Let’s Answer Questions That No Atheist Can Answer

An pro-Islam YouTube channel has decided to make a series of questions that no atheist can answer.  I figured that since I haven’t done anything atheist in forever, I would take on these questions.  Here’s a link to the video, now let’s do this.

How did existence emerge out of no-space and no-time?

How do you know there was no-space and no-time before reality as we understand it?  The truth is that we don’t know how exactly the universe came into being.  There are a number of theories, but all of those could be proven wrong.  Meanwhile, your religious book says that Allah somehow always existed outside space and time and magically made everything.  Yeah, I’ll take actual science over sky wizard magic.

How can an atheist assume his atheism is valid?

I am an atheist, therefore my atheism is valid.  Given what I’ve seen of modern science and the various religious texts I have read, I have concluded that their beliefs in a divine being are absurd, so I do not believe in them.  Boom, that was easy.  Aren’t these questions supposed to be so hard that no atheist can answer them?

When the moment of the start of existence is stark proof on the creativity of the creator and his ability to originate existence?

Oh, I jumped the gun there.  Well, I can answer this too.  There is NO proof that the universe was created by a magical sky-wizard.  None.  You all talk about sunrises and rainbows and a nice ass on a sexy lady, but then decide to just ignore the fact that most of reality cannot support life, because it exists in a massive void called space.  That there are a TON of things that are not beautifully made on this world, such as birth defects, evil people, and the fact that our planet is one giant asteroid away from humanity being dead.  I can see my atheism as valid because I can see that there is ZERO proof of your creator, and your pathetic supposition about the beauty of existence.  Again, wasn’t this supposed to be hard?

How did no life transform into life?

We don’t know.  See, once-again, this is something science has that religions does not.  We have the humility to acknowledge when we don’t have all the answers.  Meanwhile, ancient books written by primitive savages are what you hold up as absolute truth.  But please, tell me again how you are so enlightened.  There are a lot of theories about the origin of life on Earth.  Eventually, we will be able to create rudimentary life in a laboratory, and on that day, I will smugly look at your retarded morons and say “where is your Allah now?”

How did matter mutate from lifelessness into living cells?

Again, we don’t know for sure, but there are a number of theories.  Science is looking for the answer.  Meanwhile, I haven’t seen your bullshit religion figuring anything out.  Given that your religion has a bad habit of being shit on by actual science.  Like how the Quran says that night is as a cover over day, when we know that is patently untrue.  Or how you can somehow transmute mud into man.  I’ll take science over that stupid shit any day.

With all our techniques and advances, we cannot originate the simplest form of life, so how can we explain the origination of life in the dead matter?

What a weird phrasing.  Matter isn’t dead or alive.  It is.  Living cells are dead or alive.  As I said, we currently haven’t gained the ability to create life in a laboratory, but the day is coming.  And when it does, I cannot wait to watch you eat those words.  Not to mention, isn’t this a tacit admission that it takes magic to do it?  So you do believe in magic.  Good to know.

Wouldn’t we, at least, be able to originate a form of life that supersedes the one that originated in the dead matter by at least a million times?

Someday we will be able to create rudimentary life, but complex life forms grow over millions of years of evolution.  They aren’t just made in a factory.  That’s your religious bias talking.  You don’t just make complicated organisms.  We will no doubt be able to clone current life, but creating organisms that are (as you put it) at least a million times more complicated than current life is asinine.  Genetic modification through gene therapy is one way we can alter genetics of an organism, but creating all that from scratch is ridiculous.  Because you think that life is created, you have this bias.  Sorry that reality doesn’t work the way you want it in your head.

How can the atheist argue against the annihilation of all mankind?

Because I was born with empathy I don’t want to kill my fellow human being en masse.  I joke around that human needs to die, but there is some part of me in the dark recesses of my little black heart that hopes that somehow, some way, humanity figures out how to save itself from its own stupidity.

What is the rational, substantial, scientific evidence an atheist can present to prove the annihilation of all mankind is a mistake?

Easy, the human brain has the capacity for empathy.  We see looking after our fellow human being as a goal to aspire to.  We want to improve the world we live in.  Meanwhile, let’s take a look at your holy book.  It calls for death for those who leave the faith, or to kill non-believers, unless they convert to Islam.  Your religious text condones more murder than atheist secularism EVER will.  But please, tell me again how I believe in genocide.  You then decide to ditch the questions and tell us that we must naturally assume that genocide is rational to save the species.  Um, no.  I believe that sexual education and access to contraception will do more to stop overpopulation than your retarded book.

Atheism assumes that human beings are just animals who came into existence after a long and slow sequence of evolution from meaner beings, so what if a higher being came into existence?

There is a LOT to unpack here.  Atheism doesn’t believe that we came into existence from really mean beings.  We came from less evolved forms of life.  But since human history is a litany of violence (so is your religion, both post and current times), saying that we came from “meaner beings” is a really strange way to phrase things.  I believe we came from less evolved forms.  Sure, they were violent, but nature is violent.  Humanity is violent.  Violence is a part of life.  One that, unfortunately, humanity can’t get away from.

As for your second question, what would happen if a higher being came into existence?  Well, if the Q shows up one day, I can’t stop it from choosing to destroy humanity.  If we meet some hyper-evolved intelligent being that has figured out the right way to live, I guess we can sit back and realize how bad we fucked up and feel sad.  This is such a strange question.

Will it have the right to put us in cages and use us as lab rats?

The right?  No.  It might have the power to do that.  But if there is a being who has evolved and grown to the point that they realize the nature of reality and that we have to look after each other, they aren’t going to want to do so.  Western society evolved socially to see slavery as wrong.  Here in America, we had a big old war over that belief.  It’s telling about your view on reality when you think a higher being has barbarous intentions.  Islam at work?  You then once-again go out of the mode of asking questions to give your answer – the “darwinist” answer is “Yes!”  For one, Darwinism is a bullshit term that I have only ever heard creationists use.  For another, find me all the biologists who want to enslave people.

Oh, but we can look at your religion and see people enslaving people.  Like how ISIS has taken women all over the Middle East as sex slaves.  Like that?  I love that a Muslim is telling me about how immoral I am, when the immorality of Islam is everywhere to be found.

So, what is the purpose from protecting mankind or providing them with meaning or purpose when it comes to atheism?

Atheism tells people that meaning and purpose is what you make of it.  There is no higher being to give us purpose.  We have to find it in our own lives through our own values systems that are unique to every individual.  I’m sorry that our belief structure is all about freedom while yours tells you to accept easy answers from a sky-wizard despot.  Oh, but you decide to answer your own question again, with the propaganda that you approve of.  Wasn’t this supposed to be questions that atheists like me are supposed to answer?  I’m feeling really gypped here.

What if, according to evolution, we proved that one race is higher than the other?

Higher how?  We have proven that the Asian community tends to favor intelligence in their genes.  We’ve shown that black people tend to have much bigger cocks than white people.  What is your metric for “higher”?

Will the higher race be allowed to transform the lesser race into used matter: as we do with the insects or animals?

You haven’t even defined what the “higher race” is.  I suppose this is to be about eugenics.  Well, since we are all part of the same species, there is no “higher race.”  We are all human.  Different humans have different genetic traits, we we share a same species.  This ties in with that creationist bullshit you hear about “kinds” and shit like that.  But since we know that not all evolution is done by “survival of the fittest,” the argument that only the strongest organism will survive is no longer valid.  We now know that weaker organisms evolve defenses against the stronger organisms.  Or they will go to other areas and once they no longer have that predator, they evolve in different ways.  That’s called genetic drift.  Your whole argument is based on a bullshit analogy of what evolution teaches. Muslim creationists, go figure.

Then you decide to once-again answer your own question and say that your “brilliant” argument is enough to demolish atheism from the mind of anyone that uses common sense.  I just refuted it, so yeah, didn’t do shit to me.

After this he goes into a long diatribe about how atheism says that morals are relative, but that atheists then say that morals are absolute when shit hits the fan in our own lives.  A statement that is blatantly not true.  Citation needed, moron.  I’m gonna try and figure out if I can put into words what this dude is trying to ask here, since there is no question.  It’s just a sermon from this guy for a long stretch of time.

If morals are relative, how can you claim there is immorality for the bad things that happen?

Okay, let’s play a little game with that.  Your holy book tells you to murder people who leave the faith.  It’s a fact.  It also tells you that men are stronger than women and to use that strength over women.  So, when was the last apostate that you killed?  Or the last woman you beat?  Both are fine according the moral precepts of your book?  Meanwhile, in Christianity, it says that you shouldn’t beat women, but you should silence them in church, because they should ask their husband whatever they are confused about.  What Christians tell their bitch to shut up in church?

Morality is relative.  The morals of ISIS are not the morals of contemporary Islam, correct?  However, in places like the UK, it was found that the vast majority of Muslims there would not report to the police if they knew a terrorist attach was coming by a Muslim.  What is the correct thing to do?  The moral thing to do in that instance changes.

Meanwhile, atheism says that morals are relative, and instead of following some moral code set out by some ayatollah or religious leader, to follow empathy and try and be an empathetic person.  That is as close to actual objective morality as we will ever get.

How did the amazing constants of physics emerge?

Stephen Hawking wrote a book about how the universe could easily have come into existence, physics and all, without the need for a God.  I hate to be accused of the argument from authority argument, but this guy was one of the smartest people to ever live.  I think his source trumps your ancient desert tomes.

You then decide to go into the Cosmological Argument.  For those who want my beautiful destruction of that stupid-ass argument, here’s a link.  One thing you make is the argument that if things were even the slightest bit different, reality would collapse.  How do you know this?  How do you know that instead, it would just be another reality where there are new laws of physics?  It’s why Neil DeGrasse Tyson said if we ever do find a door to other words, best to send a probe first, because it may have laws of physics that don’t interact with our reality.

How did the genome emerge within the living cells?

This ties into the emergence of life.  Even the most basic bacteria cells have DNA.  You answer the story of the origin of life on Earth, you answer that question.  Idiot.  But you make the argument of “there had to be writer for it.”  So dumb.  We’ve seen how natural processes can change DNA, through forces like mutation, where the DNA of one cell mutates.  Cancer is a mutation of healthy cells into cancerous ones.  Did Allah decide to just go into all those cells and change things?  Neat fact – cancer cells don’t age, so long as the host organism survives.  In theory, cancer could live forever.

Where do morality and values come from, when it comes to atheism?

I’ve already answered this question.  Next!  Oh, wait, there is nothing next.  You just summarize your bullshit.

Well, that was…not fun at all.  I hate it.  Never doing this again.  I’m tired of answering stupid questions.  I have a headache.  This was beating a dead horse.

Until next time, a quote,

“When the black plague swept the land, people killed cats, mistakenly thinking they spread the disease. In actuality, the plague was spread by rats–and we had done them a favor by genociding their natural predator. We haven’t gotten smarter since.” – TJ Kirk

Peace out,

Maverick

Advertisements

It’s Confirmed, You Are the World’s Greatest Con Artist (A response to Anita Sarkeesian)

I know what you’re thinking – why are you giving this woman more publicity?  Who even cares about her anymore?  Honestly, this isn’t me looking to yell at her.  Because the truth is that I am in genuine awe of this woman.  It blows my freaking mind how she is able to bilk people out of massive amounts of cash for her “non-profit,” all while being paid a king’s ransom to go to universities and do speaking engagements.  Schools basically pay this bimbo to go there and to proselytize to them.  It’s one big feminist circle-jerk.  It never ceases to amaze.

First, way back in 2012, she was able to bilk the masses out of money on Kickstarter for a series of videos to be done within the space of a year all about “Tropes vs Women in Video Games.”  Over five years later, she gets the series of videos finished, within keeping a SINGLE ONE of her Kickstarter backer rewards that she promised.  It was proven that her videos saw no noticeable uptake in quality, her talk about needing money for “research” was bullshit because she was stealing other people’s gameplay footage, and the only thing in any of the videos that looks like it would have taken any budget at all was an animated spoof on a video game that no one would want to play.  She raised $158,000 for that.  But we’re only just getting started.

After bilking the feminist culture once, she decided to do it again.  Except this time she was much more honest about being a money-grubbing demagogue.  She asked for $250,000 for a new video series – “Ordinary Women: Daring to Defy History.”  What did she say she needed the money for?  Well, for things like costumes, and sets for skits and the like.  Once-again, the Internet sleuths immediately pointed out that all the shit she claimed to need this money for, she already had.  TJ Kirk, aka The Amazing Atheist, decided to make his own stand against this by starting up a fund-raising effort to go to an actual charity that does actual good for women – the International Women’s Health Coalition.  As that campaign was building more traction than her own campaign, Anita spun it to it all being a big harassment campaign against her.  She has a gift at condemning the damsel in distress trope, all while embodying it down to the rank and file.

Keep in mind – all of this is being done while she is being paid tens of thousands of dollars for her speaking engagements.  Her non-profit group, that literally exists only to fatten her wallet, as there is no discernible evidence of what they do for women aside from their shitty videos, is making hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.  But it doesn’t end.

News reached me this morning that the money-grubbing charlatan has asked for even more money.  This time, it’s to start a Discord server.  Are you kidding me?!  Something that I know for a fact is free and takes a minute.  At max.  How?  Because I’ve done it.  I have a Discord server for a few choice people.  Unbelievable.  Of course, I know who she’s bilking this money from – stupid people.  People who aren’t actually tech people.  They don’t know any better.  Or her sycophantic followers like Wil Wheaton (shut up, Wesley!), who as we saw for that article he penned for Time magazine, has his head buried firmly up her ass, giving her a metaphorical rimjob.

I genuinely am impressed about how good this woman is at parting morons and their money.  Long have I held the contention that this woman is not some brainwashed idiot.  She is a strategic, manipulative con artist.  The best that has ever been.  Nobody can make people believe their bullshit the way that Anita does.  It’s a genuine talent.  One that I whole-heartedly respect.  Because you know that she doesn’t believe this bullshit that she spews.  There’s a REALLY old video floating around of her being interviewed as a seminar held by a guy who basically was doing a kind of ponzi scheme.  There you can hear Anita talking about how much she learned.  That and the video she made about how much she hates video games are probably the only two things she’s ever made that I think she’s being genuine.  The rest is all performance art.  Terrible, terrible performance art.  But because she slaps the feminism label on it, she gets a shit-ton of views.

The people who give money to this woman are either too stupid to understand that a Discord server costs nothing to set up and nothing to run, or they just want their feminist good boy/good girl badges so they can say that they are part of the solution.  Because the people who care about that shit are the ones who their image is all that matters to them.  The worst kinds of people, if you ask me.  All the while, Anita takes it all to the bank.  Making buckets of money.  It might as well be falling from the sky like the leaves in Peter Griffin’s terrible short film.

It always catches me off-guard when I see people like Kat Blaque or Franchesca Ramsey bitching about how the people who are anti-sjw are in it for the money, almost as if lamenting how much money these people could make (before ad-pocalypse and YouTube fucking the algorithm ten ways to Sunday) versus how much they are making.  Which strikes me as odd, given how much the feminist queen rakes in.  Maybe these people just aren’t as good of con artists.

That does make sense, when you see the people who try to play at Anita’s game and fail.  People like Crypt Keeper Wu.  Oh, I’m sorry.  That was rude.  It’s potential Congresswoman Crypt Keeper Wu.  When you look at how Brianna has tried and failed to sell her victimhood, it really makes you appreciate just how good Anita is at cultivating her bullshit.  It’s not an understatement to say that I genuinely respect the talent Sarkeesian has in manipulating people

Does make you wonder, though, if the SJWs are so openly jealous of the anti-SJWs for making money, what do they say about Anita Sarkeesian (who is making money hand over fist while on their side of the fence) behind closed doors?

Until next time, a quote,

“People that support me, mixed in with, more people that support me and say nice things.  Rainbows all around me, there is no shame in my safe space.” – South Park

Peace out,

Maverick

You Are a Flying Monkey (A response to ESA President Mike Gallagher)

I just love when we have those who are supposed to at least tangentially represent the protection of consumers coming right out and admitting that they are full of shit.  It’s kind of cathartic.  Like when you are completely vindicated on a food that you thought you wouldn’t like because it smells bad, and then tastes worse.  Your friend was so insistent that it is much better than it smells, but then you get the confirmation of how right you are, and it is a fulfilling little moment.  That’s what we have here.  Only difference is, it’s ESA President Mike Gallagher trying to get us to eat bullshit and like it.

In an article for Games Industry, he lays out why regulation of predatory loot boxes is bad, and how gamers are overreacting about the predatory nature of this stuff.  It’s capital bullshit, and I felt like responding to it.  Here’s a link to the article, now let’s get started.

This is something that our industry is really, really good at,” he said. “It’s one of the hallmarks of our success: how we engage consumers, and build a business model around our products that is dynamic, exciting and, at the end of the day, profitable. But it’s done in a way where the gamers are pleased with how we interact with them.

Yeah, let’s ask EA how that’s going.  Like when the Battlefront 2 mess exploded in their face, and how they tried desperately to play it off on Reddit, only for the whole mess to blow up even more in their faces.

I just love the bullshit corporate speak here.  The way that this guy is just sucking off the corporate industry as hard as he possibly can.  No surprise, since the ESA has been lobbied HARD after US politicians tried to go after lootboxes on legislation.  No doubt the corporate tools of EA and other publishers were on the phone with them that afternoon telling them they need as much cock-sucking as possible for their predatory practices.  Every time I heard language like this, my senses immediately go off that every word out of this person’s mouth is bullshit.  Language like this is used by somebody who has nothing true to say.  Not once in the history of anything I’ve ever read with substantive points has been done in corporate speak.  Trust me, you are going to see more.

But today, one particular business model, loot boxes, has come under intense scrutiny, and it has come under that scrutiny because of these forces I’ve shared with you: intense cultural engagement, relevance, the economic connection; all of these forces, when you align them together, lead to the interest of government.

No, it didn’t.  What happened was that the predatory nature of microtransactions has been under scrutiny by gamers for years.  We’ve NEVER liked it.  Ever.  But when EA decided to lock all the content of a new game in a big IP behind lootboxes, and made their big game pretty much pay-to-win, then people decided they had had enough.  It was genuinely encouraging to see gamers come together to unite against this kind of predatory bullshit.

Activision didn’t make it better when they were trying to patent an algorithm that would make the buying of lootboxes even more enticing.  It’s become all too clear that predatory lootboxes are what the games industry sees as the future, along with “games as a service.”  The latter can only be fought by gamers speaking with their wallets that we don’t want games that are just Destiny or The Division clones.  The former, however, is gambling.  And when players decided that we had enough, and you had corporations like Disney desperate to not have their corporate image or brand name associated with this bullshit, that’s when government took notice.

Today, though, several governments around the world are seeking to classify loot boxes as gambling, taking power away from the industry. This, Gallagher said, “challenges our industry’s freedom to innovate, and impairs our ability to continuously test new business models, which drive creativity and engagement with our audience.”

Yeah, clearly that’s bullshit too.  The audiences said “NO!” to lootboxes.  They said that we don’t want them, and we are tired of game companies nickel-and-diming gamers to death with this shit.  See what I mean about corporate speak only ever being bullshit?  This man is trying to weave this fanciful narrative of companies like EA being so restricted when governments in the EU decide to rightly call these lootbox practices what they are – gambling.  Wants us to believe that the poor companies are all about fixing things and responding to what the gamers want.  Oh really?  Then after gamers came out loud and proud saying that we don’t want this, why is EA saying that they don’t give a fuck and are staying the course?  Funny how that works, Mike, you fucking corporate tool.

One common aspect between each of the challenges Gallagher laid out was a lack of understanding or education to the opposition view. This is the case with the would-be regulators of loot boxes, he said, who don’t understand that similar mechanisms and tools have existed in games for “a long time” – upon saying this, Gallagher elongated the “o” in “long” for effect.

Yeah, Mike, it has, and gamers have hated it for that amount of time.  The only difference in this case was the straw that broke the camel’s back.  Companies like EA have been bilking the consumers for years, but this was the first time that consumers came together and voted with their wallets and their complaints got too loud to ignore.  That and Disney stepped in.  In all honestly, it’s probably just because of that that this issue reached the point it did, but hey, at least SOMEBODY took notice of gamers.  Clearly EA doesn’t give a flying fuck what we have to say.  Neither do you, it seems.

“Most importantly, these in-game transactions are not gambling,” Gallagher continued. “Video games never take money from a player and leave them with nothing. They never do. Players always receive an in-game feature that aids in customising their experience… When you look at the definitions of gambling throughout the world, and how this is done and how it’s regulated in places like Las Vegas and the US, it’s quite different to the mechanism with loot boxes in games.

There are two examples to show that you’re wrong on this, Mike.  For starters, in Counterstrike GO, there are mechanisms to be able to trade in-game perks for real-world cash.  Second, look at pachinko machines in Japan.  Those don’t pay you real money either.  What they do is pay out tickets that you redeem prizes with.  The difference is that because gambling is illegal in Japan, they can’t give you actual money.  Instead, you trade in prizes and get money.  But the idea is that same.  You pay real-world money for something you can use for the game, and then get something for your money, depending on the odds of play.

But Mike doesn’t get that.  In his ethnocentric view of the world, he doesn’t see it as gambling like in Vegas.  Because that’s the only kind of gambling, right?  Fucking idiot.  This man is so out of touch, all so he can try and play down what lootboxes are.  It’s fucking bullshit and it pisses me off that this man is the head of an agency who is supposed to at least tangentially represent gaming consumers and instead just sucks corporate cock all day.

“IARC, and the parental tools in video game hardware, they represent our industry’s commitment to children, and to getting it right with policymakers,” Gallagher said. “We do this ourselves, we do it proactively and voluntarily, because we know it’s how we’re going to grow our market responsibly.”

Yeah, we’d like to believe that, Mike, but it’s pretty damn clear that you’re an absolute tool for the corporations whose predatory business models are taking advantage of gullible adults and gullible kids.  After all, it isn’t M-rated games that are doing this.  FIFA and Battlefront 2 weren’t.  These are games either for teens or all consumers.  And since grandma isn’t going to be paying attention to this sort of stuff, and you want to slide it all under the rug or try and put some meaningless label on the game box that the aforementioned grandma isn’t going to read, SOMEBODY has to actually be looking out for consumers.

The short answer is that we DO NOT trust you and yours to be in the best interest of the consumers.  The rest of this interview was you pissing on governments in the EU, knowing full-well that if the EU cracks down on this shit, your company is going to have to alter your business model.  Because those countries are too big a market to ignore.  And the corporations that you are OBVIOUSLY a flying monkey for would have to take notice.

You are a tool, Mike.  This entire interview served that up on a platter.

Until next time, a quote,

“My step-douche has a bunch of stuff in the garage, and he is a tiny tool.” – Chloe Price, Life is Strange

Peace out,

Maverick

Bad PR 115: Mike Jungbluth, Bioware, and More Total Biscuit Hate

There is a lesson in my last post literally yesterday that Bioware either can’t or won’t take, and it is going to fuck up their company if they don’t learn it fast.  Really fast.  Like sending an office memo with a strict understanding for all employees that if they fuck up again, they get fired fast.  Because after David Crooks, we have another, still-current Bioware employee who felt the need to run his mouth about the death of someone and making them out to be a bad person.  Oh, he tried to do his best to pay lip service to the nice things he saw, but then had to let his actual thoughts seep out.  This person is Mike Jungbluth.

In his own Twitter diatribe (why is it always on Twitter with these people?  I swear, that’s where all the butthurt of humanity lives anymore), Jungbluth decided to go into his own rant saying that while TB might have done some thing that he approved of, it’s totally good to throw shade at him and we have some obligation to do so.  Naturally, the backlash against this was just as swift and just as vicious as it was against David Crooks.  And because Jungbluth is such a brave man, he has decided to make his profile private and delete the Tweets.  Again, class acts working for that company.  Nice to see that the gutless coward waited until the dude was dead and couldn’t respond to these attacks before launching his assault on TB’s character.  Real backbone you got there, Mike.

To any corporation who is going to employ butthurt millennials, you need to get a handle on your employees.  If they have your company represented by their social media, what they say reflects on you.  I don’t agree with that, but it’s how the world is.  I sometimes have to take the world for how it is, not how I want it.  There are now three major PR stories about people working for your company and their inability to keep their social media under control.  Manveer Heir, David Crooks, and now this guy.  You want the social justice sphere represented, for whatever reason, in your company.  I get that.  But these people are butthurt, angry little bitches and if you can’t keep these idiots from running their mouths online, it might be time for some training.

There is a YouTube personality I follow who is a game developer and has made some very reasonable video criticizing the politicization of games by the SJW media.  But he did this outside of his position as a game developer, when he wasn’t actively working on any projects for a company.  He has recently started working again, so he’s gone quiet.  That makes sense.  Since the SJW mentality is so pervasive in millennial culture, he has to be careful what he says when he is working for a company in an official capacity.  Again, since I like his content I wish my perfect world existed, but since it doesn’t, that’s how it goes.  He’s what I call smart.  Mike Jungbluth is a fucking idiot who needs to learn to think before he runs his mouth.

The PR lesson here isn’t very complicated.  If you can’t stop your developers from running their stupid mouths, it is going to sink your company.  Their actions reflect on you, because your name is in their bios.  More and more, this is what Bioware has become associated with.  It’s not a good look, especially when you are in a precarious position with your next big game project either making or breaking your status in the industry.

Casey Hudson was fast to clamp down on David Crooks and give him the boot, but they are very silent on this guy.  Could it be because this dude has connection to Anthem as a developer?  Huh, makes you wonder.  And that’s not good.  Not at this pivotal juncture of Anthem being only months away since EA has lost a lot of patience with them.

After all, it’s not like EA destroys companies left and right because they don’t make enough profit for them anymore, right…?

Until next time, a quote,

“You advance because you serve me, and the way in which you serve me reflects upon me!” – Lord Charles Cornwallis, The Patriot

Peace out,

Maverick

Bad PR 114: David Crooks, Bioware, and Total Biscuit (RIP, John Bain)

I’ve been wanting to talk about the passing of the YouTube gaming personality Total Biscuit for a bit now, but I couldn’t find an angle to go after it on.  He was an interesting personality with some good videos.  His video on school shootings and the alleged connection to video games is in my Favorites list on YouTube.  Now, I wasn’t a super huge fan of his.  He made no secret of having the focus of his channel be PC gaming, and I am a console gamer.  I just want something that I can plop a game into and play, and anybody who has played on the PC knows that that is not how that works.  At all.  Still, was an interesting personality and my condolences go out to his family.  My grandfather and one of my best girly-mates’ mother died of cancer, so I know how ugly that can be.

The gaming sphere as a whole seemed to come out in solidarity of the mourning of TB, but there had to be somebody out there who decided to be a prick about it.  And it was somebody who, up until this instance, had represented a company who is not in a good place.  I’m of course talking about the now-former Bioware developer David Crooks.

Crooks decided to celebrate and mock the death of TB.  He went into a huge, long diatribe about TB and how he didn’t like him.  Why?  Because he was critical of two games that Crooks worked on.  No wonder he worked at Bioware.  He’s a fucking whiny crybaby.  I’m sure he fit right in.  Go figure.  After Tweet after Tweet about it, he concluded by saying “Fuck that guy nine ways to Sunday, good riddance to bad rubbish.”  Wow.  Class act, this one.  It doesn’t sound at all like he has some insane insecurities about the things he has made that he needs to work out.  Nope, not at all.

Of course, you can expect that the backlash against him was immediate and vicious.  Rightfully so.  This pussy had it coming.  He couldn’t take someone disagreeing with him, so he had to make a big public spectacle of it.  Once the full force of the backlash it, he decided to delete the Tweets and put his account on Protected.  Strong man, David Crooks.  He can dish it out, but can’t take it.  Mind you, he couldn’t dish it out while TB was still alive.  Like most in the SJW-approved gaming sphere (his tirade was all about saying TB was silent on GamerGate and Anita Sarkeesian, so I think I’m right to call this spade a spade), he was too pussy to step to somebody’s face, deciding instead to (as he outright said) piss on their grave.

Casey Hudson came out on Bioware’s behalf to condemn Crooks and extend his condolences to TB and his family, saying that Bioware has nothing to do with this, along with Crooks no longer being with the company.  Probably as a result of his little tirade, but I don’t know.

The PR side of this is two-fold.  First, Bioware REALLY needs to get a reign on their people and their posting while on their accounts that are representing Bioware in their bios.  We saw how this can go with Manveer Heir, who decided to be public about his hatred of white people, and now we’re seeing it again with this.  Now, do I think that an entire company should be judged negatively due to the actions of one loud-mouthed moron?  Absolutely not.  I am a huge proponent of free speech and I believe people should have the right to speak their minds how they want.  But here’s the thing – that’s not how the public reads shit like this.  The public reads it as “wow, this person bad-mouthed a personality who died and who is being mourned by many people.  Fuck that company.”

PR is an art of maintaining brand loyalty.  And the thing about brand loyalty is – she’s a fickle bitch with a very short attention span.  Like Sander Cohen’s muse.  At a time when Bioware is having bad PR all around them, this is not what they needed.  First it was the colossal failure of Mass Effect: Andromeda, which happened because a studio not capable of tackling the project was given it, and EA got involved.  They fuck up a lot of things for Bioware.  Most people don’t know that it’s their fault that the ending to Mass Effect 3 sucked.  They were rushing it out to launch, so they went with the first draft ending they had.  The rest is really unfortunate crashing and burning history.

It doesn’t help that they are attached with EA, who has been trying to put out PR fires left and right due to their predatory business practices, and some might say that we shouldn’t judge a company for who they are associated with, it’s a fact that “tone at the top” is a real thing.  EA is a predatory evil mega-corporation, so of course that attitude is gonna seep down into their subsidiary companies.  It doesn’t help that they also have a reputation of sacking any company that isn’t making them a shit-ton of money.  Some have speculated that if Anthem fails, Bioware is next.  It’s part of why so many of the best talent there has jumped ship.

Speaking of, Anthem is not in a good place.  After all the madness with EA, they are suffering even more with story after story of big names associated with the game up and leaving.  They have tried to calm that down, but since we have already seen how this played out with Mass Effect: Andromeda, fans expectations are being tempered more and more.  We have also learned that EA is running out of patience and looking to rush this out the door, which doesn’t bode well either.  They need some good press right about now, and to have Crooks be the centerpiece of more bad press is not helping them in any way.

The second angle is that David Crooks is an idiot.  Not only has he made his now-former employer look bad, but does he just not realize that this is going to hurt him finding work?  TB was a pretty big name in the gaming industry.  Going on a massive tired that a TON of people have archived and any potential employer can and will easily find just doesn’t make you look better.  If you are looking for work, you don’t want to have someone able to find out that you ripped open someone who gave you legitimate criticism for your work.  Having your neuroses hanging out for all to see is not a good look for anybody.

Again, I’m not saying that I approve of the fact that Bioware is going to look bad because of this.  I think it should reflect on Crooks alone.  But that’s not how public perception works.  It’s a bummer, but it’s true.  Casey Hudson clamping down on this so fast is a good sign, but Bioware needs some good press, soon.  If Anthem does indeed fail, as many are thinking it will, the critics are probably right about them being the next on the chopping block.

Here’s my lesson – if you are going to be representing your employer with your online accounts, learn to watch your mouth about who you bash.  It’s bad business to be liberal with your shit-talking.

Until next time, a quote,

“Confidence is silent.  Insecurities are loud.” – Anonymous

Peace out,

Maverick

Your Pro-Gun Fantasies are Delusional (A response to Josh Feuerstein)

Man, I haven’t gone after a super-religious idiot in a very long time.  In my early days on this site, I had a lot of posts ripping on religion and some of the idiots who follow it.  I am firmly an atheist and think that people who need religion in their lives are people who are afraid of reality.  But the topic got old and it was basically beating a dead horse while playing a broken record.  It got pretty stale.  But I have always had at least a passing eye on the insanity that is Josh Feuerstein.  For those who don’t know, he’s an insanely religious man who is absurdly popular on Facebook.  His page has millions of likes.  It’s bananas.

The guy is also something of a scam artist.  Not just because of the beliefs that he touts, though there is that.  But he was able to crowd-fund over $60,000 for a special camera, but clearly still does video on his phone.  Yeah, money I’m sure well spent, given how obesity is clearly the biggest problem he has.  That and an inflated ego.  Many years ago he went after the biggest YouTube atheist, The Amazing Atheist, because TJ had responded to his most popular video – where he “disproves” evolution.  It was sad, to say the least.

Over the years, Josh has become something of a marvel of Christian stupidity.  This guy is not only a firm fundamentalist Christian, but he also is a radical conservative as well.  So naturally, when the Supreme Court cast its ruling that allowed gay marriage to be legal in all 50 states, Josh was against it.  Yet he took great umbrage when people called him a bigot because of that.  Funny how that works.  Oh, and he also in the videos where he said “Obama done did it” about gay marriage, he said that it was the beginning of the “Christian Holocaust” and held up a gun to say that he would fight the government.

Josh fancies himself one of these people who would start some kind of civil war against the government if they ever step out of line.  The reality is that he is one of a plethora of fat-ass conservatives who would fight the government for all of 20 minutes, until they blast him and his little obese army of “patriots” with a drone.  Any war against the government in the 21st century would very, very short-lived.  He is one of these people who says that if they come for his guns, they can have the bullets.  No, Josh, you’d open fire, and they blast you to bits.  Hell, I guarantee that the moment they blast open your door, you will piss your fat britches and surrender on the spot.  Because it’s easy to be tough when you are not facing down any real resistance.  Just the imagined kind in your head.

When I say he’s a radical conservative who is something of a class act in paranoia, I’m not kidding.  He had his wife driving around a Wal-Mart for ten minutes talking about how them closing it is a conspiracy and they are stockpiling weapons and tanks inside.  This guy is really something.

But now it seems that Josh has a new take on the idea of guns – that they’re in the Bible.  That the 2nd Amendment is in the Bible.  Oh boy, this is gonna be a hard sell.  Let’s take a look at what this moron has to say.

Oh my Groj, you delusional fuck.  So, let me see if I got this right.  You keep a loaded gun in your car, on the unlikely off-chance that somebody is going to come at you with a firearm.  And if this person in your fantasy world comes at you, you are going to let loose with .45 “freedom seeds.”  That is the funniest name for bullets I have ever seen.  Especially given the long history in this world of dictators using those “freedom seeds” to kill people they don’t like.  Guns have a long, sordid history of one thing – violence.  I’m not against people owning them, though I do believe there should be some regulation in that regard, but to call bullets fired “freedom seeds” is so utterly ignorant of history.  But why should I be surprised.  This guy is an obese “patriot” who is looking to be Dirty Harry in his fantasy world.

Here’s my question to you, Josh – if you should come upon some fantasy shooting where you get your .45 out of your car and open fire, what if there are lots of kids around?  You say you are against school shootings, so what happens if you there are lots of little civilians around you?  Acceptable risk?  Killing kids?  You want their potential blood on your hands?  Not to mention, it ain’t like the guy is jut gonna stand there and let you shoot him.  Life isn’t a video game, Josh.  This person will move and then shoot back.  And say there’s armed security.  They come into things, not knowing who is who, so they start shooting at you too.  Are you just so convinced that they are going to know that you are the good guy?  If I saw your fat ass with a loaded gun shooting, I would assume you are the shooter.  You look the type.  You certainly have the attitude.

Then he says probably the most delusional thing I’ve ever heard – that the 2nd Amendment is in the Bible.  This is a dude who sees that painting of Jesus giving America the Constitution and cums all over it, isn’t he?  I believe it.  His evidence?  Because God armed angels.  I need scriptural evidence of this, Josh.  Because as I remember, angels in the Bible were pretty much just God’s messengers and heralds.  They had no form unless they took on the form of a human.  But in reality the angels of the Bible had more in common with those from Neon Genesis Evangelion than they do with your imagination of them being Dirty Harry with wings.  This man is so insane.  I don’t get how someone can be this delusional.

Guns did not exist in the Bible.  Nowhere.  There was nothing about guns in the Bible.  Not to mention, people having rights to own guns is also absurd in the Bible, because in that time period, people only had the rights that the king, Caesar, or other leader provided them.  It was a Feudal, primitive society.  Even Jesus said “give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, give unto God that which is God’s.”  A reference to taxes, neat fact.  So your weird belief that democracy and democratic republics with their legal perspective was a thing in the Bible is equal parts funny and ridiculous.

Then we get the conservative schtick about guns being the heroes always and the good guy prevailing.  His metaphor is that a bully only backs down when the little person has a bigger person.  He doesn’t see the irony in that statement.  The idea that the little person has a bigger person to basically go to bat for them.  Kind of like, in principal, how cops are supposed to work.  Because that big guy can’t be with the little guy all the time.  But the little guy knows that he can call on them and they will sort out the person hurting them.  It blows my mind how you are so dumb with the shit you say, and nobody calls you out on it.

Lastly, he says that we need vets in schools, armed with guns.  You know, Josh, I have this growing perspective on the military since a girly-mate who is quite important to me joined the Navy, and she tells me about life with that.  She took the oath of service, to protect her country.  And it’s weird that Josh of all people is saying that vets needs to be in the schools, because he has said that he would fight the government.  In his “Christian Holocaust” series, he outright says that he will fight the government because of the perceived attack on his religious freedom.

This fat ass has never once served his country.  He hasn’t done shit.  He champions a President who said he couldn’t serve his country because his foot hurt.  Just like all the stupid-ass conservatives who believe that underneath it all, they are Dirty Harry, he just lets the delusions talk.  Not to mention, why veterans?  Why not cops?  Could it be because we now have documented proof that cops have a bad habit of being gutless cowards who run from danger or shoot it in the back?  Or in the case of Scot Peterson, do nothing while a shooter is inside a school killing kids and ACTUAL heroes who gave his life to protect children from bullets.

I have said it so many times, these people believe that life is an action movie, and the villains are just gonna stand there and get shot, while not being able to hit the broadside of a barn.  But we know in reality that life isn’t like that.  That shootings are messy.  We saw that with the armed guards at Columbine, at Virginia Tech, and other schools.  Now, am I against armed security?  Of course not.  But this idea that we need to get random people who served in the military to do this, instead of people who are trained for the task of protecting kids, is absurd.

By the way, Josh, I guarantee that if you went into a school shooting to go pump some of your “freedom seeds” at the bad guys, your ass would get arrested too.  Probably because you’d have killed other kids instead of the bad guy.  But hey, maybe I’m wrong.  You are Dirty Harry in the flesh, after all, right?

Until next time, a quote,

“Most people are drowning in delusional ignorance, without knowing that their suffering was created by themselves.” – Jakushoa Kwong Roshi

Peace out,

Maverick

Media Complicity and the Santa Fe Shooting

As always, the first thing everyone does when they see a school shooting is wonder why the shooter did it.  Valid question, for sure.  In this case, we have an answer, and it was pretty quick too.  In a statement by the shooter about why he spared the lives of people he liked, it was so he could “have his story told.”  In one moment today, as I am more than a little stoney baloney (been laughing for hours at that verbiage.  It’s my new favorite thing), I was reminded as to why the media makes me so angry.

See, the media is at least partly complicit in statements like that.  If the goal of this person was to do this shooting so their story could be told, it’s tied into something I’ve believed for a long fucking time about the media in respect to shooting such as this.  Every time we have a school shooting, the media is right fucking there with cameras in everyone’s face.  Not missing one goddamn tear.  Then begins the round-the-clock coverage about the shooter.  To Hell with the victims.  They don’t get clicks and constant coverage by the slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging retards who watch cable news (not just talking about Fox, so you know).  24/7 coverage asking to know everything about the shooter because the stupid-ass public for some reason feels this is vital information to know.  Meanwhile, you have all the people being buried that buried in the coverage too.

Then we have seen that there are copycat killers who rise up and choose to do the same thing, because they want to see their names made famous by the atrocity that they commit.  They want to see everyone talking about them.  The disenfranchised youth or unhinged adult who just wants someone to pay attention to them, they see this and because they already aren’t well, they think this is a golden opportunity.  Am I saying this is everyone?  Not at all.  That would be intellectually dishonest.  There will always be the Timothy McVeigh’s of the world who have some big political agenda or something.

But for fuck’s sake, can just one night we get one of these talking head assholes to actually say that maybe, instead of constant coverage of the killer and wondering what their entire life is like and getting their story told to the entire world, we can not do that?  We can instead make it about the victims.  Get their names known.  Have people know what they were like.  Or the heroes like the teacher in Parkland who gave his life to protect the lives of children.  At least glad we got some light shined on the coward deputy sheriff in Parkland who refused to go into the school.  One thing the media did right.

Maybe, if we get the victims of these crimes known and becoming household names, the people in our government wouldn’t be so quick to not give a shit about them as they do nothing to stop the next goddamn shooting from happening!

Until next time, a quote,

“There are conditions of blindness so voluntary that they become complicity.” – Paul Bourget

Peace out,

Maverick