StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
I think cancel culture does technically work, it just disproportionately effects people with marginalized identities. If you're a straight white man, it's deeply unlikely to stick in the long-term.
+7
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
I barely even know who Matt Pascual is, but it feels like it bears mentioning that emotional abuse is still, y'know, abuse
There is still a big difference between toxic behavior in a past relationship (how long was this ago, even?) and systemically abusing a position of power to harass and abuse people. I feel like some people are often a little to eager to throw people on a proverbial pyre, and I find that sense of entitlement for their specific sense of justice to be served, publically at that, to be very myopic and overzealous, and completely without nuance.
I agree with some of the base content of this post - there is a difference between abuse that takes place within a relationship and exerting a position of power to abuse people (although I think it's a reasonably small difference, all told)
But this is a bad post my dude
Attempting to undermine the accusations with a parenthetical, suggesting that any victims who have come forward are entitled?
Maybe that wasn't your intent, but that's a part of how it reads, and that might be why people are reacting strongly against it
Yeah no that's not at all what I'm talking about, I'm not talking about victims coming forward = entitlement. I am sorry that I've phrased that poorly. The "entitlement" of arbitrary consequences is something I see in the groups of people, or rather the "culture" around that. Often times surely well-intentioned as well, as in "carrying the torch" for the victims or whatever you'd call that. That is what I am being critical of, in its black-and-whiteness and zeal, and none of that criticism should fall onto the victims who said something in the first place. Victims should feel safe coming forward, their pain is real and I do not want to belittle or dismiss that in any sense, and I sincerely apologize if I came off that way
Okay, and then what?
In your ideal vision, what happens after someone comes forward?
I think expecting a blanket answer in the form of a "correct" course of action is part of the problem
e: and I think that depends on the needs of the victim?
rhylith explained better than I did what I wanted to say btw
So what are you going to do if the victim doesn't say anything? Like, what's your baseline? Are you just going to sit with that information and not let it change anything about how you think about the person in question or interact with them or what have you?
Because I feel like asking victims to both come forward and provide a road map of what you should be doing about it is an awful lot.
I'm glad that I have not been in a situation to make that choice, and quite honestly, even then I would feel shitty to make that choice for someone (the coming forward part)? I don't know, are we talking about a hypothetical in my social circle, is it a pattern of abuse in the workplace?
Because I feel like asking victims to both come forward and provide a road map of what you should be doing about it is an awful lot.
What, where did I demand the latter? And I am not, or would ever, *ask* a victim to come forward, because for many people, that itself can be severely traumatizing, and I would not feel comfortable saying "well if you're a victim, just say a thing!". Maybe you misunderstood what I said when I said that depends on the needs of the victim. Because there are again two things I see at play there: a) a victim coming forward, in this specific case about abuse by a former partner. And b) what happens beyond that, which is for the most part, out of the victims hand.
I think in this specific case with Pascual she felt empowered by the current wave of allegations to name him as someone who abused her. Maybe that is all she wanted to do, to put that out there, be heard. Because the only thing she asked for beyond that, as far as I've seen, is that friends and acquaintances make a choice to either have him or her in their social circles. I think that's reasonable, I sure as fuck wouldn't want my friends to hang out with my abuser.
And let me reiterate, that is not and has not been what I am critical of, it's what it spins out into, in this case people demanding that GB put out a statement naming Pascual as an abuser (again, see above what I think of that) and cut ties professionally. I've not seen calls for Activision to fire him, yet, thankfully, but that seems par for the course for what I'm wary of.
I guess more of what I was/should have been getting at was... do you feel comfortable not making a change in a situation like this? Are you okay with not doing anything? If someone doesn't tell you that they want to see people stop following the person in question on Twitter, are you going to keep following them?
Because all cancel culture is, really, is people saying that they're not comfortable consuming media by (or whatever) a person because of allegations that they have faced. It's a whole series of people doing it, often in a sort of domino effect fashion, but it's still based around people making personal decisions about what they're willing to have in their lives.
I disagree with the latter part. Because it's not just about making that choice for yourself, it's formulating a standard of morality. Jumping from "I won't consume [x] because person [y] involved in it has [z] allegations against them", which again, is fine imo, to "if you consume it, you're okay with [alleged thing]/defending [person doing thing]". I do have a problem with that, because that is some absurd guilt by association, and I don't think equating that to breaking off contact with an abuser in your social circle tracks at all.
Which fwiw, I burned bridges with people when it came to light how they abused female friends of mine, both in a relationship and not.
I mean, that's a personal moral choice still, it's just a different one than the original choice.
Like, I'm willing to associate with people who still watch Kevin Spacey movies. But if that's where someone else draws the line, that's where they draw the line. That's a decision that they've made, and I have to respect that decision on some level.
Straightzi on
+2
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
I think cancel culture does technically work, it just disproportionately effects people with marginalized identities. If you're a straight white man, it's deeply unlikely to stick in the long-term.
You had Spike Lee, who you'd think would know better, caping for Woody Allen not even a couple weeks ago, bemoaning cancel culture. Polanski is still out there last I checked, and people still can't help themselves giving him awards.
It's a bitch sticking cancelitis on old white dudes.
I barely even know who Matt Pascual is, but it feels like it bears mentioning that emotional abuse is still, y'know, abuse
There is still a big difference between toxic behavior in a past relationship (how long was this ago, even?) and systemically abusing a position of power to harass and abuse people. I feel like some people are often a little to eager to throw people on a proverbial pyre, and I find that sense of entitlement for their specific sense of justice to be served, publically at that, to be very myopic and overzealous, and completely without nuance.
I agree with some of the base content of this post - there is a difference between abuse that takes place within a relationship and exerting a position of power to abuse people (although I think it's a reasonably small difference, all told)
But this is a bad post my dude
Attempting to undermine the accusations with a parenthetical, suggesting that any victims who have come forward are entitled?
Maybe that wasn't your intent, but that's a part of how it reads, and that might be why people are reacting strongly against it
Yeah no that's not at all what I'm talking about, I'm not talking about victims coming forward = entitlement. I am sorry that I've phrased that poorly. The "entitlement" of arbitrary consequences is something I see in the groups of people, or rather the "culture" around that. Often times surely well-intentioned as well, as in "carrying the torch" for the victims or whatever you'd call that. That is what I am being critical of, in its black-and-whiteness and zeal, and none of that criticism should fall onto the victims who said something in the first place. Victims should feel safe coming forward, their pain is real and I do not want to belittle or dismiss that in any sense, and I sincerely apologize if I came off that way
Okay, and then what?
In your ideal vision, what happens after someone comes forward?
I think expecting a blanket answer in the form of a "correct" course of action is part of the problem
e: and I think that depends on the needs of the victim?
rhylith explained better than I did what I wanted to say btw
So what are you going to do if the victim doesn't say anything? Like, what's your baseline? Are you just going to sit with that information and not let it change anything about how you think about the person in question or interact with them or what have you?
Because I feel like asking victims to both come forward and provide a road map of what you should be doing about it is an awful lot.
I'm glad that I have not been in a situation to make that choice, and quite honestly, even then I would feel shitty to make that choice for someone (the coming forward part)? I don't know, are we talking about a hypothetical in my social circle, is it a pattern of abuse in the workplace?
Because I feel like asking victims to both come forward and provide a road map of what you should be doing about it is an awful lot.
What, where did I demand the latter? And I am not, or would ever, *ask* a victim to come forward, because for many people, that itself can be severely traumatizing, and I would not feel comfortable saying "well if you're a victim, just say a thing!". Maybe you misunderstood what I said when I said that depends on the needs of the victim. Because there are again two things I see at play there: a) a victim coming forward, in this specific case about abuse by a former partner. And b) what happens beyond that, which is for the most part, out of the victims hand.
I think in this specific case with Pascual she felt empowered by the current wave of allegations to name him as someone who abused her. Maybe that is all she wanted to do, to put that out there, be heard. Because the only thing she asked for beyond that, as far as I've seen, is that friends and acquaintances make a choice to either have him or her in their social circles. I think that's reasonable, I sure as fuck wouldn't want my friends to hang out with my abuser.
And let me reiterate, that is not and has not been what I am critical of, it's what it spins out into, in this case people demanding that GB put out a statement naming Pascual as an abuser (again, see above what I think of that) and cut ties professionally. I've not seen calls for Activision to fire him, yet, thankfully, but that seems par for the course for what I'm wary of.
I guess more of what I was/should have been getting at was... do you feel comfortable not making a change in a situation like this? Are you okay with not doing anything? If someone doesn't tell you that they want to see people stop following the person in question on Twitter, are you going to keep following them?
Because all cancel culture is, really, is people saying that they're not comfortable consuming media by (or whatever) a person because of allegations that they have faced. It's a whole series of people doing it, often in a sort of domino effect fashion, but it's still based around people making personal decisions about what they're willing to have in their lives.
I disagree with the latter part. Because it's not just about making that choice for yourself, it's formulating a standard of morality. Jumping from "I won't consume [x] because person [y] involved in it has [z] allegations against them", which again, is fine imo, to "if you consume it, you're okay with [alleged thing]/defending [person doing thing]". I do have a problem with that, because that is some absurd guilt by association, and I don't think equating that to breaking off contact with an abuser in your social circle tracks at all.
Which fwiw, I burned bridges with people when it came to light how they abused female friends of mine, both in a relationship and not.
I mean, that's a personal moral choice still, it's just a different one than the original choice.
Like, I'm willing to associate with people who still watch Kevin Spacey movies. But if that's where someone else draws the line, that's where they draw the line. That's a decision that they've made, and I have to respect that decision on some level.
I can respect the decision while still rejecting the accusation that I am "okay with rape" because I still like/watch a movie. That's the absurd tendril of the thing I can't abide.
el_vicio on
+1
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
I don't think Roseanne Barr has had any projects or real career prospects since she was booted off her show.
But she also has a net worth around $80 million.
So, short of actual legally-enforced justice, I don't see how any relatively successful celebrity could be cancelled if they still can collect on royalties.
I can respect the decision while still rejecting the accusation that I am "okay with rape" because I still like/watch a movie. That's the absurd tendril of the thing I can't abide.
It's also great to be told stuff like this, then when you point out how that person like X questionable thing, their response is, "Oh that's different." Or, "Yeah it's problematic." And then continue to point out how horrible you are for your thing.
paraprasing a thing I heard over the past few days but if cancel culture was real how come Mel Gibson still has a career?
I'd argue that when his shit came to light, he was pretty quickly "canceled" or whatever. I do not understand how he came back from that in recent years though, even if he's relegated to "eh" movies (I've only seen Dragged Across Concrete, and it really rubbed me the wrong way in many respects). Did he ever recant his antisemitic, racist views?
Mel Gibson was pulled over for a DUI and gave a drunken, rambling, racist, antisemitic tirade back in 2006. In 2010, he was taped by his then-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva, and here's a few key quotes
She says: "What kind of a man is that? Hitting a woman when she's holding a child in her hands? Breaking her teeth twice in the face! What kind of man is that?"
Gibson responds: "Oh, you're all angry now! You know what, you ****** deserved it!" Miss Grigorieva, who secretly recorded the phone call, tells Gibson that he is "gonna answer one day" for his behaviour.
He replies: "I'll put you in a ******* rose garden you ****. You understand that? Because I'm capable of it. You understand that?"
Gibson ended up pleading no contest to a misdemeanor battery charge.
After the 2006 incident, he was "unofficially" blacklsited. Since 2006 he has acted in nine films, with another coming out next Tuesday an two more in post-production, slated to come out sometime this year, and has directed "Hacksaw Ridge", which was nominated for six Oscars.
"Canceled" isn't really what I'd describe that as.
As for how he came back, he had powerful people fight for him. Robert Downey Jr, in particular, said
But honestly we are talking about a competitive business and it all comes down to this: because he is so gifted as a story teller and a director, I don’t know that he requires some sort of mass forgiveness.
I barely even know who Matt Pascual is, but it feels like it bears mentioning that emotional abuse is still, y'know, abuse
There is still a big difference between toxic behavior in a past relationship (how long was this ago, even?) and systemically abusing a position of power to harass and abuse people. I feel like some people are often a little to eager to throw people on a proverbial pyre, and I find that sense of entitlement for their specific sense of justice to be served, publically at that, to be very myopic and overzealous, and completely without nuance.
Are you defending someone who has been accused of abuse as a pastime or what
See, *that* is exactly what I can't stand. If I don't unequivocally agree with everything that happens under the umbrella of callout/cancel culture, I must be defending "abuse as a pastime"
That's funny because one of the allegations about pascual is threatening to make his own call out post if rim spoke privately with her friends about him
So his callout post would consist of what, then? Her possible toxic behavior? I'm not sure what you're saying. And what I said wasn't necessarily only tied to Pascual specifically, it's the conlfation of issues into a singular one with only one possible consequence. See DD's insinuation above.
What I mean to say is, the behavior described in that thread, such as that example among others, is well beyond the realm of just being a bad partner in a way that is none of my business and well into the realm of intentional and malicious emotional abuse in a way that is appropriate to warn other people about and should give anyone with a personal or professional relationship with pascual some pause. If you believe the thread is exaggerated or otherwise untrue, well, I guess you can believe that.
If you believe the thread is exaggerated or otherwise untrue, well, I guess you can believe that.
I don't.
So, all of this discourse and debate has been what, a thought experiment? An exercise? Pedantry?
I have tried to explain that I have a problem with lack of differentiation between issues, and that it is impossible for many to even think that, like Jeff said, "some things aren't as clear cut". I think I got it across in the dialogue, but if you still believe that I'm just exercising my "hobby of defending abusers" or that it's just meaningless pedantry, then I don't think I'm capable of making clear to you what I meant. I do feel that Rhylith, Straightzi and WeedLordVegeta understood what I'm trying to get at, so I'm not sure you finding my opinion and words meaningless is all on me.
Dealing with giving up on Giant Bomb due to their reticence to take any kind of meaningful stand on this stuff is... kind of a big thing for me to consider, honestly. I've been following their stuff for over a decade at this point, and the idea of just dropping it is just... kind of a big change for me?
Maybe that sounds sad or pathetic, I don't know. But Giant Bomb is easily the videogame thing I've actively followed the longest and... I'm not good with words. It's weird, to say the least.
I don't think Roseanne Barr has had any projects or real career prospects since she was booted off her show.
But she also has a net worth around $80 million.
So, short of actual legally-enforced justice, I don't see how any relatively successful celebrity could be cancelled if they still can collect on royalties.
see that's what's crazy about the argument to me--the stakes are basically never anything like "this person is risking insolvency and homelessness", because every one of them is fantastically wealthy!
roseanne just doesn't get to be on national tv every week! excuse me if I don't consider that to be something she is entitled to!
I can't really condemn them for things I myself am guilty of. I didn't drop anything related to Temkin after the first allegation. I continued to patronize Cards Against Humanity products, participated in special events and even attended multiple CAH panels, including the 2016 CAH/Giant Bomb panel that we've talked about. I only really dropped off because CAH ran its course in my group of friends.
I know better now, but that doesn't mean I didn't do those things. Much like how I was on the wrong side of the dickwolves debate, or numerous other wrong moves I've made or will make on the journey from who I was to who I will one day die as.
Like based on the posts in this thread yesterday I thought that y’all were implying the “not as clear cut” was in reference to Temkin, and that they brought up and failed to really address Temkin specifically on the bombcast.
But their discussion was focused almost entirely on Avellone, who they mentioned was on their couch at e3 last year. Temkin didn’t come up specifically at all, likely because they did not have time to discuss how they wanted to address that story yet. The CAH tweet announcing cutting ties with Temkin went up about 30 minutes before the bombcast started and they probably hadn’t had time to prepare beyond shoving him into the generic people we regret having on the show before pile.
I really think Undead Scottsman hit the nail on the head earlier. These guys are so far out of their wheelhouse on this topic and don’t know how to handle it. But that doesn’t mean they can’t do better. Definitely gettin vibes of the failure to respond on gg from the whole thing. Don’t blame y’all for cancelling in the least, though I’m willing to wait to hear what they say about Temkin specifically on the Beastcast.
I'd say they have resources available to them for this sort of situation, but they're part of CBS. CBS isn't really an organization id trust to give good guidance here
Everyone is going to have different lines in the sand. Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I don't think anyone's calling for a boycott of the site.
Yeah, it's just a weird thing for me to consider. Like, would I feel better cutting that stuff out of my life? Is it something I want to do? I feel like it'd be cutting a large part of my life out, which, look, it's just a videogame website, but still.
Everyone is going to have different lines in the sand. Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I don't think anyone's calling for a boycott of the site.
Agreed. I cancelled my sub because I just couldn’t bring myself to watch their videos anymore. Like, any time I go to watch a video my mind drifts back to the Max Temkin shit and I get angry all over again.
Everyone is going to have different lines in the sand. Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I don't think anyone's calling for a boycott of the site.
Yeah, it's just a weird thing for me to consider. Like, would I feel better cutting that stuff out of my life? Is it something I want to do? I feel like it'd be cutting a large part of my life out, which, look, it's just a videogame website, but still.
If it helps I get it
I don't think I'm going to cancel myself, but I've definitely been wrestling with "where is the line here"
Everyone is going to have different lines in the sand. Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I don't think anyone's calling for a boycott of the site.
Yeah, it's just a weird thing for me to consider. Like, would I feel better cutting that stuff out of my life? Is it something I want to do? I feel like it'd be cutting a large part of my life out, which, look, it's just a videogame website, but still.
Don't forget that they put out a lot of free content. If you're still okay with consuming thier output, but just want to send a financial message to them, you can still cancel your account and just lose out on some premium stuff.
0
jaziekBad at everythingAnd mad about it.Registered Userregular
I'm not even a premium subscriber anyway. Their premium content has never really been worth it for me. I can't binge watch stuff because of the way my brain works so it's simply too much content.
For me personally, GB's association with CAH became a big problem a long time ago, when there was some expansion released that had cards referencing the Hillsborough disaster.
I'm not sure on the exact timeline, but it wouldn't have been too long before or after the first allegations against Temkin became public and I remember his reaction to those allegations really cementing what I thought of him and CAH as a whole (I didn't think much of them).
As far as GB was concerned, I came to the conclusion that, despite some glaring mistakes, they're ultimately doing more good than harm.
I don't think yesterday's Bombcast and what was or wasn't said really changes that for me, probably because I came to terms with it a long time ago.
But I also don't think anyone should necessarily agree with me on that.
A few years ago my nana gave me a knock off Cards Against Humanity game for Christmas it was all dented and fucked up and she definitely bought it at a thrift store whilst twisted on drugs
+15
GustavFriend of GoatsSomewhere in the OzarksRegistered Userregular
did anyone else have some jackal in their town successfully kickstart a local humor based CAH expansion pack.
There are so many CAH knockoffs now, it's kinda ridiculous
I was really into it back when it first came about, but nowadays, yeah, I see it as being lame and not nearly as hilarious as I thought it was. I'm pretty sure the game is just gathering dust in my house somewhere.
Games like Funemployed are more entertaining, anyway, since you have to come up with something instead of just filling in a blank.
+5
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
there was an absurdist voice in CAH that let me look past the iffy stuff for a while, and i always talked about eventually curating the decks to focus on that, but that's a lot of work to redeem just one game
there was an absurdist voice in CAH that let me look past the iffy stuff for a while, and i always talked about eventually curating the decks to focus on that, but that's a lot of work to redeem just one game
I need someone who isn’t CAH to pick up some of the actually fun bullshit they were doing for a while.
PAX stunts like the popsicle truck with the cards in the popsicle, the gamer oatmeal, or building a goddamn maze of barricades and misleading signs to get to their booth. The early holiday events where they’d do dumb shit like buy an island and hand out deeds for a square foot and hide secrets on the island. That shit but from a company that doesn’t have this shitty baggage would be nice.
there was an absurdist voice in CAH that let me look past the iffy stuff for a while, and i always talked about eventually curating the decks to focus on that, but that's a lot of work to redeem just one game
At one point I was playing an online version that allowed you to curate the cards you played with, and I wen tin and started taking out the ones I thought were shitty.
I eventually realized that this is way too much work because there was so much garbage, I'd be better off playing anything else.
I picked up Superfight at PAX one year, I like it a lot but none of my friends do
We never really played CAH in our gaming group. I can't say it was for some noble reason, mostly our gaming group gravitated away from party games like CAH and Apples to Apples and towards dorkier shit like the Battlestar Galactica board game.
0
PwnanObrienHe's right, life sucks.Registered Userregular
I really think Undead Scottsman hit the nail on the head earlier. These guys are so far out of their wheelhouse on this topic and don’t know how to handle it. But that doesn’t mean they can’t do better. Definitely gettin vibes of the failure to respond on gg from the whole thing. Don’t blame y’all for cancelling in the least, though I’m willing to wait to hear what they say about Temkin specifically on the Beastcast.
I imagine that the Beastcast might want to also bring up Jack Gallagher.
Posts
I mean, that's a personal moral choice still, it's just a different one than the original choice.
Like, I'm willing to associate with people who still watch Kevin Spacey movies. But if that's where someone else draws the line, that's where they draw the line. That's a decision that they've made, and I have to respect that decision on some level.
You had Spike Lee, who you'd think would know better, caping for Woody Allen not even a couple weeks ago, bemoaning cancel culture. Polanski is still out there last I checked, and people still can't help themselves giving him awards.
It's a bitch sticking cancelitis on old white dudes.
I can respect the decision while still rejecting the accusation that I am "okay with rape" because I still like/watch a movie. That's the absurd tendril of the thing I can't abide.
But she also has a net worth around $80 million.
So, short of actual legally-enforced justice, I don't see how any relatively successful celebrity could be cancelled if they still can collect on royalties.
It's also great to be told stuff like this, then when you point out how that person like X questionable thing, their response is, "Oh that's different." Or, "Yeah it's problematic." And then continue to point out how horrible you are for your thing.
Mel Gibson was pulled over for a DUI and gave a drunken, rambling, racist, antisemitic tirade back in 2006. In 2010, he was taped by his then-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva, and here's a few key quotes
Gibson ended up pleading no contest to a misdemeanor battery charge.
After the 2006 incident, he was "unofficially" blacklsited. Since 2006 he has acted in nine films, with another coming out next Tuesday an two more in post-production, slated to come out sometime this year, and has directed "Hacksaw Ridge", which was nominated for six Oscars.
"Canceled" isn't really what I'd describe that as.
As for how he came back, he had powerful people fight for him. Robert Downey Jr, in particular, said
So.
What I mean to say is, the behavior described in that thread, such as that example among others, is well beyond the realm of just being a bad partner in a way that is none of my business and well into the realm of intentional and malicious emotional abuse in a way that is appropriate to warn other people about and should give anyone with a personal or professional relationship with pascual some pause. If you believe the thread is exaggerated or otherwise untrue, well, I guess you can believe that.
I don't.
So, all of this discourse and debate has been what, a thought experiment? An exercise? Pedantry?
I have tried to explain that I have a problem with lack of differentiation between issues, and that it is impossible for many to even think that, like Jeff said, "some things aren't as clear cut". I think I got it across in the dialogue, but if you still believe that I'm just exercising my "hobby of defending abusers" or that it's just meaningless pedantry, then I don't think I'm capable of making clear to you what I meant. I do feel that Rhylith, Straightzi and WeedLordVegeta understood what I'm trying to get at, so I'm not sure you finding my opinion and words meaningless is all on me.
e: okay, I'll stop talking.
Maybe that sounds sad or pathetic, I don't know. But Giant Bomb is easily the videogame thing I've actively followed the longest and... I'm not good with words. It's weird, to say the least.
see that's what's crazy about the argument to me--the stakes are basically never anything like "this person is risking insolvency and homelessness", because every one of them is fantastically wealthy!
roseanne just doesn't get to be on national tv every week! excuse me if I don't consider that to be something she is entitled to!
I know better now, but that doesn't mean I didn't do those things. Much like how I was on the wrong side of the dickwolves debate, or numerous other wrong moves I've made or will make on the journey from who I was to who I will one day die as.
But their discussion was focused almost entirely on Avellone, who they mentioned was on their couch at e3 last year. Temkin didn’t come up specifically at all, likely because they did not have time to discuss how they wanted to address that story yet. The CAH tweet announcing cutting ties with Temkin went up about 30 minutes before the bombcast started and they probably hadn’t had time to prepare beyond shoving him into the generic people we regret having on the show before pile.
I really think Undead Scottsman hit the nail on the head earlier. These guys are so far out of their wheelhouse on this topic and don’t know how to handle it. But that doesn’t mean they can’t do better. Definitely gettin vibes of the failure to respond on gg from the whole thing. Don’t blame y’all for cancelling in the least, though I’m willing to wait to hear what they say about Temkin specifically on the Beastcast.
Yeah, it's just a weird thing for me to consider. Like, would I feel better cutting that stuff out of my life? Is it something I want to do? I feel like it'd be cutting a large part of my life out, which, look, it's just a videogame website, but still.
Agreed. I cancelled my sub because I just couldn’t bring myself to watch their videos anymore. Like, any time I go to watch a video my mind drifts back to the Max Temkin shit and I get angry all over again.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
If it helps I get it
I don't think I'm going to cancel myself, but I've definitely been wrestling with "where is the line here"
Don't forget that they put out a lot of free content. If you're still okay with consuming thier output, but just want to send a financial message to them, you can still cancel your account and just lose out on some premium stuff.
I seriously hope you're not suggesting what it seems like you're suggesting here
I'm not sure on the exact timeline, but it wouldn't have been too long before or after the first allegations against Temkin became public and I remember his reaction to those allegations really cementing what I thought of him and CAH as a whole (I didn't think much of them).
As far as GB was concerned, I came to the conclusion that, despite some glaring mistakes, they're ultimately doing more good than harm.
I don't think yesterday's Bombcast and what was or wasn't said really changes that for me, probably because I came to terms with it a long time ago.
But I also don't think anyone should necessarily agree with me on that.
Oh buddy, we have a whole Quebecois adaptation of CAH
It has several expansions and probably has sold more in Quebec than Actual CAH.
I was really into it back when it first came about, but nowadays, yeah, I see it as being lame and not nearly as hilarious as I thought it was. I'm pretty sure the game is just gathering dust in my house somewhere.
Games like Funemployed are more entertaining, anyway, since you have to come up with something instead of just filling in a blank.
I mean I live in Chicago so uhh
Yeah, I reckon you could say that's true
I need someone who isn’t CAH to pick up some of the actually fun bullshit they were doing for a while.
PAX stunts like the popsicle truck with the cards in the popsicle, the gamer oatmeal, or building a goddamn maze of barricades and misleading signs to get to their booth. The early holiday events where they’d do dumb shit like buy an island and hand out deeds for a square foot and hide secrets on the island. That shit but from a company that doesn’t have this shitty baggage would be nice.
not that I know of but my hometown did make its own knock off monopoly to raise money for the high school band
At one point I was playing an online version that allowed you to curate the cards you played with, and I wen tin and started taking out the ones I thought were shitty.
I eventually realized that this is way too much work because there was so much garbage, I'd be better off playing anything else.
I picked up Superfight at PAX one year, I like it a lot but none of my friends do
I imagine that the Beastcast might want to also bring up Jack Gallagher.