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 ---------------------------
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 ---------------------------
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.
