Board 8 > This shit with Tripwire happened so fast we didn't even get to start a topic.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/TripwireInt/status/1435045620289613824?s=19

TL;DR

John Gibson, the head of Tripwire (Maneater, Killing Floor) comments in support of the new Texas bill that give paid bounty rewards for reporting abortions, this turning it into, in a literal sense, a fascist state. Obviously the backlash is tremendous and Tripwire already started losing business in less than 48 hours, thus they gave him the big fat boot.

---

Honestly surprised he was removed. Thought this was for sure going to turn into a Morgan Wallen situation where his views were going to result in more attention/sales for whatever this game company is.

---

It sounds like he was terrible at his job to begin with, so this and the threat to contracts it resulted in was just a justifiable excuse to finally oust him. That and the law in question is just THAT repugnant.

---

Just a short few months ago, there was a poll here about being "pro life" or being "pro choice"
Of course the majority of people here were "pro choice" but those that were "pro life" didn't receive such..hostility.
I wonder what is the difference now that made it turn into such a painful topic and a shitstorm?
Is it because it turned into a law? or is it because the law extends to rape victims as well? (which is super wrong, of course)

Maybe I am mistaken but I never realized that being "pro life" was considered so "wrong" before

---

I wouldn't say this law changes the abortion debate at the level of principles. It should be alarming even for some pro-life people.

---

Nanis23 posted...

Just a short few months ago, there was a poll here about being "pro life" or being "pro choice"
Of course the majority of people here were "pro choice" but those that were "pro life" didn't receive such..hostility.
I wonder what is the difference now that made it turn into such a painful topic and a shitstorm?
Is it because it turned into a law? or is it because the law extends to rape victims as well? (which is super wrong, of course)

Maybe I am mistaken but I never realized that being "pro life" was considered so "wrong" before

The backlash wasn't over being pro life, it was over him in particular praising a bill that should be disgusting even to pro lifers

---

Nanis23 posted...

Just a short few months ago, there was a poll here about being "pro life" or being "pro choice"
Of course the majority of people here were "pro choice" but those that were "pro life" didn't receive such..hostility.
I wonder what is the difference now that made it turn into such a painful topic and a shitstorm?
Is it because it turned into a law? or is it because the law extends to rape victims as well? (which is super wrong, of course)

Maybe I am mistaken but I never realized that being "pro life" was considered so "wrong" before

It's right there in the first post: there was a "bounty" stipulation to this law where you could literally snitch on doctors and get $1000.

---

colliding posted...

It's right there in the first post: there was a "bounty" stipulation to this law where you could literally snitch on doctors and get $1000.

Yikes

---

colliding posted...

It's right there in the first post: there was a "bounty" stipulation to this law where you could literally snitch on doctors and get $1000.

snitch on *anyone who provides aid in an abortion, including not only doctors and nurses, but even rideshare or taxi drivers who drive a patient there

and get a **$10,000 award

as for the original poster's question: there's a massive difference between holding pro-life beliefs in your personal life and support for bountyhunting abortion

---

changmas posted...

snitch on *anyone who provides aid in an abortion, including not only doctors and nurses, but even rideshare or taxi drivers who drive a patient there

and get a **$10,000 award

as for the original poster's question: there's a massive difference between holding pro-life beliefs in your personal life and support for bountyhunting abortion

and the law explicitly says the suit against a person should be successful if it can be demonstrated they did assist, even if they had no knowledge and had no reason to have knowledge that they were assisting somebody in getting an abortion

---

Yeah the law is absolutely horrendous and if you support it, you're a bad person. So fuck that guy.

---

"People are starving? Can't get healthcare? Anti-Vaxxers? People can't afford a college education? Well, sorry. I don't get political."

"Wait... we can deny women healthcare? Awesome. Count me in. I'm absolutely going to get political about this."

---

Dancedreamer posted...

"People are starving? Can't get healthcare? Anti-Vaxxers? People can't afford a college education? Well, sorry. I don't get political."

"Wait... we can deny women healthcare? Awesome. Count me in. I'm absolutely going to get political about this."

we're talking about the video game industry here so what you really mean is:

"A woman in my videogame? A black person in my videogame? LGBTQIA representation in my videogame? VIDEO GAMES SHOULDN'T BE POLITICAL"

---

Nanis23 posted...

Just a short few months ago, there was a poll here about being "pro life" or being "pro choice"
Of course the majority of people here were "pro choice" but those that were "pro life" didn't receive such..hostility.
I wonder what is the difference now that made it turn into such a painful topic and a shitstorm?
Is it because it turned into a law? or is it because the law extends to rape victims as well? (which is super wrong, of course)

Maybe I am mistaken but I never realized that being "pro life" was considered so "wrong" before

I am pro life on a personal level, but am against laws more restrictive than the Roe vs Wade standard as a matter of public policy, let alone this insanity that was passed in Texas.

---

In addition to what other people have noted about the law, it used this bounty mechanism essentially as a legal trick to enforce something blatantly unconstitutional. Basically, if they had just banned abortions past six weeks normally, the people responsible for enforcing it would have been sued and it would be quickly struck down. But for this law there's not an obvious person to sue to get it struck down ahead of time (the people that did end up being sued were Texas judges), so the idea was basically to just force abortion clinics to stop offering abortion services due to the threat of being sued. It's an amazingly scummy tactic, and was explicitly the intent of the bill's authors (and sure enough, the Supreme Court's majority threw up their hands and claimed that because it was a novel legal question they couldn't justify a stay, severely undermining their own authority).

Of course, you could imagine this same tactic being used to write all sorts of unconstitutional laws (e.g. letting people sue anyone who owns a firearm); it's a really dangerous precedent they set even for supporters of the law in question.

---

Wow, that really did move fast. I remember reading about the tweet yesterday or the day before and I saw that one company that partnered with them was cancelling their contract but the impression I got was that the guy couldn't be forced out or anything so he was probably there to stay.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Of course, you could imagine this same tactic being used to write all sorts of unconstitutional laws (e.g. letting people sue anyone who owns a firearm); it's a really dangerous precedent they set even for supporters of the law in question.

Blue States should absolutely 100% be doing this. Let people sue over gun violence, refusal to take the vaccine, etc... Play their game. Force the Supreme Court's hand.

---