Creative Commons license icon

Why Keemstar and YouTubers like him are a bigger threat to gamers than furrys

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (14 votes)

YouTuber Keemstar of the channel Drama-Alert, with approximately 4.5 million subscribers and covers topics of controversy on the platform, found himself in one of his own involving the furry fandom this week. On his twitter account he made a quote of saying that furries “must be deleted” and that he wished to make a video game in which you hunt and kill furries.

The Context

These statements come at the heels of what has been dubbed as the Second Adpocolypse. Where YouTube has lost yet more advertisements as an ex-Tuber running under the name “MattIsWhatItIs” brought to the attention of the world videos that contained children having very concerning comments being used to highlight the young ones in suggestive situations, despite the situation in the video being mostly harmless in the full context. Because of these commentators, and the blow-back, YouTube has cracked down on revenue on videos including children in any manner that have problematic comments. They also did a hard ban on the accounts making the comments.

Keemstar noted in his video of on the subject that MattIsWhatItIs was just a ex-YouTuber himself using his frustration of not getting a viral video during his creepy content creator days to attack the livelihood of the YouTube community. In this video he noted that it was unfair for Matt and advertisers to take actions against the entirety of the YouTube community for the actions of a few pedophilic users in the comment sections, which the platform dealt with by deleting the accounts of the bad actors.

That Keemstar would utilize pedophiles as his excuse for saying the furry fandom should be deleted only a few days later is a truckload of irony, doing so after complaining YouTube shouldn’t be dismissed in it’s whole for the same issue. It is irony that someone could easily write another article about. But on the heels of another curtailing of advertisements it seems problematic for a high profile YouTuber using language threatening to kill a group of people, despite if it was done tongue in cheek or seriously.

So today, we need to discuss the actual problem that YouTube seems to have. One that its content creators may not want discussed, or feel uncomfortable discussing. That is of the problems with the platform’s content creators themselves and how they are obstructing the ability for it to grow as a business and platform.

The consequences of continued Ad-Pocolypses

The biggest concern here is about the culpability of large YouTube stars when they make statements wishing to kill off a group of people, or other such heinous statements. How their words harm the platform directly when they go forward and represent their community with such comments. If this goes unchecked, then advertisers will continue to flee, and money will continue to be taken from the platform. This can only go on for so long before something breaks in those that work hard making sure the video site stays online.

If people think the Ad-pocoloyses were bad, just wait until the investors and the financial departments continue to see themselves going further underwater with YouTube as a platform. Wait until they realize that no amount of algorithmic tweaks can prevent the situations that make the site unattractive to investors and advertisers. Wait until they decide to have a human step in and clean the house. Not to look into the demonetization issues, but into the very things that caused that to have to be implemented in the first place: their partners.

In the alarmist language of the internet I predict such an event will be denoted as the YouTube Genocide. But people that don't have such an emotional and dramatic predisposition will call it what it is: layoffs. It will be the day in which the bosses running the site of YouTube finally realize that they are an employer and their content creators are mere employees. They are under no obligation to retain a person on the payroll that is problematic to the company’s mission. The fact that they work from home is irrelevant. The fact they own their own equipment equipment is irrelevant. They have the right to terminate that relationship, for any reason of character. Once they realize it’s the only thing that will move YouTube forward in the public relations situation, they will use that power.

All thanks to a handful of creators, like Keemstar in situations like the tweet outlined above, creators will receive far more pointed letters of reprimand from the platform. It will warn them if they slip up in public ways that they will reserve the right to remove their channels to protect the YouTube brand. No appeals, no groveling, pack up your boxes and get out.

Channels will be deleted and videos erased. While some of their largest yet controversial stars will be tossed by the wayside, new ones will take their place. Those that are more deemed more advertiser friendly. Maybe even take in more content from the major network providers trying to reach YouTube’s audience. Those who use the platform as consumers have already noticed the leadership of the video site moving in that direction, hosting late night comedy shows and news from major cable networks.

You may state that I’m being alarmist and that my prediction holds no teeth. But to those that are new here, I indirectly predicted Donald Trump’s political victory on March 2016 based on a review of the Disney film Zootopia when criticizing the antagonists methods to acquire power in the film as convoluted— and I voted against the guy and had no interest in him winning. I don’t make toothless claims based on personal fantasy or desired outcomes. I am a stark realist. And the reality is that YouTube is untenable as a platform if it continues to allow people to work for it that are making its growth as a company more difficult, all the while those problematic employees have the gall to take money from the company in income.

In the words of Ton from Aggretsuko. As an accountant it is their job to see how much someone is bringing in versus what they are taking out in the relationship. If someone continually takes more than they give, don’t be surprised to see their stuff on the lawn.

So someday, either the content department at YouTube is going to grow a backbone, or if they refuse to take action, their overseers are going to fire the spineless ones and replace them with ones willing to crack some eggs to make that omelette of profitability. And before you cry for creators like Keemstar if they so happen to be caught in this crossfire, remember that this is a normal environment for those that work off of YouTube. Any employer can fire any employee for any reason; besides those that are skin deep like race. And if an employee went online and said they were going to make a video game where you kill a group of people and that statement caused a stir that reached the desk of their boss, that boss could very well toss them out if they thought it’d bring their business controversy.

The harsh realities of the free market

There are those that will note that they should be able to present their ideas or jokes, no matter how abhorrent, to the free market of ideas. And as they continue to do so, they are finding that the market speaks back. Advertisers continue to flea these platforms in droves. The markets have listened to their ideas and rejected them outright. And because of these behaviors that are causing the companies to flee, the bastions of free expression where users are able to receive a penny for their thoughts and toils are continuing to be eroded by those not seeing the harm they are doing to the very platform they claim to support by their unprofessional behaviors both on camera and off.

It’s a bit of an interesting situation, where it can appear the free market and desire for customers is the thing standing in direct opposition to the concept of the “free market of ideas”. However, it’s not a contradiction, the concept of a market means that a person is free not to buy into the concept. If you’re forced to buy something that’s no longer a free market; that’s either a tax or an insurance premium. And as such, Google is well within its rights, in a free market, to fire an employee for appearing to threaten a group of people that are its customers.

The free market of ideas is joined at the hip with the free market, you must believe the later is good to believe the former is good. But it must be noted that if it’s the one thing free markets loath, it is the idea that killing its customers is a swell idea. Dead people can’t buy products. So any free market finds presenting the concept of killing people unmarketable; except maybe if you work in guns, caskets, or cremation jars. So don’t be surprised when the market’s response in kind to your threatening their revenue stream is to not offer you money for working for them.

So when it comes to who the bigger threat is to gamers, it is those like Keemstar and YouTubers who are quick to exhale verbiage that makes a YouTube marketer’s jobs near impossible. With coworkers like that, who needs competitors? Other gamers that create content while keeping in mind to be welcoming to a wide audience and keeping their tie straight are the ones who will be continually punished with smaller revenues because of the fallout caused by the more wild cards claiming to be the face of the gaming YouTuber scene. I would be loath to have someone harming my future dreams saying they represented the omnibus of being what my fellow enthusiasts are all about. For their false claims of representation is more of a taxation to the growth of being a YouTube gamer as a livelihood.

A plea to popular YouTube creators

I hope time proves me wrong and I am being alarmist. A bunch of hard working people shouldn’t be punished for the actions of a few. But, I feel this needs to be said so that those who impulsively want to post things on the internet without thinking about the consequences to their fellow content creators think twice. That they, for once, think of someone other than themselves and their most blood-thirstiest fans.

I end this rant on a simple request. Both gamers and furries, and those who are both, want the idea of YouTube to succeed. It is a privilege that is incomprehensible to our parents that we can produce our own shows that can reach the world. You used to have to rely on the very rich to let you use their toys for that. There are some of those rich guys hoping people still have to, and they want to see YouTube fail. So let it not be our own actions that salts these opportunities for our descendants. Let’s not chum the water with bait that will attract the sharks of the major media corporations waiting to gobble up YouTube when we keep poking holes in the ship.

It’s up to us to do better, before someone else decides we’re out of chances.

Comments

Your rating: None Average: 1.5 (11 votes)

So yet again, expressing an idea, to make a game, has offended and triggered them furry snowflakes...
Who would've thought.
I am sure you also had a serious headache and flush of anger at your demise being called for via this Twatter post

But carry on, as you were, I am sure being a furry is very important, as is taking things on the internet seriously...

Your rating: None Average: 4.9 (7 votes)

I take the career opportunities of the gaming community quite seriously.

I would think a gamer would do the same.

But I cannot stop them from ruining their future opportunities to make their misguided jokes, just as I can't stop a person from sticking their dick in a blender even though I inform them it's a bad idea.

You just have to hope some words stick, but the world will go on even if they do go through with it. Just you hate to see the consequences of said actions they're not pleasant.

Your rating: None Average: 4.2 (5 votes)

Hi Keemstar

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (2 votes)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p923RqYvNB4

Why do you gamers get so bent out of shape when some guy makes a video calling you losers?–mass-reaching for that down vote button.

Just stop being a bunch of angry offended triggered snowflakes who think being a gamer is important and have to take every slight against them seriously.

Why are you seeking validation from random guys who express an idea?

Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (7 votes)

Today I Learned: Keemstar is still a youtuber that has any relevance.

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (5 votes)

I'm sure there was already, like, 20 ancient rudimentary Flash games on Newgrounds about shooting furries by the year 2000.

Also, there's the advertisements on e621 for some kind of hunting/sex game that is just creepy beyond words, so, I guess a furry hunting game would be kind of redundant.

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (4 votes)

Hunt 'n Snare? How is that creepy???????

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

There are a lot of consent issues inherent in the premise "tranquilize sentient beings and then have sex with them".

Your rating: None Average: 1 (10 votes)

Well its 2019 people.
Special Snowflakes gonna be triggered.
Butthurt powertripping furries going to react as if their constitutional rights are being violated.

There is a hidden category on all the major smut sites now (which seems to be a case of wait-and-see-before-we-let-it-show-on-the-main-site, and yes you can enjoy any number of 600+ furries getting in on, for real. Comes up in Google though, quite easily.

Wonder what you lot have to say about that now? Still want to try and convince the masses you're not shagging like animals, literally?

You lot really need to just stop seeking validation in public and take your crap off the internet and underground. Honestly.

Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (4 votes)

We are underground, you just need to stop digging.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

Why are you googling for "feral" pornography on all major smut sites?

Your rating: None Average: 1 (5 votes)

I am hoping to find you and others there, so I can say to others. I was right, they screw each other with fursuits on.

Your rating: None Average: 4.4 (5 votes)

Why do you go around talking about fursuit sex to strangers?

Your rating: None Average: 1 (5 votes)

We all inhabit this planet, therefore not strictly strangers. However I do feel that furries are slowly destroying the moral fibre of humanity.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)

Who cares? Anyone counting on YouTube monitization for a significant part of their income at this point is a fool. Google is responsible for the current state of affairs more than any of the creators. They'd have been better off never sharing ad revenue with creators at all. Instead, people got used to feeding at the golden trough, using whatever methods they could to game the system to get more add dollars. Lo and behold, the companies providing those dollars finally started wising up to what they were paying for. Many left and the rest told Google to clean things up so they actually got something for those dollars or they'd spend them elsewhere. It would not entirely surprise me to see monitization end across the site. Google doesn't owe anyone that. They host the videos for free after all. The big content creators understand this and most have already been diversifying and making sure they have multiple income streams. Those who don't will be the ones crying when the trough finally goes empty.

Your rating: None Average: 3.2 (6 votes)

Youtube and many other big companies (actually many decision makers) have a tendency to overreact when there is a perceived threat. What I didn't see mentioned here is that Youtube is actually planning to disable comments on videos with minors. That is something that I would consider an overreaction. But I guess it will keep the advertisers happy, whether it solves the underlying issues or not, and that's all they need to worry about.

It will be the day in which the bosses running the site of YouTube finally realize that they are an employer and their content creators are mere employees.

This is not true. Youtube does not employ content creators. You could maybe argue that they are independent producers, similar to contributors at magazines or here, but Youtube does not enter into any real agreement and does not exert editorial control on which videos are allowed to be uploaded. Everything happens after the fact.

Youtube provides a service framework which people are then able to use. The most realistic relationship between Youtube and content creators is either that of equal partners or customers. As partners, you could say Youtube provides the infrastructure, the creator provides the content and then the income is split between them. As a customer, the creator provides the content, which indirectly pays Youtube through ad revenue. I think partner is perhaps the best description of the relationship but it certainly not one of employer and employee.

The free market of ideas is joined at the hip with the free market, you must believe the later is good to believe the former is good.

This is definitely wrong. To extend the market analogy, this doesn't work because the economics of the two are completely different. In a traditional free market dealing with goods and services, there is a cost involved the production and a limit imposed by the rate of production and availability of raw materials. So a belief in a free market just states that free market competition will provide the best efficiency and distribution of goods produced from those limited resources.

A free market of ideas has very different economics. The cost of producing an idea is low/non-existent and a once-off. That's partly what underlies free software, you can write the code once and then it can be copied indefinitely. There are real costs in terms of bandwidth, storage etc but those are miniscule. The free market of ideas states that the exchange of ideas should over time lead to the best ideas multiplying and being adopted. There is no scarcity in the idea market.

So the number of Tesla cars is limited by raw materials but ideas are not limited. We will never have the situation where someone wants to believe in gay marriage but is told "I'm sorry, we're out of the concept of gay marriage and no one else can believe it now." This makes the market of ideas and the free market fundamentally different and belief in one does not necessarily require belief in the other.

Overall, I think the biggest problem that Youtube and others have is the way people view these services. The backlash against something people perceive as bad is directed at the service itself, rather than the proponents of that bad action. I think there should be a buffer where a service provider is not held accountable for how people use their services. Service providers should be, as far as possible, content neutral. Otherwise there will always be the issue that minority views will be suppressed.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (5 votes)

There is scarcity of time, we're all going to die and we all have other things to do. So some people are just not even going to bother listening to the sales pitch, especially if they have other things they could be doing.

Discussing ideas is a time sink, selling an idea is going to be a harder sell to some than others, just as a vacuum cleaner is going to be harder to sell to someone who already owns one or has all wooden floors.

So are you saying that the free market ideas is a misnomer since in your mind they have nothing in common? I mean even if it is a misnomer, the very reason you would stick those words in there is they you're trying to sell your selling of ideas as "good" and that because the person your talking to (you assume) likes free markets so boom: "Free Market of Ideas".

Your rating: None Average: 3.2 (5 votes)

I think it has its uses as a metaphor. My objection was merely to saying that you have to believe in the good of one to believe in the good of the other. One can hold the belief that, given limited resources and seeing how inequality can grow and spread, a free market is inferior to a market which is managed in such a way as to give the most equal distribution of resources, while simultaneously believing that, in order to find the best ideas, ideas should be freely shared, tested and merged.

There is a certain time cost to spreading ideas but that is distributed amongst all people holding the idea. And ideas can spread without active intervention. There are many thinkers who are long dead, whose ideas are still spreading, at least partially, because they were written down so anyone can read and consider them at their leisure. Assuming Youtube does not shut down, your videos will still be there after you are dead and you can still influence how people think. That way your ideas can spread with no cost to you in a way that is not true for a fursuit builder's creations.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (7 votes)

Keemstar is a pathetic person. No one should be killed, and what he said should count as "solicitation of murdering". Even if he didn't intend that, it's still words which increases such risk of murdering.

Trust me, one of the main causes of some disgusting crimes is sometimes because of society's crap choice of words, and it doesn't matter what the intention is.

He should have his account deleted for saying that and probably arrested.

Your rating: None Average: 2.9 (7 votes)

The term you are looking for is "inciting violence" and only direct incitement to violence is generally considered a breach of free speech. This is the difference between, let's say, someone advocating the death penalty for adultery and someone telling people to go out and kill adulterers. Nothing quoted in this article shows a direct call for violence.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (3 votes)

One of the problems is that he's not saying stuff like "I vote for the death penalty to be legal for specific people." (though that would be a separate problem by itself) and another is that "deleted" is clearly another word for "killing" in this case. It doesn't look anything different than yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater which I thought I heard was not protected free speech, or that tomato issue which involved maybe Donald Trump which I am more blurry on.

If that kind of speech on Twitter is legal, then I think I vote it shouldn't be considered free speech because I don't see a difference between saying that and certain speech.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

It might be but your interpretation of "deleted" is your interpretation; there may be other interpretations. "Deleted" is not usually used to mean killed. As someone who has, on several occasions, complained about how others have incorrectly interpreted your comments, you should be extra aware of the dangers of interpreting someone's words, even if it seems obvious to you.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

The way he's using the sentence doesn't feel as if it really is anything different. Delete means erase, and how exactly can you do that without involving death? And the way that he uses "furries" with that sentence is very beyond a reasonable doubt.
Honestly I kinda wish "it could mean anything else" and being disproved to that terrible thing was true, but I can't seem to discover it. Though that wish is nothing more than a legal thing. I still think what he said is terrible.

Even if there was another possibility, I usually be on the safe side and would wish to not give any support for such message because I don't know if that even is a legal defense. It's a scary feeling.

Your rating: None

Strangely enough, I have seen people change their minds/opinions without needing to be killed first. Let's say, I saw malware is terrible and there's a computer with malware. My first response isn't to destroy the computer but to delete the malware. One could interpret his words as needing to delete the part furry aspect of people while leaving the person unharmed and, in his view, improved.

I can't say that is the case and I can't say for sure that he doesn't think furs should literally be killed. At the moment it seems like there is little danger of that and more likely that he is using an extreme expression to express his emotions. The same way people say they might want to strangle their boss or kill whoever invented pop up ads.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None

One could interpret his words as needing to delete the part furry aspect of people while leaving the person unharmed and, in his view, improved.

Looks like someone is okay with "conversion therapy".

Go ahead and DM me your Dox, I'll call up some Mormons who despise Pokemon to send your way ;P. Don't worry they won't kill you, they just want to talk.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Isn't "furries" people that are fans of anthropomorphism in general? I also heard furries can be the creatures themselves not humans too but that's only an addition. But if that additional point is "one of the other", it still very much shows a lot of evidence that he's talking about the people. I am not too sure but didn't some courts borrow the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt without always depending on concrete evidence?

I don't know exactly if this really is his intention, but the words alone I believe is danger. Especially since there was a past history of violence and furries before.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

It appears that in the old days being a furry was generally a label given to those who were heavily involved with anthro animals, i.e. drawing them in a vocational or other setting e.g. working for Archie/Disney/etc

Nowadays its a loaded label, meaning everything from being an occasional anthro artists to a friggen animal rapist.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (3 votes)

You kinda flip-flop really hard on this "free speech" thing, huh?

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (4 votes)

Hey Equivamp, I thought you've hid my comments on your account? :/
Oh and, some speech isn't protected. There's a reason why yelling fire in a crowded movie theater when no fire isn't protected speech.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

Yes, there is a reason for that, but it's not relevant here at all.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

Actually it kinda is though. If that fire thing isn't protected speech because of the likely danger effects of it, there might be another case here.

Your rating: None Average: 2.2 (5 votes)

So today, we need to discuss the actual problem that YouTube seems to have. One that its content creators may not want discussed, or feel uncomfortable discussing. That is of the problems with the platform’s content creators themselves and how they are obstructing the ability for it to grow as a business and platform.

This may be the problem with communicating opinions in this article. Is growth really being obstructed? [Citation needed]. Who does this "adpocalypse" apply to, and has Youtube had any decline of anything or is it just shuffling some furniture around in the house?

As soulless business, social media is best done as content-agnostic so traffic that drives clicks is the only thing that matters. Lie, cheat, it doesn't matter if it makes clicks. That's how racists worm their way into public consciousness helped by Youtube's recommendation alogrithm, and useless dipshits gather big followings by putting out the most outrageous rubbish they can (then contradicting it to profit both ways). Or by falsely pretending to have authority they don't have, like your janitor should be diagnosing diseases.

*ahem*

Youtube does not employ content creators. You could maybe argue that they are independent producers, similar to contributors at magazines or here, but Youtube does not enter into any real agreement and does not exert editorial control

A pedantic distinction when a company seizes a market by undermining competitors, or having them undermined. See how Facebook "massively & knowingly inflated its video-view statistics, which had the DIRECT consequence of 90% of media orgs firing writers in favor of expensive video producers, who also got fired when it turned out video was worthless."

Remember "the user is the product" and if the product comes at expense like that it isn't free. If the user must play by the system's rule to use it (what gets promoted on Youtube?) then that's pre-decided editorial control.

Youtube provides a service framework which people are then able to use. The most realistic relationship between Youtube and content creators is either that of equal partners or customers. As partners, you could say Youtube provides the infrastructure, the creator provides the content and then the income is split between them. As a customer, the creator provides the content, which indirectly pays Youtube through ad revenue. I think partner is perhaps the best description of the relationship but it certainly not one of employer and employee.

The opinion of a hobbyist who doesn't make anything for a job of course.

A free market of ideas has very different economics. The cost of producing an idea is low/non-existent and a once-off

... A hobbyist whose ideas are worth what they're paid

The free market of ideas states that the exchange of ideas should over time lead to the best ideas multiplying and being adopted. There is no scarcity in the idea market.

There are fraudulent and toxic products.

Service providers should be, as far as possible, content neutral. Otherwise there will always be the issue that minority views will be suppressed.

Anti-vaxxers, racists, etc have a minority view that needs to be regulated as fraudulent and toxic.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

So this is a thing: https://twitter.com/Malcolm1285/status/1102699522550046720

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

The only threat to the gaming community is the gaming community.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (5 votes)

I'd be frustrated too if my community was dependent on companies that are more and more treating their consumer base like glorified skinner box experiments.

Despite all their rage, they are still just a rat in a cage. Push the button, Stanley.

Your rating: None Average: 2.6 (5 votes)

I was speaking more to their treatment of minorities, women and LGBTQ.

Your rating: None Average: 3.4 (5 votes)

Man, that's one of those statements that it's like I agree with the premise and yet I wonder if any words in the English language could do it justice. Millennials are supposed to be the "most entitled" generation. But no one who says that is thinking about the companies that make up the gaming industry, they're thinking of the kinds of people who game. But you need to have a massive sense of entitlement to expect people to buy bigger and bigger hard-drives to accommodate your increasingly bloated games, and all the updates, and all the patches, and all the DRM. We need to think of these things as digital real estate and as if we're paying them to rent our real estate so that they can move in and become digital hoarders, who will then have the nerve to say "well just pay for an extension on the house!" once we're up to our eyeballs in their digital garbage.

And that's just one example!

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

Can you really blame them for expecting it when it's completely working?

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

Yeah, yeah, I can. It's not sustainable, I don't think. And it's not just a matter of them not making the product(s) I like anymore. I don't think I would want a Switch for example but the appeal, for those it does appeal to, is obvious to me. Nintendo still gets my respect because they don't seem nearly as (mis)guided by brinksmanship with their customers as most of these other big companies, whether we're talking console manufacturers or game developers, and whether we're talking games having to be completely revamped after they're released or begging their customers to petition their damn governments to let them do things that are illegal in those countries and probably should stay illegal in those countries.

I know customers are hardly blameless in this but it's just put a sour taste in my mouth about the whole enterprise. It's why I could see the 3DS being the last system I ever owned. I played pretty much every game I could ever want to for it, those games were always affordable when they didn't feel like a downright steal, and my only real disappointment with it was even more could've been done with its features. Just most developers and often Nintendo themselves didn't utilize things like play-coins, for example, in very creative ways.

I still think there's a chance indie developers could Make Gaming Great Again, or maybe they already are and I just don't see how. But part of me just wants to hang up my controller and say at least I ended my "career" as a gamer on a high note with that one great system you felt like was almost a companion as much as a device.

Your rating: None

So...you hear about video games?

Your rating: None Average: 1 (4 votes)

Some play them.
I suspect though that most furries "play" them to get eye candy and ideas for the next pervy drawing they're going to bash out and publish on DA and IB

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

Barely any of the games I play even have a single anthro character. Get the fuck out of here pandejo no one likes you.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (4 votes)

But you're posting on a furry shitpost site... How ironic.
And your username... is that an actual bone, or a phallic implication

Your rating: None

Yes, because only furries draw pervy pictures of video game characters.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

Usually yes... because the perversion is there from the beginning. Making it real is only a fursuit away.
And then some go even further, with real animals.

Your rating: None

Now that you mention it, I just got the Spyro remake...

Your rating: None

Write us a review! :-)

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

And what's the big deal? ;) If it's not hurting anyone and not threatening to, then it's no problem likely.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

The big deal is that we have a very fucked up society now. Snowflakes and SJWs in da house, with them hair-sensitive TRIGGERS, and need for safe spaces because of their feels.

And many of these people are furries, even looking at them with a raised eyebrow... BOOM.. "whaaaah that guy is hurting me feels... I am GONNA SUE"

Making a game about wiping out furries... OMG LOLZ... absolute onslaught of outrage is the expected outcome.

We need another world war, to help Nature on to take its course.

Your rating: None

Which makes it pretty damn hilarious that there's now an app for safe spaces for Trumpsters, so they can find places where people won't hurt their feelings about wearing MAGA hats and carrying guns with literal triggers. XD XD XD

Your rating: None

It's kinda like my relationship with pro wrestling. I'll still read about it and stuff but I don't engage with it nearly the way I used to because I have a life now and better things to do.

Your rating: None Average: 1.5 (2 votes)

Your rating: None

KeemStar is a failed troll who's trying to get his extra YT pennies since he's losing relevance. No drama equals no KeemStar pennies. We can either starve this failed troll or we all throw furry puns at him till death (or he leaves us alone, which ever comes first)

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

Many other "failed trolls" here too, that get lots of pats on the proverbial back

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

Well, you'd know about "failed trolls," now, wouldn't you?

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

Yes I can actually read all the comments in a given shitpost. Most furries can't, they're too busy being triggered because of reasons, usually a guilt complex about having sex in fur and denying it vehemently.
Here's a tip. Baking soda, bottled water and a bit of vinegar is awesome for removal of semen from faux fur.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (3 votes)

Stop using the word "troll".

You're feeding a false narrative that people who oppose furry and rant about furry are like "hey, we're just these fun-loving trolls who know how to chill and have a good time. It's you degenerate furry loving freaks who make everything into a big deal."

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

"freaks" such a lovely adjective.
Jesus freaks...
God freaks...
Furry freaks...
L. Ron Hubbard freaks...
Islamic freaks...
Hmmm.. I see the common thread.

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (2 votes)

Freaks = People who have passions; apparently.

I guess we now know why sociopaths have taken over the highest offices in the lands.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (6 votes)

And you think, somehow furries are not sociopaths?
I'd rather take my chances with the current set of sociopaths. At least Trump isn't as screwed in the head as most furries are.

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (2 votes)

I rest my case.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

No comeback?
How disappointing
Me is sad :/

Your rating: None

Also:
Are you saying if only he wasn't "failed" in your terms, you would be completely fine with him?

Your rating: None

Meh...

You know advertisers taking him down won't do a thing to get average young men on the side of being pro-furry (or more compassionate towards furry).

Your rating: None

I have no wish for that, honestly, but behaviors like this is certainly used as an excuse for them to not work with YouTube in general. At the expense of his peers.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (4 votes)

Considering what happened at the Madden tournament, I can't help but be extremely worried for SonicFox now...

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

I would just like to point out that when violence of that sort finally happened at a video game related event, it was for the football game.

Your rating: None

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4cs6O5j32U

Your rating: None

I know. Its one of those things that I would find to be schadenfreude if it wasn't so godawfully tragic.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Hooray response showing on new threads again!

Your rating: None Average: 2 (1 vote)

*clapping hands* happy for you

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

So, what was the inciting incident here? Was it Amorous or some other furry porn game finally getting on Steam, or what?

Cause, setting aside everything else, come on guys, 2013 called, they want their easy target for gamers afraid to death that people not exactly like them may be playing video games back. I mean, Gamer-Gate has come and gone; don't you losers have a Mortal Kombat game featuring women not fighting in their underwear for once to complain about "journalistic ethics" in the comments of the YouTube trailers for or something?

Your rating: None Average: 2 (1 vote)

The fact they used the term "gamergate" to talk about some random incident involving some guy sleeping with some random woman getting some random preview for some random games she made that no one remembers as if it was the biggest controversy in gaming journalism, instead of, you know, a gaming journalist being fired from his job since he had a luke-warm review of a game that used the platform they fired him as a major advertiser, kind of shows the priorities are a bit askew.

To me I remember Kayne and Lynch, Gamespot, and the contoversy that led to the firing of the journalist who went on to create Big Bomb quite well. I think his name was Grishim? I'm doing this without looking it up to prove a point.

I don't even remember the name of the game that the gamergate controversy was about without looking it up, nor the names of those involved.

I'm bad with names though but you would think if it's an incident with a *gate suffix it should at least be memorable.

You know, Like Watergate-gate.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

Something tells me that all videos with kids are going to be removed/demonetized at this point.

Just a feeling:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/us/youtube-fantastic-adventures-mom-arrest-trnd/i...

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.

About the author

Sonious (Tantroo McNally)read storiescontact (login required)

a Kangaroo from CheektRoowaga, NY, interested in video games, current events, politics, philosophy and writing