Five Nights at Freddy's - Scott Cawthon Financially Supports Anti-LGBTQ+ Politicians

[DabigRG]

Look, the fact of the matter is politics is an inherently contentious topic precisely because it is technically all about how the people of the world are handled.

And to be honest, if this was just a matter of him happening to donate to a few Republicans and Conservatives among the mixed list that's out there, then fine; it sucks that he did it either way and those of us it would affect still have more than a right to take issue with that factoid, but that's that. 

No, what really makes it an issue worthy of outrage is that some of those same people made it their business to actively make life harder for already oppressed people even in this day and age. Like, giving money to the former President is one thing--the results of the election kinda ties your hands a bit if you just want to support the Capital as he said and he apparently started out supporting the other parties before the running started to shift. But to give Mitch McConnell of all people one of if not THE highest level of support sends a different message with it's sole addition and he wasn't the only one!

For Scott to respond the way he did to being confronted about that becomes much less understandable, to say the least. People who are heated cross lines sometimes and some of them certainly crossed it there, but that minority shouldn't get to decide how anyone else is treated--that's the type of treatment that caused us to have these issues in the first place.

[KHCast]

@KoDaiko  So it’s obvious you haven’t read many of the posts in this very topic so I’m just gonna direct you to my posts above where another user was using the exact same arguments as you right now to try and shame people being critical of Scott giving money to actively loud anti-lgbtq politicians 

like look, if it were just some generic republican with some questionable economic views on how to fix the economy, sure that’s one thing. Except that’s not what it was, and the said republicans had other views and put lots of money into very harmful causes that effect marginalized groups. You can’t brush that aside and go “well, I like their economic policies that’s why I keep giving them money” and expect to look reasonable to the people these politicians want to hurt. No one’s saying Scott hates gays by the way, that’s a disingenuous argument meant to smear and undermine what people are actually saying, we’re saying he’s a idiot that decided to double down instead of actually listen, that was either strangely oblivious to knowing who the politicians he supported were, or didn’t seem to factor in their anti-lgbtq values and support much into his decision to keep funding them 

basically I’m gonna say the same thing to you, that I said to the other guy. Come off it. This smug “I’m gonna take the mature position, and look at this like a mature adult” attitude, implying me and other people criticizing Scott are being children, is really tired.

[KoDaiko]

OK so I assume this isn't too off-topic then?

2 hours ago, DabigRG said:

Look, the fact of the matter is politics is an inherently contentious topic precisely because it is technically all about how the people of the world are handled.

And to be honest, if this was just a matter of him happening to donate to a few Republicans and Conservatives among the mixed list that's out there, then fine; it sucks that he did it either way and those of us it would affect still have more than a right to take issue with that factoid, but that's that. 

No, what really makes it an issue worthy of outrage is that some of those same people made it their business to actively make life harder for already oppressed people even in this day and age. Like, giving money to the former President is one thing--the results of the election kinda ties your hands a bit if you just want to support the Capital as he said and he apparently started out supporting the other parties before the running started to shift. But to give Mitch McConnell of all people one of if not THE highest level of support sends a different message with it's sole addition and he wasn't the only one!

For Scott to respond the way he did to being confronted about that becomes much less understandable, to say the least. People who are heated cross lines sometimes and some of them certainly crossed it there, but that minority shouldn't get to decide how anyone else is treated--that's the type of treatment that caused us to have these issues in the first place.

Both extremists have been making this so stupid. You got one side who's over-defending Scott to the point they say he did nothing wrong and "this is why I hate LGBT people" (what???), then on the other you have people acting like anyone who doesn't fully denounce and cut all ties with Scott or FNAF must be a bootlicker (??????). And they're fighting each other with harassment and threats. Maybe that was the intention of the guy who went out of their way to snoop around and post it.

Tbh while an apology would've been great, from my experience online and seeing people get canceled, it wouldn't have solved much. As Scott himself says, the most vocal part of the community will not read it, assume it's content (either he's lying, or he fully accepts all accusations), and/or keep demanding to repeat and "prove" his apology.

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

@KoDaiko  So it’s obvious you haven’t read many of the posts in this very topic so I’m just gonna direct you to my posts above where another user was using the exact same arguments as you right now to try and shame people being critical of Scott giving money to actively loud anti-lgbtq politicians 

like look, if it were just some generic republican with some questionable economic views on how to fix the economy, sure that’s one thing. Except that’s not what it was, and the said republicans had other views and put lots of money into very harmful causes that effect marginalized groups. You can’t brush that aside and go “well, I like their economic policies that’s why I keep giving them money” and expect to look reasonable to the people these politicians want to hurt. No one’s saying Scott hates gays by the way, that’s a disingenuous argument meant to smear and undermine what people are actually saying, we’re saying he’s a idiot that decided to double down instead of actually listen, that was either strangely oblivious to knowing who the politicians he supported were, or didn’t seem to factor in their anti-lgbtq values and support much into his decision to keep funding them 

basically I’m gonna say the same thing to you, that I said to the other guy. Come off it. This smug “I’m gonna take the mature position, and look at this like a mature adult” attitude, implying me and other people criticizing Scott are being children, is really tired.

I wasn't meaning to sound smug, or shaming people. I was explaining why I want to understand and give benefit of the doubt rather than believe someone must be intentionally bad. I have made mistakes in black & white mentality, I have made mistakes in acting out of emotion and immaturity. Like weird example, I know people in real life who actively support Trump over Biden (both are sh*t), but they're far from the typical -phobic assumptions the internet makes. And the thing is (from what I know at least) they care for stuff like his "Pro-American" economy/foreign policy (kinda like Scott), but not much else. Also I was disagreeing with how the extreme people were reacting to him.

You are free to disagree with me. I replied to you because you indirectly replied to my appreciation of his positive action as meaningless and that his other action prove he is a liar and an enemy to "your people". I already said he is flawed and ignorant. But not a hateful monster. The best case is him considering LGBT issues more when supporting politicians from now on, but I still appreciate the positive contribution he had made to the world (I keep hearing he donated significantly more to lgbt charities than politicians?) even if people say it's performance. And I hope he disappear from the public in peace.

[PaddyFancy]

5 hours ago, KoDaiko said:

you have people acting like anyone who doesn't fully denounce and cut all ties with Scott or FNAF must be a bootlicker (??????).

And that reminded me of when the news broke out. One of the YouTubers I'm a big fan of, SomecallmeJohnny, had made review videos of the first four games + Sister Location. His Lets Play channel, the Super Gaming Bros., have done LPs of those games too. All the videos are still online. Johnny and co as far as I'm aware haven't given their two cents on the matter.

In contrast, there was a game called Backbone that Johnny did a little spotlight video on, but he took it down when allegations surfaced about the dev's community manager who he recieved the code for the game from.

Now the fact the FNaF videos are all still up there, does that make him a bootlicker too?

[DabigRG]

8 hours ago, KHCast said:

@KoDaiko 

You can’t brush that aside and go “well, I like their economic policies that’s why I keep giving them money” and expect to look reasonable to the people these politicians want to hurt. No one’s saying Scott hates gays by the way, that’s a disingenuous argument meant to smear and undermine what people are actually saying, we’re saying he’s a idiot that decided to double down instead of actually listen, that was either strangely oblivious to knowing who the politicians he supported were, or didn’t seem to factor in their anti-lgbtq values and support much into his decision to keep funding them 

Gonna highlight this since it's the most notable part, if you dont mind.

6 hours ago, KoDaiko said:

OK so I assume this isn't too off-topic then?

Uh, it's technically about the man behind the work specifically, but we can get back on topic as soon as anyone is ready to actually talk about the game(s) again. 

Which I for one am kinda stewing on among other things

6 hours ago, KoDaiko said:

Both extremists have been making this so stupid. You got one side who's over-defending Scott to the point they say he did nothing wrong and "this is why I hate LGBT people" (what???), then on the other you have people acting like anyone who doesn't fully denounce and cut all ties with Scott or FNAF must be a bootlicker (??????). And they're fighting each other with harassment and threats.

Welcome to 21st century politics 

6 hours ago, KoDaiko said:

 

Tbh while an apology would've been great, from my experience online and seeing people get canceled, it wouldn't have solved much. As Scott himself says, the most vocal part of the community will not read it, assume it's content (either he's lying, or he fully accepts all accusations), and/or keep demanding to repeat and "prove" his apology.

 

Better to go out knowing you did what you could to make things right then to put up a front of obstinacy.

As I said earlier, people were gonna be upset regardless and there's not much that could be done about thay. But he did not need to make them froth with indignity.

31 minutes ago, PaddyFancy said:

And that reminded me of when the news broke out. One of the YouTubers I'm a big fan of, SomecallmeJohnny, had made review videos of the first four games + Sister Location. His Lets Play channel, the Super Gaming Bros., have done LPs of those games too. All the videos are still online. Johnny and co as far as I'm aware haven't given their two cents on the matter.

In contrast, there was a game called Backbone that Johnny did a little spotlight video on, but he took it down when allegations surfaced about the dev's community manager who he recieved the code for the game from.

Now the fact the FNaF videos are all still up there, does that make him a bootlicker too?

Took me a while to find anything on what you were talking about, but it seems like a difference in terms of what his two series are about: the Reviews are just general thoughts on a game with the occasional skits for humor, while Spotlight is explicitly meant to show support and garner attention for developers.

As a result, this Luulubuu person stood to directly gain far more as a result with their actions than Scott does from this years after the fact.

 

[KoDaiko]

7 hours ago, PaddyFancy said:

And that reminded me of when the news broke out. One of the YouTubers I'm a big fan of, SomecallmeJohnny, had made review videos of the first four games + Sister Location. His Lets Play channel, the Super Gaming Bros., have done LPs of those games too. All the videos are still online. Johnny and co as far as I'm aware haven't given their two cents on the matter.

In contrast, there was a game called Backbone that Johnny did a little spotlight video on, but he took it down when allegations surfaced about the dev's community manager who he recieved the code for the game from.

Now the fact the FNaF videos are all still up there, does that make him a bootlicker too?

I guess to the extremists he is.

Like, JK Rowling. She has done/said things that are very bad. It makes sense ton people don't wanna engage with her work anymore. There has been countless callouts to boycott her work. But there are also many extremists criticizing fans, saying enjoying her work without paying (like pirating, buy second-hand, buy unofficial merch or creating fancontent) still counts as promoting and keeping the work relevant. Like, Harry Potter had very, VERY big influence to culture and genre, impacted an entire generation of people, and is a huge money maker still providing entertainment. Many people can't just cut it off from their life completely. You can hate the creator and still enjoy/appreciate their content.

(From what I hear, she wasn't a bad person at the start. But her suddenly gaining wealth and popularity has attracted certain weirdos that judged/rejected her until she eventually started to side & be influenced with the not-so-good people who were accepting and supportive. It doesn't excuse her actions obviously but it is sad that there is a push in the narrative that JK Rowling was always bad, that Harry Potter was never good, they never ever liked it, anyone who enjoys it are brainwashed and need to grow out of it.)

6 hours ago, DabigRG said:

Uh, it's technically about the man behind the work specifically, but we can get back on topic as soon as anyone is ready to actually talk about the game(s) again. 

Which I for one am kinda stewing on among other things

Welcome to 21st century politics 

Better to go out knowing you did what you could to make things right then to put up a front of obstinacy.

As I said earlier, people were gonna be upset regardless and there's not much that could be done about that. But he did not need to make them froth with indignity.

Ah ok, I was used to seeing certain conversations considered unrelated in the Sonic section so I became unsure.

Yeah I kinda prefer going back to talking about the game. Like my current question is whether this is the official end *looks at MatPat* or is there more to come. Or if they continue on, is SB's free roaming survival is gonna be the new base of gameplay (like how the main series has been all point and click w/ some exceptions).

It is unfortunate how toxic modern culture has become, not just in politics. Nothing is "good enough" and any mistake is permanent and a major crime. You cannot learn from mistakes so you must be punished extensively. Anyone who doesn't agree with you must be making a personal attack on you. And it's gonna make people reluctant to do anything, or think "see I was right, they are evil".

[DabigRG]

3 hours ago, KoDaiko said:

I guess to the extremists he is.

Like, JK Rowling. She has done/said things that are very bad. It makes sense ton people don't wanna engage with her work anymore. There has been countless callouts to boycott her work. But there are also many extremists criticizing fans, saying enjoying her work without paying (like pirating, buy second-hand, buy unofficial merch or creating fancontent) still counts as promoting and keeping the work relevant. Like, Harry Potter had very, VERY big influence to culture and genre, impacted an entire generation of people, and is a huge money maker still providing entertainment. Many people can't just cut it off from their life completely. You can hate the creator and still enjoy/appreciate their content.

(From what I hear, she wasn't a bad person at the start. But her suddenly gaining wealth and popularity has attracted certain weirdos that judged/rejected her until she eventually started to side & be influenced with the not-so-good people who were accepting and supportive. It doesn't excuse her actions obviously but it is sad that there is a push in the narrative that JK Rowling was always bad, that Harry Potter was never good, they never ever liked it, anyone who enjoys it are brainwashed and need to grow out of it.)

Yeah, I hate revisionism too.

3 hours ago, KoDaiko said:

 

Yeah I kinda prefer going back to talking about the game. Like my current question is whether this is the official end *looks at MatPat* or is there more to come. Or if they continue on, is SB's free roaming survival is gonna be the new base of gameplay (like how the main series has been all point and click w/ some exceptions).

There's probably gonna be more? I mean the IP probably isn't going anywhere just yet and SB can indeed end on a note that would allow some continuation.

Although considering a certain reveal, perhaps it'd be better if they just start a new story anyway.

3 hours ago, KoDaiko said:

It is unfortunate how toxic modern culture has become, not just in politics. Nothing is "good enough" and any mistake is permanent and a major crime. You cannot learn from mistakes so you must be punished extensively. Anyone who doesn't agree with you must be making a personal attack on you. And it's gonna make people reluctant to do anything, or think "see I was right, they are evil".

That kind of stagnation can get buried too.

[KoDaiko]

20 hours ago, DabigRG said:

There's probably gonna be more? I mean the IP probably isn't going anywhere just yet and SB can indeed end on a note that would allow some continuation.

Although considering a certain reveal, perhaps it'd be better if they just start a new story anyway.

I feel mixed. Fnaf's lore is very complicated (especially if we include all those darn books I am NOT gonna read) enough to keep going if they wanted to but...tbh SB from what I've seen doesn't feel as fnaf-y or connected to the main series aside from the animatronics and the certain reveal. Which...is fine, I guess, but yeah I prefer if they start a new story.

 

Spoiler

Kinda sad that FFPS's ending was pointless. It and I guess UCN felt like a clean enough ending to the whole saga.

I didn't have any issue with VR as much because of the totally new direction (being a big simulation recreating fnaf, the remnant or clone of afton becoming a digital virus, living people being important instead of dead/animatronics). But I was hoping they continued in that angle instead of reviving & burning zombie springtrap Afton again with his giant blob of creations.

 

[DabigRG]

Still want to lament/complain about the story, but in the past week, there's been a number of explorations and uploads that sorta leans a bit more insight into the characters, the gameplay, and by extension, some clues as to what might have been with the production via some behind the scenes discoveries within the game itself.

• Despite only appearing onscreen
  Spoiler

  in mirrors(if there are more besides Freddy's vanity) and prerendered cutscenes(which may actually use a different model even if he isn't seen up close for long in them),

  Gregory much like Ethan Winters has a full body model--or at least for in-game cutscenes. He also has functional eyelids that blink according to some camera break and while his mouth doesn't have reason to move in the released, some SFM animations that use the model imply that it does work.
• Vanessa's model does move it's mouth when talking during scripted moments despite facing away from the camera and making puppetted body movements. However, the rest of her face barely emotes and aside from a brief moment in her first conversation with Freddy, her eyes just remain open and vacant.
• Gregory has the second greatest amount of [in-game] lines after Freddy himself.
• Vanny has the second least amount of lines after the MAP Bot. In fact,
  Spoiler

  there's only half a minute of them and most of them are retakes on a few phrases and some laughs--a few of which sound kidlike for not so obvious reasons.

   

•  [Spoilers] technically has the most dialogue in the [Spoilers?], where are presumably separate from the rest of the voice clips.
• Montgomery is technically the only character with a unique voice actor in the [released?] game. 
• Freddy/The DayCare Attendant, Vanessa/Chica, and [Spoilers] are all voiced by returning voice actors; Gregory/Vanny/Roxanne and Montgomery have voice actors who are new to the series, afaik.
• Gregory/Vanny/Roxanne are voiced by Marta Svetek, who is seemingly not the previous voice actresses from Curse of Dreadbear and Fury's Rage.
• Freddy/the Daycare Attendant are voiced by Kellen Goff, who previously voiced Funtime Freddy, Fredbear, and originally Freddy Fazbear.
• Vanessa/Chica is notably voiced by Heather Masters, who previously voiced both incarnations of Baby. This is most obvious in her unused lines and has some interesting correlation with the [spoilers].
• [Spoilers] are voiced by Michella Moss, who previously voiced Ballora in Sister Location and Ultimate Custom Night (but not Special Delivery, for some reason).
  Spoiler

  Although it does sound like at least one may not be, given that her voice is noticeably higher in register than her naturally deeper one.

   

• Spoiler

  Vanessa and Vanny are not voiced by the same voice actress; whether this is indicative is...unclear.

   

• Gregory surprisingly doesn't have much in the way of unused dialogue. However, aside from some crying(which he doesn't really do in the game?),
  Spoiler

  he does have an awkwardly comical echo of Vanny's catchphrase that was likely meant to have been used in a specific encounter.

   

• Freddy has unused lines where he nervously asks if anyone is around because he isn't able to see there and hastily clarifies a recording was not his voice. There's also one where he asks if he sounds that annoying, but that may be used. Perhaps at FazerBlast?
• Vanessa quite tellingly has the most unused lines, perhaps taking up half of nearly five minutes of dialogue. In addition to a lot of breathing, gasps, grunts, and crying, she also has some that prove she was going to be in more of the story.  In addition to some of the trailer lines, they sound like she's talking to different characters in contrasting tones: she's most often an empathetic and understanding adult, the more focused, no-nonsense head security guard, or increasingly nervous/fearful among others. Of particular note is that she
• Spoiler

    mentions that she'll "find it eventually" in a passive aggressive tone, states that she "doesn't know where it is" before rhetorically asking about the number of arcade games in a more incredulous one, informing that she found "the second key" in a culty voice. She also seems to become more...fake when searching for Gregory, sounding more like Chica; the fact that these are apparently listed after she starts to panic about not being able to maintain a hold of him is disconcerting.

   

• Spoiler

  The evil and creepy voices from the trailers are seemingly not in the game files, at least as far as has been discovered/shared. However, it has been long speculated that the former may indeed by Montgomery due to its deepness(which suggests he wasn't supposed to be a sole credit) and the later is vaguely similar to the Moon version of the Daycare Attendant; these may be coincidental though.

   

I'll detail some of the stuff that's actually in the game later.

 

EDIT: Turns out there are even more lines of dialogue to sift through.

[DabigRG]

Hey, remember when I said I'd give deeper thoughts on the game's characters and how the story played out? ...Whatever happened to that?

 

Anyway, if you'll recall, I decided to finally listen to Dawko's interview with the developers of Steel Wool after the game came out and doing so yielded some interesting details regarding it's development, both explicitly and a bit implicitly. Well, as it turns out, a channel that's been popping up on my front page lately got the same idea and briefly considered the mindset of the studio as they put it together.

 

[SupahBerry]

What's more dangerous that a bear on cocaine?

 

A mechanical bear on cocaine

 

[KHCast]

I can’t take those red eyes seriously, who thought those were a good idea that would translate to scary lol

[DaBigJ]

https://gamejolt.com/games/FNAFmoviegame/847340

New game released if anyone's interested.

[KHCast]

So I saw the movie since it was on peacock. It was basically what I though it’d be, and that’s pretty bad. Don’t really get the love people have for this thing. Like, bad doesn’t mean “for the fans” like I’m seeing so many use as a counter to the criticism. Like it’s funny sure (mostly unintentionally) but seeing the “horror” genre attached to this is really funny considering how NOT scary this film is. Final act is a mess, things just feel like they happen for the sake of it, the plot doesn’t seem to know what it wants to do with itself, and overall, despite the budget that was apparently put into this project, I won’t lie, at times, it felt like a cheap cheesy b roll movie. (Also the trailer using iconic FNAF music, only for the actual film to use licensed music, yeah for something “being a love letter to fans”, things like that just reek of unnecessary corporate meddling)

Fun movie to riff on and laugh at with friends, so if I were to rate it, prob a 4/10

Edited October 31, 2023 by KHCast