everytime an internet leftist tells me something is "anti-(insert group here)" it's always about a super hyped-up, exaggerated, doom-laden version of what the bill "could" do, yet there's never any focus on what the bill actually does and what actually happened after the bill was introduced. Of course, that's because the answer always is: these bills haven't actually done a damn thing against LGBT people, and the US is still a leading place on LGBT rights. Again, Trump never opposed LGBT rights during his presidency. Leftists invented that narrative, just like all the other false narratives you invented about Donald Trump.



Lacius said:


> This is about condemning actions that cause objective harm. If it's "leftist indoctrination" to not condone or stay silent about deplorable acts, sign me up.
> 
> The "accusations" against Scott are not false.



Once again, this potential, exaggerated "objective harm" has never come to pass. The accusations against Scott are false. He is not a raging homophobe out to get The Gays. Scott has never done anything actually anti-LGBT. He and his family absolutely did not deserve to be harassed, doxed, and threatened. Stop parroting what you heard someone else say on Twitter, cut the cancel culture bullshit out, and stop lying.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jul 1, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Legal immigrants sometimes commit violent crimes too. Should we bar them from entry too? You don't seem to understand that the "some people in Group X commit crimes" argument can apply to just about any group. People out after 9:00 PM sometimes commit violent crimes, so why not institute a mandatory curfew after 9:00? There's no argument you can't make using your reasoning, and it's not compelling.
> 
> I am also not making a case for illegal immigration. I'm making a case for fixing the broken immigration system, and a case for treating all immigrants like human beings without demonizing them.



"Sometimes". And nowhere near the rate as illegal immigrants do.

You obviously try to minimize legal immigrant crime by only allowing people with no criminal record. I have legal migrant uncles, my brother who live in Canada. They have to do a police background check to see if there's any criminal record before they're allowed in.

Stomp out illegal immigration and you'll stomp out cartels, organised crime, drug gangs, sex trafficking.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2021)

tabzer said:


> People saying they don't approve of the violence and threats, and then say:
> 
> 
> 
> So yeah.  "I don't approve of the violence, I just rely on it and am grateful for its results."


I was referencing the boycotts and condemnations, as I've consistently said. I wholeheartedly condemn harassment, etc., as has everyone in this thread as far as I'm aware.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 1, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I was referencing the boycotts and condemnations, as I've consistently said. I wholeheartedly condemn harassment, etc., as has everyone in this thread as far as I'm aware.



You are wholeheartedly condemning whatshisface while tossing in your disclaimer to make it look like you aren't promoting hate mobs.  The effort you demonstrate contradicts your words. 

Like I said.  "I don't approve of the violence, I just rely on it and am grateful for its results."

Why GBAtemp needs politicians, idk.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You are wholeheartedly condemning whatshisface


Yes, I wholeheartedly condemn Scott's actions. They are deserving of criticism and boycotts.



tabzer said:


> while tossing in your disclaimer to make it look like you aren't promoting hate mobs.


I wholeheartedly condemn harassment, doxing, death threats, etc.



tabzer said:


> Like I said.  "I don't approve of the violence, I just rely on it and am grateful for its results."


I don't approve of the threats of violence. I haven't seen anyone here who does.



atoxique said:


> Donald Trump was never vehemntly anti-LGBT rights and in fact he supported gay marriage, always respecting the Supreme Court's ruling in 2015 that the ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional.


The former president's comments on same-sex marriage were inconsistent. You are right that he said he considered it "settled law," which is a step below being in favor of same-sex marriage. Regardless of what the former president said, you should look instead at what the former president did:


Lacius said:


> Trump does not support any part of the LGBT community. You might be able to find some comments here and there about how he supports the LGBT community, but actions speak louder than words. At every chance he had, he did what he could to strip rights away from the LGBT community. They spent years ignoring Pride Month. As soon as the former president was sworn in, LGBT resource pages on the White House website were removed. They tried to remove LGBT questions from the census in order to erase LGBT people. They tried to remove LGBT people from the equal employment policies at the commerce department. They banned trans people from the military for no reason other than to be anti-LGBT. They ordered the Department of Education to remove anti-discrimination policies relating to LGBT people. They explicitly said they'd reject civil rights complaints at the Department of Education relating to LGBT issues. They gave federal funds to private schools that explicitly discriminate against LGBT people. They removed healthcare protections for LGBT people, effectively making it so anyone could refuse health care to anybody who is LGBT, for any reason. They established an office within HHS to specifically defend people who refused medical care to LGBT people. They granted federal funds to foster programs that discriminated against LGBT people. They engaged in an outright effort to specifically erase trans people from all existing protections and acknowledgements online. They ordered the CDC to stop using words like "transgender." They created a rule to stop doing data collection on LGBT foster youth, creating significant impediments to helping them, all for no reason but to cause harm. They ordered the removal of questions relating to LGBT people from forms belonging to programs that help the elderly and disabled, hindering the ability to help those people's specific needs as well. They ordered the removal of anti-discrimination policies relating to LGBT people from HUD. They ordered HUD to permit shelters to deny entry to trans people. They ordered the cancellation of HUD surveys relating to LGBT needs. They ordered the Justice Department to argue in court against anti-LGBT discrimination. They rolled back previously existing protections for LGBT people in prisons. They rolled back anti-discrimination policies affecting LGBT federal contractors. They ordered the denial of visas to same-sex partners of diplomats. They ordered a rule change so that a child born of a same-sex couple born overseas via a surrogate wouldn't be eligible for US citizenship. They removed the US from the UN Human Rights Council with one of the main reasons being because of LGBT issues (they were friendly to LGBT people and LGBT issues). They refused to sign a statement condemning physical attacks against LGBT people overseas. They ordered the removal of a pro-LGBT program in the 4H program, hurting LGBT children. They've nominated numerous justices, including ones even controversial among the Republican Party, who are vehemently anti-LGBT. Under their policies, ICE as specifically mistreated LGBT inmates in their custody. They did and said nothing relating to anti-trans violence and murders in this country.


The former president was demonstrably anti-LGBT. In addition to the anti-LGBT policies above, he also appointed judges and justices who were anti-LGBT and anti-same-sex marriage. The former president saying the Supreme Court's 2015 decision on same-sex marriage is "settled law" and changing the topic doesn't come close to changing this.



atoxique said:


> Scott donating money is not an "anti-LGBT act", here you prove my point that you leftists do not believe in nuance and only believe in black and white. How do you know Scott supports absolutely everything the Republican Party does? Did you ask him yourself? Do you support absolutely everything the Democrats do? If so, you might as well start calling yourself racist and homophobic because there are plenty of racist, homophobic Democrats too.


As I've already said, giving money to a politician does not mean you support everything that politician says and does, but it does mean you tolerate it. Giving money to the former president isn't only anti-LGBT; it's anti-woman, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-immigrant child, anti-environment, anti-science, anti-democracy, anti-poor, etc. That's a lot Scott has to accept or tolerate in order to give the former president money.



atoxique said:


> Also, it's quite funny how you pretend to not hate Christians in your post too, even though by your logic, the mere act of being a Christian (or Muslim, or Jew, or any other religion really) is "homophobic" even when said religious person does nothing actually homophobic.


There are as many versions of Christianity, for example, as there are Christians. Just because a person is Christian does not make that person homophobic, despite what the Bible says. There are entire churches and groups of churches that are pro-LGBT. I still think Christianity has failed to meet its burden of proof and promotes anti-skepticism, but that is a separate issue, and it still doesn't cause me to "hate Christians."

And, again, there are Christians who are "radical lefties."



atoxique said:


> Here you lefties go again coming up with bullshit. No one has ever said anything of the sort in this thread. The issue here is that Scott donated to a political party you don't like, and leftists rushed to go and slander, dox, harass and threaten him and his family for this.


If the sole issue is that people are harassing, doxing, etc. Scott, then you and I are in agreement that this is deplorable behavior. However, it's not the only issue. The harassment directed against Scott does not somehow excuse Scott's own behavior. His behavior is still deserving of criticism.



atoxique said:


> And here you prove my point that leftism is all about controlling what you're allowed to believe in and bullying those who don't believe in what you do. You really believe that Scott and his family should be threatened, doxed and harassed because he donated money to a political party you don't like. The fact you actually believe what Scott did and what leftists are doing to him are even remotely comparable is pathetic and actually deplorable (in the actual sense of the word, not the exaggerated way you're using it - proving my point that leftists just exaggerate their invented problems hoping people will jump on the bandwagon with them even though the "problem" isn't actually even real).


Again, I condemn any harassment, doxing, etc. directed at Scott. That doesn't mean Scott's actions aren't deserving of criticism.



atoxique said:


> Where are the anti-LGBT policies and who exactly has been directly harmed by them? Oh that's right... there has been no anti-LGBT policies. Everytime an internet leftist tells me something is "anti-(insert group here)" it's always about a super hyped-up, exaggerated, doom-laden version of what the bill "could" do, yet there's never any focus on what the bill actually does and what actually happened after the bill was introduced. Of course, that's because the answer always is: these bills haven't actually done a damn thing against LGBT people, and the US is still a leading place on LGBT rights. Again, Trump never opposed LGBT rights during his presidency. Leftists invented that narrative, just like all the other false narratives you invented about Donald Trump.


See my list of the former president's anti-LGBT actions near the beginning of this post.



atoxique said:


> Once again, this potential, exaggerated "objective harm" has never come to pass. The accusations against Scott are false. He is not a raging homophobe out to get The Gays. Scott has never done anything actually anti-LGBT. He and his family absolutely did not deserve to be harassed, doxed, and threatened. Stop parroting what you heard someone else say on Twitter, cut the cancel culture bullshit out, and stop lying.


Giving money to a vehemently anti-LGBT politician is an anti-LGBT action. You and I are in agreement, however, that Scott should not be harassed, doxed, threatened, etc. He should, however, be criticized for his actions and boycotted.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> "Sometimes". And nowhere near the rate as illegal immigrants do.



Your the one who made the "sometimes" argument, not me. My point was that it was ridiculous because it was a "sometimes" argument.
Illegal immigrants commit violent crimes at about half the rate as American citizens.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> You obviously try to minimize legal immigrant crime by only allowing people with no criminal record. I have legal migrant uncles, my brother who live in Canada. They have to do a police background check to see if there's any criminal record before they're allowed in.


Again, I am not arguing in favor of illegal immigration. However, it's understandable that it happens when our legal immigration system is designed to fail. We need to fix our immigration system, offer a pathway to citizenship to illegal immigrants who are already here, stop demonizing illegal immigrants, stop deportations for those who haven't done anything wrong other than immigrate illegally, and stop talking about a wasteful wall that isn't going to do much if anything to curb illegal immigration.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> Stomp out illegal immigration and you'll stomp out cartels, organised crime, drug gangs, sex trafficking.



First, these things won't disappear by "stomping out" illegal immigration.
"Building a wall" is not going to "stomp out" illegal immigration.
Many illegal immigrants (and a lot of legal asylum seekers incorrectly labeled as illegal immigrants) are fleeing the cartels, organised crime, drug gangs, and sex trafficking that you're talking about.


----------



## Magnus87 (Jul 1, 2021)

Just because you don't promote policies for a particular group does not mean that you are "anti that group".


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2021)

Magnus87 said:


> Just because you don't promote policies for a particular group does not mean that you are "anti that group".


But when you promote anti-X policies, it means you are anti-X. And if you give money to a candidate who promotes anti-X policies, it means you are either anti-X or tolerate someone being anti-X.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 1, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I wholeheartedly condemn harassment, doxing, death threats, etc.



Lol.  No, you don't.  That's just a line with no more substance than a disclaimer.  We see how "whole-hearted" Lacius can be when organizing pages of manifesto against politicians and individuals.  "You are wrong by association."

You are so boring.  When you run out of things to boycott, you'll have nothing left.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Lol.  No, you don't.  That's just a line with no more substance than a disclaimer.  We see how "whole-hearted" Lacius can be when organizing pages of manifesto against politicians and individuals.  "You are wrong by association."
> 
> You are so boring.  When you run out of things to boycott, you'll have nothing left.


I've never once given any indication that I support harassment of anybody.

While I support justified boycotts, and boycotting Scott, I am not boycotting Scott. I haven't thought of _FNAF_ since 2014.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jul 3, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You are so boring.  When you run out of things to boycott, you'll have nothing left.


if i run out of things to boycott, i'll be quietly enjoying my life
bro, it is the natural state of things to not boycott things


----------



## tabzer (Jul 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I've never once given any indication that I support harassment of anybody.
> 
> While I support justified boycotts, and boycotting Scott, I am not boycotting Scott. I haven't thought of _FNAF_ since 2014.



If you indicate that you are "glad that he was 'cancelled'" you are indicating that you approve of the means.  Otherwise, the adage of wanting to have your cake and eat it applies.



Darth Meteos said:


> if i run out of things to boycott, i'll be quietly enjoying my life
> bro, it is the natural state of things to not boycott things



Get off the internet bro!


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2021)

tabzer said:


> If you indicate that you are "glad that he was 'cancelled'" you are indicating that you approve of the means.  Otherwise, the adage of wanting to have your cake and eat it applies.
> 
> 
> 
> Get off the internet bro!


I am glad when people are rightfully criticized and boycotted because of their deplorable actions, which I would probably call "cancellation."  Nothing about that suggests I condone harassment of any kind.

If you can't have a conversation about this without completely fabricating my position, you're probably on the wrong side.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Nothing about that suggests I condone harassment of any kind




Calling what happened to Scott "cancelled", and approving of it _*certainly does.  *_


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Calling what happened to Scott "cancelled", and approving of it _*certainly does.  *_


I specifically described what I mean (and what most people mean) by "cancellation," and it doesn't include harassment. And, as I've said numerous times, I don't condone harassment.

Again, if the only way for you to make an argument is to fabricate my position, and say to say my position is the opposite of what I've said it is, you're grasping at straws.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I specifically described what I mean (and what most people mean) by "cancellation," and it doesn't include harassment. And, as I've said numerous times, I don't condone harassment.



You are free to BS as much as you'd like.   Scott was "cancelled", as in past-tense.  You appreciate that.  The method he was "cancelled" by is completely contradictory to your back-pedaling claim of what "cancellation" means. 

"I'm glad Abe Lincoln was cancelled, but I don't approve of violence."  -Lacius probably.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You are free to BS as much as you'd like.   Scott was "cancelled", as in past-tense.  You appreciate that.  The method he was "cancelled" by is completely contradictory to your back-pedaling claim of what "cancellation" means.
> 
> "I'm glad Abe Lincoln was cancelled, but I don't approve of violence."  -Lacius probably.


Scott's actions were deplorable and deserving of condemnation and boycotts. That is not an endorsement of harassment, and I've consistently condemned harassment.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Scott's actions were deplorable and deserving of condemnation and boycotts. That is not an endorsement of harassment, and I've consistently condemned harassment.



Oh, hi Lacius, did you want to change the topic?  While I agree that the phrase "Scott's actions were deplorable and deserving of condemnation and boycotts" is not an endorsement of harassment by itself, it doesn't really address the point that has been made about your contradiction and fake lip service.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Oh, hi Lacius, did you want to change the topic?  While I agree that the phrase "Scott's actions were deplorable and deserving of condemnation and boycotts" is not an endorsement of harassment by itself, it doesn't really address the point that has been made about your contradiction and fake lip service.


If you're going to say I've contradicted myself, please provide a specific example. The only points I've made throughout this thread are the ones in my previous post. Scott's actions were deplorable and deserving of condemnation and boycotts. That is not an endorsement of harassment, and I've consistently condemned harassment.

If, however, you're just going to baselessly assert that anyone who is critical of Scott's actions is a proponent of harassment, you probably shouldn't even bother. Scott's actions are deserving of criticism, regardless of whether or not his actions caused him to receive harassment.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 3, 2021)

Look.  If you came into a thread of someone who got hit by a bus and died while jay-walking and said,"good riddance to this person, they supported lawlessness and deserve condemnation," followed by pages describing how righteous you are, I'd be making the same argument.  By action, you are fortifying the outcome while spewing BS out of both sides of your mouth.  A little tyrant wannabe.



Lacius said:


> his actions caused him to receive harassment.



Tell me more.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Look.  If you came into a thread of someone who got hit by a bus and died while jay-walking and said,"good riddance to this person, they supported lawlessness and deserve condemnation," followed by pages describing how righteous you are, I'd be making the same argument.  By action, you are fortifying the outcome while spewing BS out of both sides of your mouth.  A little tyrant wannabe.


I came into a thread about a guy who gave money to an actual tyrant-wannabe, I condemned that guy's actions, I defended those who are condemning and boycotting him, but I condemned harassment of the guy.  Those are the facts. I'm not interested in your false analogy.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I came into a thread about a guy who gave money to an actual tyrant-wannabe, I condemned that guy's actions, I defended those who are condemning and boycotting him, but I condemned harassment of the guy. Those are facts.



Keep believing, little tyrant.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Keep believing, little tyrant.


It usually isn't the person who is name-calling or responding "nuh uh, your position is the opposite of what you're saying it is" who is on the correct side of an argument.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 3, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It usually isn't the person who is name-calling or responding "nuh uh, your position is the opposite of what you're saying it is" who is on the correct side of an argument.



Okay Lacius.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jul 6, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Okay Lacius.


Was that sarcasm?


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jul 6, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Was that sarcasm?


what's your best guess


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jul 6, 2021)

Darth Meteos said:


> what's your best guess


Not


----------



## Hells Malice (Jul 6, 2021)

How do you retire from making games when you never made any to begin with

Also who let the special needs kids out of the politics section without their helmets? smh


----------

