How to divide your fan base as president of a successful game company with a single tweet.

Oh, I am so going to steal that :D

No, it is unlikley he will las his term, but Kamala would be even worse! From California, she endorses and helped create the homeless problem we have in California!

But didn't Biden condemn the law?

Exactly

Unfortunately not. It´s his "Hi, I´m president of this & that" account directly linking to his company!
Not much private or personal about it & because of that it becomes valid to state, that he is showing a lack of leadership and responsibilty by, though possibly involuntarely, putting pressure on the people working under him.
Now fortunately those hundreds of employees are only imaginary and TripWire seems nothing more but a 4-6 headed boys-club (sic!).

While I agree that people have a right to be stupid and to be proud of it too, he should, as a person responsible for a whole company, and people who are making a living out of it; as well as a person who should be aware of the way social media has shaped the political discourse, he should probably have kept his flag waving to himself.

It's his personal twitter but he said "I felt it was important to go on the record as a pro-life game developer." so he implicated his position. He was commenting not as a private citizen but as a game developer.

... who makes extremely violent games to top it all off so being "pro-life" is a bit of an irony in there too.

How would you suggest we go about addressing this without policing and suppressing what people say though? These sorts of things happen naturally, and predictably, in real life as well, with the only major difference being the speed with which it happens online.

https://youtu.be/YHrSdSUB2L4

that guy publicly just couldn´t keep it in his pants, it´s not his privates anymore ..

Source: https://xkcd.com/1357/

View attached image.

Bull fucking shit. Why in the world you assume that the freedom to say anything means that there won't be consequences. There are consequences for everything. And again him being pro-life as a dude, is once again fine. Not like he's ever going to be pregnant. I just hope that his wife and or daughter never have to go through a difficult decision, where there life might be on the line.

Freedom of speech means that the government can't censor you, it means that they can't arrest you for whatever you say. That does not and will never mean that people won't give you the side-eye or choose to cancel you. This was not a topic that he should have waded into. He's a dude. This law doesn't fucking affect him I mean it will at some point if his wife or anyone that he loves has a miscarriage and this law becomes common place in every red state. Can you imagine if his wife had a miscarriage through no fault of her own and some dude who fucking hates him for being a fucking moron decides to make it into a court case, and quite frankly if you think it's a good idea to have random people in everyone's business then this is a problem. Like the law in itself is a massive slippery slope argument on top of a slippery slope argument and a massive and I do mean massive violation of privacy, but hey he's pro-life.

People who keep waving the freedom of speech flag never seem to know what they're talking about.

Freedom of speech protects private citizens from political retribution by the government, not from suffering the consequences in their business if they decided to be proud to be stupid

Misogyny and cruelty aren't just a "rather controversial opinion", I'm afraid. When you use a public platform to attack the rights of others, your audience has every right, legally and morally, to voice opposition to your stance, and even to advocate for a boycott of your products.

Yeah, I live in Texas and I can tell you that the majority of these new laws are a complete disaster. Our chucklef*ck of a governor needs to be out of there. His ignorant, pandering-to-the-Trumplicans position is not what most people want...nope, not even here in Texas.

59% of the state was against the new firearms law, including a lot of cops. It just goes to show you how powerful political gerrymandering really is, as well as what that does to representation (essentially creating misrepresentation).

The only good law in that parade of ignorance is one that allows us to buy beer and wine before noon on a Sunday (they bumped it back to 10 am...I mean, why not just do away with the old "blue" law entirely? But, I digress). 😆

Nope https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/0D34bGi,

About everything else I do agree with you very much so!

I own that t-shirt in the gif!!!!

I am very pleasantly surprised to find it's stayed very civil actually.
But then again, I am very proud of my very carefully selected Ignore list on ESGST so I feel like I'm missing the usual trolls in the thread.

+1

Very much this and only this. And I don't even agree with him.

Consider for a minute, the left get angry about this because he is controlling over women and deciding that birthdays happen before birth so you can charge mother's with murder.
The right is angry because they think the left is advocating for legalizing murder because they think that you can murder something before it even develops a brain!

I see no hypocrisy at all. I see two sides that are talking about a hot button issue because one side thinks the other is doing something heinously wrong.

I'm sure he is being praised. By conservatives. There is no hypocrisy here. He decided to voice his opinion and now other people are voicing their opinions about his opinion.

If you believe sharing an opinion makes you immune from criticism or consequences then you have a lack of understanding on how life works.

Americans using the term "lefties" without having a communist or socialist or any party of leftist ideology always makes me chuckle... democrats being considered anything other than filthy centrists makes me chuckle as well. The american political spectrum is the Republican party firmly rooted in the right and the all encompassing Democrats who are supposed to represent "everyone else"... throughly a fools errand. A poor man's political system, if you ask me.... but please, do everyone who is a leftist a favor and don't herd us with american democrats. Thanks

Each one should be able to write/say his opinion, to all things/cases etc..
I have a different one as this guy but each one should be able to handle different opinions without that a shitstorm start.

And you still balcklist people for having different (not that different even) opinions.

Almost all social media is. Twitter and Reddit need to be shutdown.

Nicely said. 💙<- For the BLs we get :)

Rape, its adherence to entitlement, self-satisfaction, irrationality, immorality, cruelty, etc aside, is fundamentally an expression of the instinctive evolutionary urge to breed [at any cost]. Meaning that allowing their offspring to live fundamentally means that they "won".

By prohibiting the abortion, you're doing three things: You're saying that women have no rights to their bodies and are in essence simply ovens to be used by whomever want to use them. You're reinforcing the fact that the woman "lost", on multiple levels. And you're rewarding the rapist by allowing his action to succeed in (what is at least biologically) its primary goal.

Putting aside the debate on when it is or is not a life, for the sake of this argument, let's treat the fetuses as fully developed lives. Do the offspring of rapists or other abusive, flawed, or unstable entities necessarily share their traits, or even the relevant genes? No. So should that life be preserved? Perhaps. Is it the rape victim's responsibility or obligation*? On both counts, a phenomenally emphatic "no".

* Rather, if we hold to the logic that parents must hold responsibility for their genetic offspring as they are the result of their own actions [ie, the sentiment that it isn't the child's responsibility that they were born], then we must also accept the converse that parents do not hold responsibility when those children were created without their awareness or consensual participation. After all, we're basically comparing monster truck derby (consensual, fun), a car accident without a clear instigator, and deliberate vehicular assault. There's a clear difference in how we view such things- be it in the context of cars or otherwise- so it'd be rather bizarre if in this instance we held the victim resonsible for <the outcome> when someone else intentionally caused the event against the victim's protest. Though that inclines me towards a tangent on how absurdly corrupt and nonfunctional car insurance is in the US, and how it's appalling that the government mandates it despite not applying oversight or setting responsibilities for it..

Thus, any argument for "pro-life" would have to also provide the means for reasonable excision of the fetus from the womb, transplanting it into a different [and more willing] "container". Once the fetus is consentually removed, you can then lay claim to it and place any considerations on it you wish- kill it, raise it, bake it into a pie; At that point it can properly be addressed under whatever expectations the nation's ethics and laws set upon it [while no longer needing to also address the moral, ethical, and legal rights of the rape victim].

But presently? Presently we're spitting on justice by supporting criminals, we're victimizing victims further, and- most absurd and galling and just flat out nonsensical of all- we're taking away fundamental human rights, the right of an individual over their own body, and we're doing so in a manner that is in itself fundamentally identical to rape; That is, we're forcing our will on someone's body, and doing so in a detrimental manner, while telling them they have no right to control their own body, and threatening them if they resist. There is absolutely no rational way to consider the matter other than an act of rape.

Frankly, when an entire state conspires to engage in and support various forms of rape, then that is exactly when the federal government should step in. Unfortunately, we've a Republican (and moreso, Trump) sponsored Supreme Court, and they're far more likely to look to sentiment [eg, tradition] than make a rational, logic-driven review of the nation's laws and its proclaimed [albeit woefully not reliably practiced] ethical standards.

So while your comparison of bigotry against extreme pro-life laws ("he thinks there are only 2 or 500 genders. But in this specific case this just becomes a big "hey rape victims, fuck you!") may not at first offer clear support for your associated sentiment that the extreme pro-life laws are a decidedly worse offering, once we review what those pro-life laws are actually framed around we can easily determine that it is indeed a far worse thing.

After all, we're talking an even more systemic denial of rights, of focused abuse, and of corruption and, moreso, we're making a distinction between something that is done <in a general presentation> to something <done directly to someone>. And regardless of if we're talking social engagements, crimes, or health afflictions, the trauma and/or legal consideration is considered to be far more significant for an afflicted action, with further consideration given for intent. Thus, much like distinctions between involuntary, constructive, and negligent manslaughter, along with degree of murder, we have to acknowledge that bigotry on its own (in its most generalized, unelevated form) is on the very bottom tier of that list and, further, is no longer supported [and certainly not in such a blatant legal manner] on a state level.

So from any perspective, this is an egregeous violation of rights and of legal standards that passed through solely out of corruption and ill intent. After all, even if the voting base may not have the education or the time to parse the logic of the matter, it's very much the job of the supreme court to. But, of course, there's a lot of reason to be critical about Trump's picks to the Supreme Court, especially in the current context. Putting Gorsuch and Barrett aside, let's not forget that Kavanaugh is, himself, accused by multiple women of being a rapist and molester. Does make the whole ugly thing just that much more awkward.

6 weeks is like nothing.
when i found out im pregnant and went directly to the doctor, i was already at 7th week.
the thing is, pregnancies are starting to count with the last menstruation. not when the ovulation and the conceiving afterwards happens.
woman have different cycle duration. for a woman with a short cycle 6 weeks might be possible. but for woman with a long cycle it might be too late. some woman have an irregular cycle as well.
i for example have a 5 week cycle..not getting my menstruation after the 5th week i could only guess if its really a pregnancy or maybe sme irregularity once in a while. and that would be only if i counted at all. not all women keep track of it.

Freedom of speech once again means that the government can't arrest you for your opinion or your speech. It does not mean consequence-free speech. People are free to say whatever it is that they want, there are consequences. Lets say you have a business and you have 10 employees, and one of those employees is racist. As in they are saying racist slurs and posting their shitty comments to your customers or making a big deal of it, do you fire him because it's affecting your business? Yes? Then you believe in consequences for your actions and cancel culture. No? Then enjoy going broke.

I agree I also support Freedom of Speech and not as some vague government concept, but as an ideal that everyone in so called western democracies should live up to. Every political opinion or thought should have right to exist and debate each other openly. Even if some of them are absolutely stupid.

The key here is the importance between tolerating others' opinions and tolerating others' oppressive opinions.

To take an extreme comparison, "I think women have fewer fundamental rights than the embryo inside her and my ideals should be lawfully enforced against her will" is on a dangerously different level from "I like a different genre in gaming and want the industry to create more of that genre". Tolerance only goes so far.

Did he put in the games?

Good point. Ignoring what people and companies say outside of their games, as far as games themselves are concerned, I'm not seeing nearly as many games full of conservative propaganda as I see ones with progressive propaganda...

He absolutely did. Look up the lyrics to that one song in killing floor 2 about god abandoning people because they kill babies. He literally put his politics into his game lol. Also, it is not like he is just sitting on his couch watching TV and decided to tweet something in his spare time. He is in Seattle right now to promote his company for PAX. He is here in a professional capacity, so I think that with his selfie at pike place market without wearing a mask in front of a gigantic sign that says to wear a mask is a pretty good indication that really wanted to shove his politics down everyone's throats

It's kinda funny that some people are surprised by shitstorms. I mean they surely encountered disagreements and controversial discussions in real life. Now why did they post it on social media? To reach more people. As if reaching more people would mean more agreement. How about thinking about what you post before doing so?
Not saying that shitstorms are good, but the term is widely known by now. It's also known that the internet doesn't forget and people tend to easier insult and use hatespeech online, especially in social media.

There is no right to have an abortion in America, there is a right to privacy. If you take a life in private you are infringing on another person's right to life. I believe that freedom and rights should be as broad as possible until they prevent others from exercising theirs. If you can't agree to disagree, what will you do with people who disagree with you?

With regards to cancel culture, the problem is people being cancelled for things that are frivolous, misrepresented, or divisive (roughly half of USA voters chose Trump, should they all be cancelled?) It's hard to find somebody who thinks Harvey Weinstein shouldn't be cancelled, the vast majority agree that he is a sick individual.

many people are paid and feed their family from that.

I may not agree entirely with you as I can't disconnect a person's private acts from their product, for example Ian Watkins being the voice of Lostprohets, but this is a very fair argument.

Well said, one bad apple shouldn't ruin the whole orchard.

I wouldn't be so quick to throw shade on either side as far as reactions to events / opinions go. Have you been on the internet when Gillette aired their progressive advert or when Nike stared Kaepernick in one of theirs?

E: Fixed some typos

Here's the thing, that I disagree with.Everyone says that Republicans and Conservatives can't state their opinion online without it becoming a shit storm. To which my response is, what are they trying to express? Because usually when the Republicans/Conservatives say shit it's beyond problematic whether it's racist, sexist, or against another community for whatever reason.

In this specific case it's abortion rights, the issue with the Texas Law isn't just that it bans abortions, it's that they went about it in a purely disgusting and problematic way. Cyberpunk had an issue that drew outrage, but guess what they either backtracked or they fixed it. If a Republican or any conservative starts talking about black on black crime, they're being racist. Like there is a nuance to a lot of these discussions and just saying you're pro-life when you're a dude and don't understand how pregnancies work, is going to piss a lot of people off. Why because he will never get it, and instead of listening or even educating himself on the topic he decided to simply state a rather stupid opinion. He's pro-life. He's never going to have an abortion because he can't ever get pregnant. So it's easy for him to say he's pro-life. Women are the ones that have to face this difficult decision, and there are some pretty good guys out there that get it, that tthey don't have the right, they might get disappointed they might be upset about it, but they don't have the right to demand that a woman carry a baby to term.

The vast majority of men don't actually understand how pregnancies work, to them dick in vagina, pew pew sometimes I hit the mark and well we get baby. I'd make an argument that the vast majority of women who get pregnant don't actually understand the biology either, but that ignorance is a massive problem that needs to get rectified. There was legit a Republican who had an argument that real rapes can't get women pregnant, because the woman's body shuts down. How about this for a compromise, don't legislate on shit you don't know anything about.

If you don’t recall the same condemnation from the other side, it’s because you’re not paying attention.
Nike got a lot of condemnation for its support of BLM, Dixie chicks had their careers ended for criticising GWB, Colin caepernick can’t get a job.
Ever seen the iconic picture of the 1968 Olympic s black power salute? Look up how their careers went afterwards.

The last one is pretty simple as it is already visible in the patent application:

View attached image.

Broke: Over or Under
Woke: Upright

the tp roll must always go under... there ought to be a law

True, but they have a lot of multiplayer games. If the player base drops, so do sales

This one is a bit trickier I think. As I understand, Republican Texas would love to have abolished abortion altogether, but can't because of a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court Roe vs Wade (1973) that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion.

In an apparent ploy to get around this, the law enacted last week in Texas, limits abortion to max 6 weeks - when the foetus is no bigger than a pea, and often the woman may not even know she is pregnant at that stage. It also now does not provide exceptions for rape and incest.

So for example, a 15yo girl raped by her uncle is denied the choice if she determines too late that she is pregnant. The UK for example has a cut off of 24 weeks - and so it's not hard to see why Gibson's direct support of this has drawn some attention.

Also - hate is not the same as unwilling to support a company. He's actually been quite brave making a stand against a very unpopular law - if he has done it for the attention or pure belief (probably) is another story.

Strangely enough, he did support action to combat racism and police brutality a few years ago which would be the opposite side of the political divide.

Not sure I've always agreed with all of your views before - but 100% with you on this one.

Thank you.