Current Events > Five Nights At Freddy's creator outed as a Far Right Homophobic

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/IAmGryphoneer/status/1403037291187257344

---

If you donate to a Republican, you should be banned from making video games!!!!

---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

If you donate to a Republican, you should be banned from making video games!!!!

I like the part in his apology where he says the economy is more important than gay rights.

---

This might help him.....

---

All I'm seeing there is proof that he chose the right wing party in a system that gives you one right-wing party and one left-wing party and forces you to choose one or the other (unless you effectively, or literally, don't participate at all in politics). Not seeing any far-right or homophobic comments.

hockeybub89 posted...

I like the part in his apology where he says the economy is more important than gay rights.

EDIT: Now this is an example of the sort of thing that actually shows homophobic views.

---

Remember the damage this did to Chic-fil-a!?

---

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/79509039

---

Trumble posted...

All I'm seeing there is proof that he chose the right wing party in a system that gives you one right-wing party and one left-wing party and forces you to choose one or the other (unless you effectively, or literally, don't participate at all in politics). Not seeing any far-right or homophobic comments.

EDIT: Now this is an example of the sort of thing that actually shows homophobic views.

Donating to politicians pushing to strip the LGBT+ community of their rights is also pretty homophobic.

---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

If you donate to a Republican, you should be banned from making video games!!!!

basically lmao

---

Is anyone surprised, dude was a super catholic hyper religious person making veggie tales games

Funkydog posted...

Donating to politicians pushing to strip the LGBT+ community of their rights is also pretty homophobic.

In a context where you have a wide variety of choices, sure. America, though, is just one party away from being a single-party state.

---

Trumble posted...

In a context where you have a wide variety of choices, sure. America, though, is just one party away from being a single-party state.

If you have two choices and one is homophobic, selecting the homophobic one is basically the definition of homophobia.

---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

If you donate to a Republican, you should be banned from making video games!!!!

No. But you should stop pretending you're pro LGBT or give a shit about the LGBT community
---

Idk why anyone is biting the guy with an obvious strawman since literally nothing about this topic or tweet that was shared suggested he should be banned from making video games.

but alt righters gonna cry, because people don't tolerate their hateful views.

---

Also, the whole "acktually supporting anti LGBT candidates is BETTER for LGBT communities!" Moon logic is fucking hilarious.

Dude donated to Nunes as well. There's no way that was "about the economy".
---

DrizztLink posted...

If you have two choices and one is homophobic, selecting the homophobic one is basically the definition of homophobia.

So are you saying you base your entire political leaning on the issue of gay rights, and nothing else?

---

Trumble posted...

So are you saying you base your entire political leaning on the issue of gay rights, and nothing else?

It at the very least means you're willing to accept bigotry aimed at these groups. If one side is saying they'll pass anti LGBT legislation and you give money to them, then you're supporting anti LGBT legislation.

If he wants to, that's his prerogative. Just stop pretending you're pro LGBT.
---

CrimsonRage posted...

or at least saying homophobia and discrimination towards lgbtq+ individuals doesn't bother you. in which case, just own it.

Yet again, that would be 100% valid in a hypothetical (or real, if you look outside the US...) country where you have more than two realistic options to support, but the US is not such a place.

Are you saying that if you saw a candidate who you agreed with 100%, except they were anti-gay rights; vs a candidate who you disagreed with on everything except gay rights, you'd vote for the latter? If not, at what point is the line drawn? Again, keep in mind we are talking about a context where (in practice) only two options exist, not one where you can pick or create a 3rd option, aside from the "stay out of it altogether" option.

---

Trumble posted...

Yet again, that would be 100% valid in a hypothetical (or real, if you look outside the US...) country where you have more than two realistic options to support, but the US is not such a place.

Are you saying that if you saw a candidate who you agreed with 100%, except they were anti-gay rights; vs a candidate who you disagreed with on everything except gay rights, you'd vote for the latter? If not, at what point is the line drawn? Again, keep in mind we are talking about a context where only two options exist, not one where you can pick or create a 3rd option.

Ok let's go to the extreme then.

What would you say about someone who supported Hitler solely for economic reasons? They did exist. Should they get a pass?

If you donate to people who support anti LGBT legislation, you can't turn around and claim you're pro LGBT. Since if your choice of candidates win, anti LGBT legislation will be passed
---

Goldice posted...

What would you say about someone who supported Hitler solely for economic reasons? Probably not a pass.

You're bang on. But there was far, far more than one reason to not support Hitler. And yes, there's also more than one reason to not support Republicans; but that's true for any politician. Even in places where you do have more options, it's generally a matter of the least evil, and there's no option that's actually good. Now if they specifically said "hey I'm donating to these people because I support that anti-LGBT law" (or had other factors - as this person does indeed appear to - that might suggest it), then that's a different matter, but the OP has no evidence of motivation for those donations whatsoever - only the amounts and recipients.

Now again I'll clarify, because it's inevitable some far-leftist will take this out of context otherwise, that this line of discussion is stemming specifically from that the OP does not show homophobia; not that the person in question hasn't shown it elsewhere.

---

Trumble posted...

You're bang on. But there was far, far more than one reason to not support Hitler. And yes, there's also more than one reason to not support Republicans; but that's true for any politician. Even in places where you do have more options, it's generally a matter of the least evil, and there's no option that's actually good.

Now again I'll clarify, because it's inevitable some far-leftist will take this out of context otherwise, that this line of discussion is stemming specifically from that the OP does not show homophobia; not that the person in question hasn't shown it elsewhere.

But it's pretty simple though. If his choice of candidates win, anti LGBT legislation gets passed. So. At the very least he is helping that.

Maybe he personally isn't homophobic to others. But he isn't an ally either since on some level he's A-OK with their lives getting worse. Just as the hypothetical nazi was a-ok with Jewish peoples' lives getting worse

(Though again, his "itd be better for LGBT people if anti LGBT people get elected!" take is fucking hilarious.)
---

Human rights are non-negotiable.

Bigots just want to say it's about "the economy" because they know people won't tolerate their bullshit 1 to 1. So they elect dog-whistling weirdoes like themselves to do the dirty work.

Then they cry about democracy while also electing anti-democracy candidates.

At the end of the day, queer rights don't hurt anyone and they help millions of people, so the only reason to oppose them is hate.

---

There's already a topic on this
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/79509039

he could be one of those types that is okay with the LGB, just not the T. :v It seems like that's what the GOP is shifting towards, since it is becoming harder to market the gays who just want to live their lives as a danger to society.

Goldice posted...

But it's pretty simple though. If his choice of candidates win, anti LGBT legislation gets passed. So. At the very least he is helping that.

Yeah, for sure. But a situation where he's got that option, or exactly one other (that comes with its own set of downsides), isn't evidence of anything. And again - that's all that's posted in the OP.

Goldice posted...

(Though again, his "itd be better for LGBT people if anti LGBT people get elected!" take is fucking hilarious.)

And this is the kind of detail - as I keep saying - that does indeed raise questions and by "raise questions" I pretty much just mean "shows he's anti-LGBT", rather than just being a consequence of the fucked up situation of US politics.

---

Trumble posted...

In a context where you have a wide variety of choices, sure. America, though, is just one party away from being a single-party state.

I wasn't aware people were forced to donate in America.

---

Funkydog posted...

I wasn't aware people were forced to donate in America.

Yes, and if you'd read my entire posts instead of cherry-picking one liners, you'd note that I acknowledged "staying out of it altogether" as the only 3rd option that exists. (A third party vote/donation/etc in America is pretty much the same thing as not voting / supporting anyone.)

---

Trumble posted...

Yeah, for sure. But a situation where he's got that option, or exactly one other (that comes with its own set of downsides), isn't evidence of anything. And again - that's all that's posted in the OP.

No one is forced to donate. Donate indicates much more support than "hold my nose and pick". We're not talking about just who he voted for. He went out of his way to give them money. That's much more than run of the mill support

And again, it might be a limited situation. But theres no way around it. If you donate to certain candidates, you're donating for anti LGBT legislation being passed. It's literal cause and effect. In fact, that and bs voter integrity laws are really the only legislation they seem hard pressed to pass nowadays.
---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

If you donate to a Republican, you should be banned from making video games!!!!

If youre gonna give money to bigots and nazis, then you probably should stick to country music.

---

Also FNAF4 was dog shit.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

I like the part in his apology where he says the economy is more important than gay rights.

I think gay people should have the "right" to get married, but marriage is MASSIVELY overrated and is absolutely nowhere even close to as important as the economy.

The economy affects whether you literally live or die. It affects whether you can feed your family. It affects crime rates, which is pretty damn relevant given their are politicians in CA massively de-penalizing theft, mugging, assault...pretty much the whole kitten-cabotle, creating a sky rocket in crime.

And I'm not inherently anti-Dem in general federally, just anti-CA Dems, who are absolutely bat shit crazy and corrupt out the wazoo with some of the most damaging policies I've ever seen that are objectively destroying what used to be the US's best state.

So yes. It would be nice if gay people could be married in every state, but let's not act like being able to profess your love to the government is more important than policy that practically decriminalizes holding you up at gun point, or destroying your car, business, or property with little to no repercussion.

Sure would be nice to not have a two party system where you are choosing the lesser of two evils, but yeah, there you have it.

---

I mean he also said straight up that hes pro-life so I dont see the need to quibble about his stance on homosexuality to know he sucks.

---

MajesticFerret posted...

whole kitten-cabotle,

Lmfao

---

MajesticFerret posted...

I think gay people should have the "right" to get married, but marriage is MASSIVELY overrated and is absolutely nowhere even close to as important as the economy.

The economy affects whether you literally live or die. It affects whether you can feed your family. It affects crime rates, which is pretty damn relevant given their are politicians in CA massively de-penalizing theft, mugging, assault...pretty much the whole kitten-cabotle, creating a sky rocket in crime.

And I'm not inherently anti-Dem in general federally, just anti-CA Dems, who are absolutely bat shit crazy and corrupt out the wazoo with some of the most damaging policies I've ever seen that are objectively destroying what used to be the US's best state.

So yes. It would be nice if gay people could be married in every state, but let's not act like being able to profess your love to the government is more important than policy that practically decriminalizes holding you up at gun point, or destroying your car, business, or property with little to no repercussion.

Sure would be nice to not have a two party system where you are choosing the lesser of two evils, but yeah, there you have it.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in every state for 6 years.

Also, what is your source that mugging is decriminalized in CA? That's bullshit.

You're probably talking about this:

https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-east/crime/2021/05/14/controversy-over-proposed-crime-bill-to-decriminalize-some-robberies

It reclassifies some "robbery" as "theft." Hardly the world-ending apocalypse you make it out to be.

EDIT: Also CA has the No.1 US economy so they are doing something correctly.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-14/california-defies-doom-with-no-1-u-s-economy

---

Wow, I didn't know the guy was such a shitlord.

Can't say I have any sympathy for whatever he's going through either, given the misery he's helped to inflict on others.
---

"Look im super pro African Americans and civil rights. Just because I donated to George Wallace and Strom Thurmond doesn't mean I'm not!" - someone circa mid 1900s
---

I play video games because I enjoy them, who cares what owner votes for what.

Imagine being so precious lol.

---

ColdOne666 posted...

I play video games because I enjoy them, who cares what owner votes for what.

Imagine being so precious lol.

I mean I dont care what creators do, its their content that matters. If its an entertaining game I will play it (Five Nights @ Freddies is not one of those games lol). Im not going to not play a game because some on their staff donated to "the wrong politician". Fanta was literally invented for the nazi party, but you dont see Fanta being canceled.

I will never understand moral ethics people, we do stuff ALL the time that contributes money to "bad people". But who wants to live life like that? You must have a nice cushy privileged lifestyle to be able to worry about such petty first world problems, I am just trying to survive out here, life is dificult and I dont have time or stress to waste on doing moral background checks for every little asset of life.

---

deoxxys posted...

Fanta was literally invented for the nazi party, but you dont see Fanta being canceled.

Pretty sure fanta would be canceled if it was actively donating to nazis.

deoxxys posted...

I will never understand moral ethics people, we do stuff ALL the time that contributes money to "bad people

I can't imagine why LGBT people wouldn't want to give money to someone who is using it to help advance anti LGBT candidates. "Hey he's funding people who literally dislike my existence. Oh well better give him more money"
---

deoxxys posted...

I will never understand moral ethics people, we do stuff ALL the time that contributes money to "bad people".

Is wanting to reduce that bad?

deoxxys posted...
You must have a nice cushy privileged lifestyle to be able to worry about such petty first world problems, I am just trying to survive out here, life is dificult and I dont have time or stress to waste

Then why are you arguing about this on GameFAQs?

---

Goldice posted...

Pretty sure fanta would be canceled if it was actively donating to nazis.

I can't imagine why LGBT people wouldn't want to give money to someone who is using it to help advance anti LGBT candidates. "Hey he's funding people who literally dislike my existence. Oh well better give him more money"

Okay? and? If I gave a damn about FNF I would still play it, that doesnt mean I all of sudden hate my own brother for being gay lol.

---

deoxxys posted...

Okay? and? If I gave a damn about FNF I would still play it, that doesnt mean I all of sudden hate my own brother for being gay lol.

You can. No one's demanding you don't.
---

Well okay then we are done here then.

Just dont be that guy trying to force your lifestyle choiced on others.

---

Don't like it don't buy the games any more simple as that and if you're one of those people who never bought his games but still pretending to be outraged or worse harassing the man and his family across the internet then shame on you.

ColdOne666 posted...

What's wrong with not wanting babies to get killed?

babies aren't being killed by abortion and anti-abortion policies are always paired with policies to make it harder to poor people to raise the kids they are being forced to raise.

Honestly it's not even fair to call it pro-life as it's very clearly just pro-birth.

---