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

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,334
Country
United States
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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

He's voiced his own opinions, you can voice yours.
Then what are you complaining about?

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.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hippy dave

Nerdtendo

Your friendly neighborhood idiot
Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
1,762
Trophies
1
XP
4,583
Country
United States
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skelletonike

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,334
Country
United States
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.
 

Ryab

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
3,189
Trophies
1
XP
4,376
Country
United States
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.
:arrow: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.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,334
Country
United States
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.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hippy dave

Nerdtendo

Your friendly neighborhood idiot
Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
1,762
Trophies
1
XP
4,583
Country
United States
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.


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.
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.
 

ChaosEternal

Well-Known Member
Member
GBAtemp Patron
Joined
Jul 27, 2015
Messages
566
Trophies
1
XP
2,869
Country
United States
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.
 
Last edited by ChaosEternal,

AkikoKumagara

The Coolest Bear Around
Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2017
Messages
1,526
Trophies
1
Website
thebearsden.web.fc2.com
XP
3,879
Country
United States
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lacius

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,334
Country
United States
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.

the generalization of people's character when they present that they have opposing beliefs
I haven't unfairly generalized anything or anyone.

the way you are preaching your beliefs as 100% right and everyone else's as 100% wrong,
  1. I haven't suggested I'm infallible. I'm definitely fallible.
  2. 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.

and the downplaying of death threats
  1. I haven't downplayed death threats.
  2. I'm on the record condemning death threats and harassment.
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.

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.

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

Self proclaimed Pog champion
Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
940
Trophies
1
Location
A concrete Igloo
XP
1,686
Country
Canada
@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.
 
Last edited by J-Machine,

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,334
Country
United States
@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.
 

Ryab

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
3,189
Trophies
1
XP
4,376
Country
United States
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.


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.
He was literally getting death threats and his wife was scared to sleep at night because of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skelletonike

Tigran

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2002
Messages
1,628
Trophies
2
XP
3,638
Country
United States
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.
 
D

Deleted User

Guest
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.
 
Last edited by ,

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2: Sorry for accidentally bending over