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

[Darth Meteos]

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

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

 

[Deleted member 546149]

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

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

 

[Reynardine]

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.

 

[Deleted member 546149]

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]

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

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."

 

[Deleted member 546149]

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]

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]

Trump may have been racist at one point but so was Biden.

1. Trump has said overtly racist things without ever apologizing for them.
2. Trump has racist policies he enacted or tried to enact.
3. Biden has never said anything overtly racist, that I'm aware of.
   
4. Biden has never said anything potentially racist, that I'm aware of, that he didn't apologize for and take back.
5. I'm unaware of any of Biden's policies that are racist.

Many Black People voted for Trump.

1. Only 12% of Black people who voted in 2020 voted for Trump.
2. 87% of Black voters voted for Biden in 2020.
3. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Trump might be racist and sexist but he tries to hide it and he hasn't brought back segeration

1. 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.
2. 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.

Trump might be racist and sexist

These are all good enough reasons alone to condemn anyone who supports Trump financially.

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.

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.

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.

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]

1. Trump has said overtly racist things without ever apologizing for them.
2. Trump has racist policies he enacted or tried to enact.
3. Biden has never said anything overtly racist, that I'm aware of.
   
4. Biden has never said anything potentially racist, that I'm aware of, that he didn't apologize for and take back.
5. I'm unaware of any of Biden's policies that are racist.

1. Only 12% of Black people who voted in 2020 voted for Trump.
2. 87% of Black voters voted for Biden in 2020.
3. 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.

It's like you didn't even read my earlier post, even though you "liked" it.



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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

These are all good enough reasons alone to condemn anyone who supports Trump financially.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

good riddance <3

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

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

 

[Deleted member 546149]

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]

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 ---------------------------

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.

 

[Deleted member 546149]

I find it beyond disturbing that supporting Biden is acceptable but supporting Trump isn't. Does anyone actually pay attention to anything?

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


Free speech != punching people in the face.

Let's get rid of cancel culture and aggressive politics one step at a time

 

[kevin corms]

1. Trump has said overtly racist things without ever apologizing for them.
2. Trump has racist policies he enacted or tried to enact.
3. Biden has never said anything overtly racist, that I'm aware of.
   
4. Biden has never said anything potentially racist, that I'm aware of, that he didn't apologize for and take back.
5. I'm unaware of any of Biden's policies that are racist.

1. Only 12% of Black people who voted in 2020 voted for Trump.
2. 87% of Black voters voted for Biden in 2020.
3. 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.

It's like you didn't even read my earlier post, even though you "liked" it.



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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

These are all good enough reasons alone to condemn anyone who supports Trump financially.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Biden has said much more racist things than Trump ever has, he has actually enacted racist laws... the worst being the 1994 crime bill.

 

[Deleted member 546149]

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 546149]

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]

God Bless Scott