Support NeoGAF

[AcrosstheSea]

I disagree. He'll suck corporate dick to get on their good graces. Backtracking on F76 and promoting lootboxes are micro examples. Oh don't forget to read his book because he's the most respected video games journalist out there!

I'm just telling you what Colin has said about him.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I dont understand the hate this guy gets. He always seems very logical and educated about what he says. I think some people hate him just cause they know they could never hold their own in a debate with him.

White CIS free thinking moderate libertarian male.

He is literally Hitler in the far left cult ideology.

 

[Shifty1897]

White CIS free thinking moderate libertarian male.

He is literally Hitler in the far left cult ideology.

Everyone is Hitler to the far left. Which, fascinatingly, has caused election polling to the become absolutely useless, as many conservative voters will deny being conservative, even in anonymous polling.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I also think Jason can handle criticism enough to not be vengeful over it.

His Twitter would say otherwise.

 

[AcrosstheSea]

His Twitter would say otherwise.

I don't read his twitter religiously but the only thing that stood out to me was the Dr. Disrespect thing and they were both trading shots at each other insult wise.

He got into a back and forth with Cory about something he wrote....he didn't become vengeful but he defended his opinion on it. Regardless I highly doubt he's responsible, that's some conspiracy level stuff. This is probably just some disgruntled Era people writing to pax. Lord knows a site that bans the ability to even say his name wouldn't be able to cope with him being in the same building.

 

[NickFire]

Decisions like this are a plain old fashion FU to a large part of the gaming audience. I keep hoping one of the updates will be to announce that they changed their mind again. Damn shame that the people running that show don't respect the part off the community that don't buy into the dogma. So much for being inclusive.

 

[Boss Mog]

Not surprising in the least.

 

[Lionel Richie]

Is it really his family, or is it a child he’s giving an “innocent” piggy back ride to? There’s a pattern with these types.

Too close to tell. Opening a milkshake stand at a kiddy diddler convention would probably make a lot of money, what's with these people and their fascination with this shit? Can't they throw a fucking coke or something? Does it have to be something childish or is it just force of habit for creepy van lurkers?

 

[DeepEnigma]

I don't read his twitter religiously but the only thing that stood out to me was the Dr. Disrespect thing and they were both trading shots at each other insult wise.

He got into a back and forth with Cory about something he wrote....he didn't become vengeful but he defended his opinion on it. Regardless I highly doubt he's responsible, that's some conspiracy level stuff. This is probably just some disgruntled Era people writing to pax. Lord knows a site that bans the ability to even say his name wouldn't be able to cope with him being in the same building.

Maybe he is learning from criticism. I remember the past where he would instant-block descending opinions, etc..

He may try and defend himself with larger players as well, versus nobodies.

Half the creampuffs at Era won't be caught dead talking like they do online IRL, if they even leave the house to begin with.

 

[Xaero Gravity]

Too close to tell. Opening a milkshake stand at a kiddy diddler convention would probably make a lot of money, what's with these people and their fascination with this shit? Can't they throw a fucking coke or something? Does it have to be something childish or is it just force of habit for creepy van lurkers?

If someone threw coke at me I'd snort that shit while it was still in the air.

 

[joe_zazen]

That isn't questionable at all. His daughter is interested in the game he is playing, likes that the character has a similar hair colour and he agrees as he looks at his daughter, who has red hair (clearly suggesting a fondness due to his familial ties). This is as non-questionable as they come and you are just looking to be needlessly offended.

But why does she look like she is hepped up on goofballs?

 

[ThatStupidLion]

If someone threw coke at me I'd snort that shit while it was still in the air.

 

[iconmaster]

They've also released some more "questionable" stuff,

What Tycho likes is that his daughter is enjoying being represented in a game.

Ronia doesn’t know much about the game, other than the fact that the protagonist looks like her. But Aloy is also like Ronia, in that she’s clever, and she often arrives at the conceptual station before her old man does.

Implying an incestual, pedophiliac attraction is really going a bit far.

 

[Bryank75]

Santa Monica is fucking great. + you’ll sometimes see Norm MacDonald and the guy from def lepard.

I love Norm McDonald so much. Most underrated comedian ever.

 

[Xaero Gravity]

Edit: Whoops

 

[Come On Tars]

 

[JordanN]

Implying an incestual, pedophiliac attraction is really going a bit far.

I'll let people be their own judge.

I remember when people threw the same accusations at Trump and his daughter. I never said it was right, just something to think about on your own.

 

[Bryank75]

Incredible gains in his Patreon support every time the deplatforming crowd try to do something to him.

 

[HotPocket69]

Incredible gains in his Patreon support every time the deplatforming crowd try to do something to him.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

This makes me happy to see, and I'm not even one of Colin's viewers/listeners/readers.

 

[iconmaster]

Oh sure.

 

[Shmunter]

Yeah, no. I think you've spent too much time reading hyperventilating invective on the internet. There have always been people who are more progressive or more conservative with plenty of dumb people in either group. Go back hundreds of years and we can see similar arguments about how liberals are dangerous know-nothing's. Funny then because we are (almost) all liberals now in their sense of the word. A lot of unnecessary violence has occured because of language that suggests some group is not worthy of being treated like a fellow citizen.

I’m progressive; meaning supporting positive change where needed. Let’s not conflate genuine progressive ideas with authoritarian regression, of which any reasonable person takes issue with.

What we are witnessing is the internet effecting the gullible with fake outrage, click bait, and the blind mobs it ensures. Insanity is being normalised.

 

[Winter John]

Cool, so all I have to do is put out a few Tweets about milkshaking PAX panelists and PAX will cancel them completely? Great! I'm sure that'll work.

Go ahead buddy. You go on and post a bunch of tweets threatening someone at a public event and encourage others to attack them as well. Come on back after and tell us how that worked out for you.

 

[Winter John]

A declaration is an opinion. Unless I had inside knowledge, which I do not, they are still opinions. I didn't claim to have sources otherwise, which just makes them strong opinions. And you know this too.

Is it possible that was the reason? I guess, but I find it incredibly unlikely. I stated why multiple times. If I were a betting man, I'd bet everything I had that some random no-name's tweet had anything to do with it and that quickly. His tweet may have even come after Colin got the email. But even if not, I doubt within a couple hours a major decision like that would have been made and an email sent. It likely wouldn't have happened until the following day at the earliest.

"Definitely politically motivated" is not an opinion. You have presented it as a fact. The key word there being "definitely."


"but I guarantee people in the industry who don't like him complained and that's why."

Nothing in this sentence is presented as an opinion. You are "guaranteeing" people in the industry complained about him. You have no idea whether they did or not.


"I didn't claim to have sources otherwise, which just makes them strong opinions. And you know this too."

None of this has anything to do with you declaring that this event was "definitely politically motivated" or guaranteeing that people in the industry reported him. You didn't present "strong opinions." You posted declarations as fact. Unfortunately you either don't know this or, worse, you do know it and are just scrabbling around looking for a loophole to crawl out of.

So you'd be willing to bet that this organisation cancelled a panel because some industry insiders don't like him? Again, given that his political views have been widely known for some years now and he hasn't done anything recently that is unusual or caused controversy. Why would this organisation suddenly decide to start listening to these industry insiders a few days before he was due to attend?

 

[cryogenic7]

Decisions like this are a plain old fashion FU to a large part of the gaming audience. I keep hoping one of the updates will be to announce that they changed their mind again. Damn shame that the people running that show don't respect the part off the community that don't buy into the dogma. So much for being inclusive.

But but but you can't be inclusive to NAZIS!

 

[cryogenic7]

"Definitely politically motivated" is not an opinion. You have presented it as a fact. The key word there being "definitely."


"but I guarantee people in the industry who don't like him complained and that's why."

Nothing in this sentence is presented as an opinion. You are "guaranteeing" people in the industry complained about him. You have no idea whether they did or not.


"I didn't claim to have sources otherwise, which just makes them strong opinions. And you know this too."

None of this has anything to do with you declaring that this event was "definitely politically motivated" or guaranteeing that people in the industry reported him. You didn't present "strong opinions." You posted declarations as fact. Unfortunately you either don't know this or, worse, you do know it and are just scrabbling around looking for a loophole to crawl out of.

So you'd be willing to bet that this organisation cancelled a panel because some industry insiders don't like him? Again, given that his political views have been widely known for some years now and he hasn't done anything recently that is unusual or caused controversy. Why would this organisation suddenly decide to start listening to these industry insiders a few days before he was due to attend?

People in the industry with quite a bit of clout complained about him because of his politics, he was removed from the panel for that reason. Those are easily deducible FACTS.

 

[Winter John]

People in the industry with quite a bit of clout complained about him because of his politics, he was removed from the panel for that reason. Those are easily deducible FACTS.

Are they? Can you provide evidence of these facts?

 

[cryogenic7]

Are they? Can you provide evidence of these facts?

Yes.

He was removed from the panel. He wasn't removed due to logistical reasons, otherwise they would have responded to his inquires and explained WHY he was removed. Since he was not removed due to logistical issues, it must have been due to a political reason. What other reason would they have?

The fact that they have not responded to his inquires for a reason reveals that his removal was based on a political decision and therefore has a political motive. The PAX organizers approved and scheduled his panel, so his removal wasn't a decision made based solely on the organizers, otherwise they would have never allowed him to have a panel in the first place.

The organizers would NOT remove him from the panel based on suggestions from someone OUTSIDE of the industry, so whatever motivated the removal came from within the industry. Any regular joe schmo in the industry would not carry the weight to affect a decision for removal, so whoever prompted the removal has a lot of clout.

 

[Winter John]

Yes.

He was removed from the panel. He wasn't removed due to logistical reasons, otherwise they would have responded to his inquires and explained WHY he was removed. Since he was not removed due to logistical issues, it must have been due to a political complaint of one sort or another.

The fact that they have not responded to his inquires for a reason reveals that his removal was based on a political decision and therefore has a political motive. The PAX organizers approved and scheduled his panel, so his removal wasn't a decision made based solely on the organizers, otherwise they would have never allowed him to have a panel in the first place.

The organizers would NOT remove him from the panel based on suggestions from someone OUTSIDE of the industry, so whatever motivated the removal came from within the industry. Any regular joe schmo in the industry would not carry the weight to affect a decision for removal, so whoever prompted the removal has a lot of clout.

Try again. I asked you to post evidence of these facts you claim to know, not assumptions.

 

[cryogenic7]

Try again. I asked you to post evidence of these facts you claim to know, not assumptions.

I did post evidence, you just don't seem to possess the deductive reasoning skills to grasp that evidence.

 

[Winter John]

I did post evidence, you just don't seem to possess the deductive reasoning skills to grasp that evidence.

None of what you have posted is factual evidence. You just don't have the skills to grasp the difference between assumption and factual evidence.

 

[cryogenic7]

None of what you have posted is factual evidence. You just don't have the skills to grasp the difference between assumption and factual evidence.

His removal from the panel either had a logistical or political motivation. Is there another possible motive?

 

[joe_zazen]

None of what you have posted is factual evidence. You just don't have the skills to grasp the difference between assumption and factual evidence.

He had a panel scheduled and approved, it was summarily cancelled with no explanation. Those are facts. The assumptions he makes aren't far fetched based on those facts. I mean, if they had a legitimate reason that wasn't 'someone doesn't like you', they would have told him. It is common courtesy in business.

 

[Winter John]

His removal from the panel either had a logistical or political motivation. Is there another possible motive?

There's a safety motive

 

[Winter John]

He had a panel scheduled and approved, it was summarily cancelled with no explanation. Those are facts. The assumptions he makes aren't far fetched based on those facts. I mean, if they had a legitimate reason that wasn't 'someone doesn't like you', they would have told him. It is common courtesy in business.

Again. You, me and everyone else in this thread have absolutely no idea what they would or wouldn't have told him.

 

[cryogenic7]

There's a safety motive

Safety would be a logistical reason. That aside, if safety were the issue then why did they not simply tell him that? You know as well as I do that safety is not the reason. They are making a political decision in not responding to his inquiries regarding his removal, and it follows that their political response is due to a political motivation.

 

[Winter John]

Safety would be a logistical reason. That aside, if safety were the issue then why did they not simply tell him that? You know as well as I do that safety is not the reason. They are making a political decision in not responding to his inquiries regarding his removal, and it follows that their political response is due to a political motivation.

"You know as well as I do that safety is not the reason."

You keep making these statements. So, again I'll ask you to provide this factual evidence you have that his panel wasn't cancelled due to safety reasons, and was a political decision.

 

[cryogenic7]

"You know as well as I do that safety is not the reason."

You keep making these statements. So, again I'll ask you to provide this factual evidence you have that his panel wasn't cancelled due to safety reasons, and was a political decision.

If the decision were made based on logistical reasoning it would be very easy to respond to his inquiries and the issue would be settled. Their non response is POLITICAL in nature.

 

[Winter John]

If the decision were made based on logistical reasoning it would be very easy to respond to his inquiries and the issue would be settled. Their non response is POLITICAL in nature.

Again. Provide the factual evidence you claim to have that it was a political move by the organisers. So far, the only factual thiing you've said is that he was removed by the organisers. Apart from that all you have posted is conjecture and logical fallacy. So let's try it again eh.

Post the factual evidence you claim to have that the organisers of Pax removed Colin for political reasons. Not conjecture, not assumption, not logical fallacy or make believe. Post the factual evidence that Colin was removed because of his political views.

 

[joe_zazen]

Again. You, me and everyone else in this thread have absolutely no idea what they would or wouldn't have told him.

We do know exactly what they told him: nothing except you are not welcome here as a panelist.

 

[Winter John]

We do know exactly what they told him: nothing except you are not welcome here as a panelist.

Is that what they said in their emails to him?

 

[joe_zazen]

Again. Provide the factual evidence you claim to have that it was a political move by the organisers. So far, the only factual thiing you've said is that he was removed by the organisers. Apart from that all you have posted is conjecture and logical fallacy. So let's try it again eh.

Post the factual evidence you claim to have that the organisers of Pax removed Colin for political reasons. Not conjecture, not assumption, not logical fallacy or make believe. Post the factual evidence that Colin was removed because of his political views.

It is political in the sense that they don't want him there as a panelist (exercise of power) and it is political in the sense that they held no consultation or attempted to work through any issues (secretive and opaque decision process).

 

[joe_zazen]

Is that what they said in their emails to him?

The one that i cursorily read. But i am not getting paid to look at this stuff, so i can very well be wrong.

 

[Winter John]

Relax friend. It is political in the sense that they don't want him there as a panelist (exercise of power) and it is political in the sense that they held no consultation or attempted to work through any issues (secretive and opaque decision process).

We don't know if they wanted him there or not. It seems unusual that they would invite him and then suddenly decide his widely known political views weren't appropriate for their event, especially as they don't seem to have changed over the last few years.

Maybe you could post this email where they tell him they don't want him

 

[AV]

Go ahead buddy. You go on and post a bunch of tweets threatening someone at a public event and encourage others to attack them as well. Come on back after and tell us how that worked out for you.

I never said threaten or encourage, just talk about. You know, like the unbanned Twitter account Colin included in his Tweet which you were talking about originally: https://twitter.com/timedoctor?lang=en

 

[oagboghi2]

There's a safety motive

No there isn't.

 

[Shai-Tan]

I’m progressive; meaning supporting positive change where needed. Let’s not conflate genuine progressive ideas with authoritarian regression, of which any reasonable person takes issue with.

What we are witnessing is the internet effecting the gullible with fake outrage, click bait, and the blind mobs it ensures. Insanity is being normalised.

Maybe I was reading a little too much into the "reckoning" you were imagining. To me it sounded similarly illiberal. Anyhow, here is an historically informed take on conversational virtues that I think Colin Moriarty would like:

What’s wrong with a little civility? - ABC Religion & Ethics

In recent years there has been an all-out assault on the very idea of “civility” — with activists, pundits, and politicians declaring that the time for civil disagreement is over, and the time for moral outrage has begun. But before we reject civility altogether, we should be clear on what it is...

www.abc.net.au

 

[Dabaus]

I saw colin endorsed Tulsi Gabbard, A democrat on twitter. I find it ironic that hes banned from events and kicked out of companies he himself founded for "wrong think" by leftists but instead of standing up for his beliefs cucks for the opposition. An opposition that isnt interested in redemption or finding common ground. He's not interested in joining up with groups that, ya know may take his side, instead its a cuckservative, "if i virtue signal hard enough maybe theyll like me" kind of move. Weak.

 

[Clear]

Maybe I was reading a little too much into the "reckoning" you were imagining. To me it sounded similarly illiberal. Anyhow, here is an historically informed take on conversational virtues that I think Colin Moriarty would like:

What’s wrong with a little civility? - ABC Religion & Ethics

In recent years there has been an all-out assault on the very idea of “civility” — with activists, pundits, and politicians declaring that the time for civil disagreement is over, and the time for moral outrage has begun. But before we reject civility altogether, we should be clear on what it is...

www.abc.net.au

What an interesting piece, thanks for that.

 

[JCK75]

I saw colin endorsed Tulsi Gabbard, A democrat on twitter. I find it ironic that hes banned from events and kicked out of companies he himself founded for "wrong think" by leftists but instead of standing up for his beliefs cucks for the opposition. An opposition that isnt interested in redemption or finding common ground. He's not interested in joining up with groups that, ya know may take his side, instead its a cuckservative, "if i virtue signal hard enough maybe theyll like me" kind of move. Weak.

Don't you read Vox? Tulsi is a Conservative on foreign policy because she's anti war