Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dutchling]

Lemme just clarify the intended meaning of my words: That boycott did not benefit anyone involved.

Boycotts are not meant to benifit, they are meant to make a point. As in, we will not buy your product if you are an asshat.

But now the developer is very likely more of an asshat than before. Am I missing something here?

Making a point =/= making someone less of an asshat.

[MagmaMcFry]

But now the developer is very likely more of an asshat than before. Am I missing something here?

Uhm, since when has the onus been on anyone but the individual to not be an asshat? If that's his reaction to all this, to dial up the asshatery, it's even more proof that he's a tool bag who doesn't deserve the money of anyone except those that agree with them.

I wouldn't care how much of an asshat he is, as long as he'd make a good game.

It is shortsighted if a donation, which could decide over the enjoyment of $900k worth of people, is withheld solely because of an entirely unrelated factor, which isn't even made better after withholding. And it's mean because the bigot is people too.

This sounds like a selfish justification. And I mean seriously, wtf, talking about this guy's politics MIGHT lead a potential backer to not donate?

This justification is entirely not selfish (I don't even want the game), and yes, that's why it's called a boycott.

I wonder how you'd react to a Kickstarter project where the creator had been a mass murderer, a rapist, leader of a hate organization, or what have you. Jolly ok as long as they're making something someone else will enjoy, and how dare you try to bring their politics into it?

Jolly okay it is (or at least should be), and it's not "how dare you", it's "I don't see why".

Point in fact: no one gets to be on the Internet today without their past being a factor of the present. Period. If someone drug up the dumbshit I said a decade ago, guess what, I have to live with it, because it's what I said. There is no expiration date on fact.

That's all true, but why would people want to judge you on what you said a decade ago?

[penguinofhonor]

This justification is entirely not selfish (I don't even want the game), and yes, that's why it's called a boycott.

The money for the game doesn't just get burned up into nothingness if people boycott it. There are all sorts of other games to fund the development of. I can point you to a couple right now if you want.

There is not going to be less net happiness in the world if this game doesn't get funded, it'll just come from some other games instead. You're acting like this is the choice between the creation of a game or nothing, when really it's the choice between supporting the creation of a game buy a bigot or supporting someone else.

[MagmaMcFry]

This justification is entirely not selfish (I don't even want the game), and yes, that's why it's called a boycott.

The money for the game doesn't just get burned up into nothingness if people boycott it. There are all sorts of other games to fund the development of. I can point you to a couple right now if you want.

There is not going to be less net happiness in the world if this game doesn't get funded, it'll just come from some other games instead. You're acting like this is the choice between the creation of a game or nothing, when really it's the choice between supporting the creation of a game buy a bigot or supporting someone else.

That is a valid point I have failed to address before, which means that the backers' disappointment will be very small on average (you have to remember that this game was still their first choice to put their money), but I still fail to see a valid reason why not to support bigots in endeavors unrelated to bigotry.

[Frumple]

I wonder how you'd react to a Kickstarter project where the creator had been a mass murderer, a rapist, leader of a hate organization, or what have you. Jolly ok as long as they're making something someone else will enjoy, and how dare you try to bring their politics into it?

Jolly okay it is (or at least should be), and it's not "how dare you", it's "I don't see why".

The "why" is because if you support the game, you support the maker -- and what the maker is going to go on to do later on. Yes, there is an implicit degree of responsibility when you give money to someone for what they decide to do with that money later. If you give money to someone that's part of a hate organization, or a rapist, or a mass murderer, you are enabling them to do that even if the product they're producing has nothing, directly, to do with that side of the person.

There's a moral element to who and what you spend your money on that goes beyond what you immediately buy with that money -- what causes the company supports or methodologies they utilize in their business becomes what you, de facto, support, because you have helped that company continue to operate.

It's not full responsibility, of course -- that lies in the company or organization itself for deciding to do such things -- but you do share a degree of culpability for those actions. S'an utter an' complete bitch of an ethical issue these days given the shit a lot of corps get up to.

[nenjin]

This justification is entirely not selfish (I don't even want the game), and yes, that's why it's called a boycott.

The money for the game doesn't just get burned up into nothingness if people boycott it. There are all sorts of other games to fund the development of. I can point you to a couple right now if you want.

There is not going to be less net happiness in the world if this game doesn't get funded, it'll just come from some other games instead. You're acting like this is the choice between the creation of a game or nothing, when really it's the choice between supporting the creation of a game buy a bigot or supporting someone else.

That is a valid point I have failed to address before, which means that the backers' disappointment will be very small on average (you have to remember that this game was still their first choice to put their money), but I still fail to see a valid reason why not to support bigots in endeavors unrelated to bigotry.

Because you're enriching bigots with your decision. Fun to me is not so important it outweighs literally all other considerations.

Put another way, what you're effectively saying is "Your beliefs don't matter to me as long as I'm (having fun),(getting paid),(seeing my point of view win)." It's basically the self-serving rationale that has landed us in the world we live in today, where business steam rolls people and no one takes any responsibility for contributing to the way things are.

[Neonivek]

I still fail to see a valid reason why not to support bigots.

It is two sides to the argument and both are perfectly valid.

1) You can say that the creator and the creation are linked and that not supporting someone objectionable is something you should do
and
2) You can say that the creation is completely on its own and that the creator deserves the results of his labor no matter how terrible they may be.

[nenjin]

Running a hotel sucks.

It's the one and only job where the graveyard shift is probably the best of them all. Worked til about 1 or 2am at a hotel, and yeah. Compared to working the day shifts, where things need to get done, graveyard was basically cake.

[MagmaMcFry]

-snip-

-snop-

You're saying that the people you pay for doing stuff can also do other things with their money instead of working on what you paid them to do. That's a very valid point, especially considering the revenue Armikrog would produce, and I've changed my mind on supporting rapists and or serial killers. But the Armikrog developer is 'only' a bigot and fundie, of which there are millions in the USA, with hundreds of billions of dollars in total possession, so the million or so he'd gain in revenue is not really significant there, and I'd rather have fundies preoccupied making nice games than doing fundie stuff (especially when more fundies would open their minds to video games because of Armikrog). But now I see how it depends on the viewpoint and expectations of the individual potential backers.

[Nadaka]

That makes it even more important, not less. They have power and they wield it to harm. Not contributing to that is incredibly important.

[Nadaka]

That is illegal. You must be payed for every hour that you work or are on call.

[Xantalos]

That is illegal. You must be payed for every hour that you work or are on call.

Yeah, the situation seems ridiculous.

[Nadaka]

Even if you are salaried, they can't require you to work more than 40 hours a week.

[nenjin]

Laundry was the first thing I'd skip. Mostly because the hotel had a policy of "Way more god damn fded laundry than we could use in a week." At bigger hotels, I'm sure it's a thing. There? He'll, you couldn't even see the hotel from the street, so walk-ins were almost non-existent.

[Frumple]

But the Armikrog developer is 'only' a bigot and fundie, of which there are millions in the USA, with hundreds of billions of dollars in total possession, so the million or so he'd gain in revenue is not really significant there

It's always significant; this is basic "Tragedy of the Commons" stuff. Just because the harm one does or supports is relatively small compared to all the harm that is done or could be done does not mean that one does no harm. Harm is harm is harm. Just because many people litter does not entail that you should not concern yourself with littering. Just because there is already a great deal of trash on the ground does not make it acceptable for a person to throw more down. Same concept, y'ken?

I'd rather have fundies preoccupied making nice games than doing fundie stuff (especially when more fundies would open their minds to video games because of Armikrog).

The problem with this is that you're basically saying, "I will accept that you do undesirable things so long as you do something else, first." S'saying you can beat all the hobos you want so long as you pay the hobo beating tax (the paying of which will distract you from beating hobos, to some degree)*. It's still saying, "I will support that undesirable thing." That a caveat is added doesn't, unfortunately, change that. There are situations where something like that may be your best option (It's definitely a thing on the level of world politics), but in most cases it's definitely not. In the scenario being considered, it's definitely not.

*Now, you can say that they're going to beat hobos anyway (and this is likely true), but that doesn't make it acceptable for you to support the hobo assault just because it will slightly reduce the frequency of such attacks. Instead of giving them the support needed to assault three hobos in order to prevent them from assaulting a forth, give them no support at all. And maybe go out and interrupt when they've decided it's the hobo beating hour.