VR Devs Pull Support For Oculus Rift Until Palmer Luckey Steps Down

It is amazing that so many have forgot the three that died related to the clintons woes and the two banks that when down because of the clintons. 16 years ago it was all over the tv. Then all of a sudden it got pulled. Just to come back on the BBC where they didn't have the power to stop them from broadcasting it. If could of seen the future back then I would of save all that news.
 
Last edited:
tetris42 said:
Pretty sure this violates nothing about the constitution, seeing as how VR developers aren't a government body.
Click to expand...
Certainly not, but it does crap on the American way of life where people will actively try to ruin your career by whatever means necessary if you have a different political ideology than them. "How does he not know that Kodos is clearly superior to Kang?!?! Dox him! Contact his employer and demand he be fired!"

I just don't think people need to agree on who would be the best president to do basic business together... that's just called being a professional.
 
This type of political censorship has gotten so rampant that it's now hurting the political left. I know a heck-of-a-lot of people voting for Trump strictly because of how partisan the attacks have become against him. Their feeling is generally that Trump isn't great, but the opposition must be much worse if they're willing to condone / encourage these types of attacks.
 
So they get sand in their vaginas because he spent HIS money on something they don't like?
Tell me again why I should give 2 fucks when they want the government to spend our tax dollars on some stupid shit they like?

I willing to bet, those complaining are also sided up with Hillary and spend their time shitposting against Trump too.
 
N4CR said:
Just like the Nazis. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so troubling. Trump is no angel but Hillary voters swallowing media bullshit thick and fast are scary. Just go spend 1 minute googling how corrupt her hillary foundation is, LIbyra, Syria, ISIS connections and the rest and it's an absolutely disgusting sham and a blot on USA to have someone like her running for president. Damn african despots are less corrupt than her - she puts them in place!!!
Click to expand...
This election is really a shit sandwich. I think Hillary is absolutely deplorable and about the worst possible candidate the Democrats could have put out. Meanwhile, Trump's environmental policy is basically the worst I could imagine. We're going to have irreparable damage with either candidate, just different flavors.
 
So is there a list of names of these "VR Devs", so we can vote with our wallet and show them we do not have to put up with their shit too?
 
This is the idiocracy at work.
So now the sjws are not only trying to bully those with different views into silence. They're also trying to bully them out of business because they don't agree with their views.
Just great.
 
crusty_juggler said:
Right-wingers: "Businesses should be allowed to deny service to people based on their beliefs and lifestyle choices."

Liberal VR devs: "We're not going to do business with you."

Right-wingers: "This is outrageous!"
Click to expand...
Developers have a right to not do business with Oculus, but demanding he step down from the company he created is going too far. If they're shareholders, then they have that right. But I doubt it considering the ideology of those calling for his head.
 
griff30 said:
So is there a list of names of these "VR Devs", so we can vote with our wallet and show them we do not have to put up with their shit too?
Click to expand...

I'm with you! If they want to inject politics into their business I will gladly vote with my wallet.


M76 said:
This is the idiocracy at work.
So now the sjws are not only trying to bully those with different views into silence. They're also trying to bully them out of business because they don't agree with their views.
Just great.
Click to expand...

It's how they operate.... because the cucks cave in.
 
Ducman69 said:
Remember, that Hillary started this though, with $6 million dedicated towards "Correct the Record", which is paying people to astroturf online forums like Reddit to downvote anything anti-Hillary, upvote anything anti-Trump, and post only negative Trump comments and try to divert away from negative conversations about Hillary.


His $10K donation is a pretty small drop in the bucket compared to Hillary's online propaganda team's $6,000,000 budget.
Click to expand...

Remember money isn't the issue here....you're missing the entire point.
 
Some of y'all constitutional warriors need to give it another read over. People are free to criticize and pull financial support from anyone for their crappy political views. Y'all screaming about how "SJW's" are Nazi's or doing something illegal are making yourselves look pretty dumb. You're even bigger partisan hacks than the people you're complaining about. It's time for critical self-reflection.
 
Ah yes the liberal party of tolerance. Cause nothing says tolerance like going after someone who disagrees with you.
And, its good to see so many geniuses in here calling the support of Trump idiotic. Cause I'm sure all those people have made billions of dollars, created thousands of jobs from business deals all over the world. Yes, its horrible how Mr. Trump created all this wealth without throwing a ball or pretending to be someone else on a stage or big screen, obviously those people have the superior intellect to attain such wealth, but not a business man... thats just silly.
Now if things were reversed, and he was being boycotted because he openly supported Hilary, well they would all stand behind his right of freedom. Yes, the big-hearted party of tolerance, can't you just feel the love.
 
See. This is what happens with libtards when you have the "wrong" political opinions. It's okay to try to get you fired, destroy a company, force you out. Simply because they don't like your politics.

You could be the greatest boss in the world, have made them tons of money. They don't give a fuck. All they care about is the fact that you aren't one of their pod people group.

The proper answer to this is to tell them that if they refuse to work, they'll be fired FOR CAUSE, that there will be NO references other than "yes this person worked here, no they don't work here any more and we're not at liberty to discuss why that is".

Then hire people who want to work without bringing their bullshit politics into it.
 
Darthvegan said:
everybody is dumb
Click to expand...
I fixed it for you. That's what you said, a big nothing. Your post conveys no information, apart from the fact that you think everyone is dumb who doesn't like business decisions driven by political views.
No, they're not doing something illegal, but what they're doing is not just detrimental to the guy they're trying to hurt, but hurts everyone who has any connection to oculus. By working there, or by buying it. Or is that just collateral damage? I'm not even on the same continent, why should US internal politics affect me this way?
 
I'd like any of the holier than thou people giving him shit for "selling out" to please tell me what you would do if someone came along and offered you a billion dollar check for your currently nice little project ?
 
Snowdog said:
It wasn't just propaganda. They specialized in shitposting.

Essentially he was bankrolling trolls.
Click to expand...

And Shitposting is their term for what they do.

Jehuty said:
Hey guys, guess what? The guy has as much of a right supporting Trump as the devs have a right of pulling support. Neither position is correct, but it is their right.

What's going to be interesting will be after the election.
Click to expand...

Exactly. While everyone is open to do what they want, you are just as open to not support it if you don't want to. At my work we have a policy of not doing business with anyone that cancels their service with us to go to Comcast instead. Legally they can use who ever they want, but if somebody doesn't want to get their phone and internet service from the small local guys to support us, we aren't going to turn around and support them. In this case, being a co-owner you know that some of the money that you are paying Oculus for SDKs and for dev kits is going into his pocket which means that indirectly by buying their stuff you are bank rolling this group yourself. If you don't agree with shit posting (regardless of which side it is for) you have the right to not buy any of their products so that you are not funding such actions. Lets say that tonight it was announced that Pepsi gives 40% of their profits to the KKK would everyone keep buying Pepsi and say that is fine they can support what they want, or would you suddenly start to think I am going to switch to Coke or RC for my cola drinks from now on as I don't want to support something that gives money to a cause I don't believe in. Even if it isn't the company directly, knowing that one of the owners or higher ups is spending X% of all their money on a cause is no different. It is still the money going to that company making its way to a group you don't like.
 
Love it when the socialist,elitist,mindless lemmings get worked up labeling and libeling people that don't agree with their big gubment redistribution schemes...laughable buffoons
 
Killahurtz said:
Love it when the socialist,elitist,mindless lemmings get worked up labeling and libeling people that don't agree with their big gubment redistribution schemes...laughable buffoons
Click to expand...
Comes from the top, when the Democratic nominee is telling the whole world that Trump's supporters are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, etc." that belong in a basket of deplorables... basically, if you don't vote for me, you're Hitler. And so her followers pick up on that and follow it themselves, and feel morally justified in attacking those "deplorables" (not even human anymore) with every legal (and sometimes illegal) means available to them. We saw this before, where several Trump rallies had to be cancelled for safety reasons, or there were leftist rioters throwing trashcans, punching, ganging up and cornering women and throwing eggs at them, setting up road blockades, turning over cop cars, and everything you can imagine because its no hold's barred when you're, in their mind, basically fighting Hitler.

Those kind of brownshirt tactics don't belong in American politics, and I'm really surprised that Hillary and Bernie didn't denounce it, and instead were victim blaming.
 
Killahurtz said:
Love it when the socialist,elitist,mindless lemmings get worked up labeling and libeling people that don't agree with their big gubment redistribution schemes...laughable buffoons
Click to expand...
You called me puffoon??
 
Darthvegan said:
Some of y'all constitutional warriors need to give it another read over. People are free to criticize and pull financial support from anyone for their crappy political views. Y'all screaming about how "SJW's" are Nazi's or doing something illegal are making yourselves look pretty dumb. You're even bigger partisan hacks than the people you're complaining about. It's time for critical self-reflection.
Click to expand...


Of course people are free to criticize and pull financial support, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from offense or freedom from consequences. It means we won't jail you for political speech. But that does not imply that any and all forms of reactions get a green light and pass the kosher test.

Remember Yale girl?




Just because you CAN do something does not mean you should, and if you do something stupid and over the top others have a right to tell you how ridiculous you are. That is the point here.

I don't like Trump any more than the people throwing a fit do, but I am not going around making sure that I never do any business with people who might be supporting him, or worse, after finding out someone might be supporting him or his allies try to get him fired from his job and put in the dog house. With respect, who the fuck are they? Who made them emperor of the god damn universe that they get to decide who is and is not allowed to work for oculus? These people are children, and need to be rebuked, not bowed down to.

If you want to get on your knees and supplicate yourself to any and all such demands then go ahead, but don't expect anyone else to.


I was even against that other case with the Mozilla CEO Brendon Eich having to resign because of people around him throwing a bitch fit because he supported prop 8 against gay marriage. I'm gay, does that mean if someone is against one of the issues I'm for It's right and proper for me to try to get them fired and banished from their job? What kind of bitter vindictive creature does that?

A social justice leftist. Eff these people, they are trash. And it does not speak well of you that you defend them.
 
tybert7 said:
Remember Yale girl?

Click to expand...

That's Yale now... Wew, lad! And of course she didn't get reprimanded whatsoever for telling a Yale staff member rudely to SHUT UP and cursing at him at the top of her lungs! Instead he cowers, because he knows damn well that in these liberal campuses that they have ruined careers of staff for not bending the knee to these SJW fascists.
 
N4CR said:
Problem is most of the Hillary-ISIS 2016 stormtroopers are SJWs with no job who sit on welfare. So you can't impact their businesses, they'd never have one or the effort and foresight to establish one.
Click to expand...
Why is it always this being said or that they are all rich? Doesn't that tell you something is wrong with that idea when it swings so illogically based on what you are arguing about?
 
Old_Way said:
This type of political censorship has gotten so rampant that it's now hurting the political left. I know a heck-of-a-lot of people voting for Trump strictly because of how partisan the attacks have become against him. Their feeling is generally that Trump isn't great, but the opposition must be much worse if they're willing to condone / encourage these types of attacks.
Click to expand...

Political censorship? Attacks? What are you even talking about? If anyone is "attacking" anyone, it's Palmer and his shitposting brigade.

Palmer Luckey can do whatever the fuck he wants. VR Devs can do whatever the fuck they want.

Armenius said:
Developers have a right to not do business with Oculus, but demanding he step down from the company he created is going too far. If they're shareholders, then they have that right. But I doubt it considering the ideology of those calling for his head.
Click to expand...

I didn't see any "demands" in that article. I saw a lot of devs stating that they would not develop for Oculus if Palmer was still employed there / in charge, but that is 100% their right to do. Hell, they don't even have to have a reason AT ALL to not develop for Oculus.
 
It's called voting with your wallet. This guy did not want any of the money he was paying to be used to support a candidate he disagrees with.

I, and many others do the same. I will not shop at stores or buy products from companies that openly support and/or donate to candidates I do not approve of.
 
Chas said:
See. This is what happens with libtards when you have the "wrong" political opinions. It's okay to try to get you fired, destroy a company, force you out. Simply because they don't like your politics.

You could be the greatest boss in the world, have made them tons of money. They don't give a fuck. All they care about is the fact that you aren't one of their pod people group.

The proper answer to this is to tell them that if they refuse to work, they'll be fired FOR CAUSE, that there will be NO references other than "yes this person worked here, no they don't work here any more and we're not at liberty to discuss why that is".

Then hire people who want to work without bringing their bullshit politics into it.
Click to expand...

spoken by a true republitard... see where name calling gets us? no where, time to grow up kiddo
 
Can anyone honestly say there would be this kind of vitriol against him if he had sent money to a pro Hilary group?
It wouldn't be news. Its sad when people cannot express their personal opinions and views without being attacked.
This could happen to anyone of us. Say or support the wrong thing, and they send out the hit squad on social media, and i you own a business this character assassination machine could not only kill your job, but your business, costing many jobs for people who have nothing to do with the political views of their companies owner.
 
mysticdrew said:
It's called voting with your wallet. This guy did not want any of the money he was paying to be used to support a candidate he disagrees with.

I, and many others do the same. I will not shop at stores or buy products from companies that openly support and/or donate to candidates I do not approve of.
Click to expand...

It's called being a delicate little spaz, where everyone around you and even the people you spend money with have to walk around on egg shells lest they offend your brittle sensibilities. We all have our limits here, but yours and others are FAR more easy to set off than my own. I do not presume that the stores I shop at or the people I work with agree with me on all issues, or have never supported others financially that I disapprove of. I am not going to banish them from my life because of that.


But again, I'm not as entitled as some others out there. I've said this many times, but the only person that I have ever met in this world that has perfect views in all things, is myself. ALL of you fall short of my glory, ALL of you have some issues where you cannot see the light as clearly as I can. You suffer enough not being gifted with my standards, I'm not going to pile on by not patronizing businesses because you don't see things like I do.
 
mysticdrew said:
spoken by a true republitard... see where name calling gets us? no where, time to grow up kiddo
Click to expand...

You're assuming I give a shit about your opinion. Just like you're assuming vindictive assholes like these people give a shit about mine, or Luckey's.

I'm sorry, this sort of thing is just NOT okay.
 
Chas said:
You're assuming I give a shit about your opinion. Just like you're assuming vindictive assholes like these people give a shit about mine, or Luckey's.

I'm sorry, this sort of thing is just NOT okay.
Click to expand...

Why? Because it doesn't fit your personal political views?

Please explain why it's not okay for independent game developers to choose not to put in THEIR OWN time and money to develop for a certain company, REGARDLESS of the reason.
 
This strikes me as the same idiocy that came of the Chic-fil-A strike. It is just more hypocrisy by farther leaning liberals. The owner/CEO is entitled to their own opinions and views. The company as a whole does not necessarily follow those same views. Punishing the company for what an individual privately does is just pure prejudice.

FTFY:
crusty_juggler said:
Right-wingers: "Private businesses should be allowed to deny service to people based on their beliefs and lifestyle choices."

Liberal response: "It's outrageous that any company would refuse service based on an individual's personal beliefs"

Liberal VR devs: "We're not going to do business with your public company based on your individual personal beliefs"
Click to expand...

In regards to constitutionality, I don't really think that plays here. The devs can do whatever they like despite how guided/misguided you find it. This has to do more with capitalism than constitutionality.
 
Last edited:
NoOther said:
This strikes me as the same idiocy that came of the Chic-fil-A strike. It is just more hypocrisy by farther leaning liberals. The owner/CEO is entitled to their own opinions and views. The company as a whole does not necessarily follow those same views. Punishing the company for what an individual privately does is just pure prejudice.

FTFY:

In regards to constitutionality, I don't really think that plays here. The devs can do whatever they like despite how guided/misguided you find it. This has to do more with capitalism than constitutionality.
Click to expand...

Completely different scenarios.

I assume in your analogy, you are referring to the instances where a business has refused to serve an individual based on sexual orientation/religion/etc.. Discrimination laws either existed or were put in place in some areas to deal with those issues, and in those cases it is an individual attempting to illicit service from a company, but being denied.

In this case, it is a political leaning (which AFAIK, no discrimination law exists for in regards to services, employment is different), and it's essentially individuals refusing to do business with a company because of those views.

This sort of thing happens all the time. It is similar to the Chik-fil-a boycott - people didn't like the anti-gay sentiment of the owner and so they refused to take their business there. It is 100% their right to do that. Same situation here.
 
MavericK said:
Completely different scenarios.

I assume in your analogy, you are referring to the instances where a business has refused to serve an individual based on sexual orientation/religion/etc.. Discrimination laws either existed or were put in place in some areas to deal with those issues, and in those cases it is an individual attempting to illicit service from a company, but being denied.

In this case, it is a political leaning (which AFAIK, no discrimination law exists for in regards to services, employment is different), and it's essentially individuals refusing to do business with a company because of those views.
Click to expand...

Actually they are not. First, there were no discrimination laws for the specific case in which the baker refused service which started that whole mess. An individual business has the right to refuse service for many reasons. The Devs are providing a service to Occulus Rift, by creating games for them. They chose to refuse to offer that service based on the belief of the CEO. In this case there really is no difference between the individual and the company. It is the same net result. The only real difference here is that the Devs probably would not be considered a "place of common accommodation". And even if they were, political affiliation is not part of discrimination laws.

MavericK said:
This sort of thing happens all the time. It is similar to the Chik-fil-a boycott - people didn't like the anti-gay sentiment of the owner and so they refused to take their business there. It is 100% their right to do that. Same situation here.
Click to expand...

As I stated, I see no constitutional issue here. I think their decision is rather ignorant (much like the decision to boycott Chic-fil-A), but well within their rights. The reason it is ignorant is they are essentially punishing an entire company based on one person's beliefs, when the company itself does not share those same beliefs. But it is totally up to them and I support their right to that choice.
 
Last edited:
NoOther said:
Actually they are not. An individual business has the right to refuse service.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Americans with Disabilities Act.

NoOther said:
The Devs are also providing a service to Occulus Rift, by creating games for them.
Click to expand...

No service was explicitly solicited from them - they are choosing not to put their own time and money into Oculus. Sure, Oculus wants developers to develop games that work on the Rift, but it's not as if Oculus is trying to hire or subcontract these developers.

NoOther said:
As I stated, I see no constitutional issue here. I think their decision is rather ignorant (much like the decision to boycott Chic-fil-A), but well within their rights. The reason it is ignorant is they are essentially punishing an entire company based on one person's beliefs, when the company itself does not share those same beliefs.
Click to expand...

I agree, no Constitutional issue. And I see your point about "punishing" the company. But honestly, if I worked for a company and I discovered that the company was losing significant business (which, really, has yet to even be seen if this is the case or not with Oculus) because the CEO decided to bankroll an internet troll group to the tune of several million dollars...regardless of the reason behind it, I would be pretty pissed.
 
MavericK said:
Incorrect. Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Americans with Disabilities Act.
Click to expand...

Would you like to show where that includes sexual orientation? While I disagreed with the baker for his choice, it was not illegal. There are very few areas that are actually covered by that act.

MavericK said:
No service was explicitly solicited from them - they are choosing not to put their own time and money into Oculus. Sure, Oculus wants developers to develop games that work on the Rift, but it's not as if Oculus is trying to hire or subcontract these developers.
Click to expand...

Riiiiight....cuz OR has not reached out to devs to develop games for them and have provided no help, service, or incentives at all for such support...

MavericK said:
I agree, no Constitutional issue. And I see your point about "punishing" the company. But honestly, if I worked for a company and I discovered that the company was losing significant business (which, really, has yet to even be seen if this is the case or not with Oculus) because the CEO decided to bankroll an internet troll group to the tune of several million dollars...regardless of the reason behind it, I would be pretty pissed.
Click to expand...

No doubt, I would probably be pissed too, but at the same time, jobs are scarce and oftentimes employees don't have an easy decision to leave the company. So they are still affected by it. This is why I never take a boycott of any kind lightly.
 
NoOther said:
Would you like to show where that includes sexual orientation? While I disagreed with the baker for his choice, it was not illegal. There are very few areas that are actually covered by that act.
Click to expand...

It isn't, but since then several states have passed laws to that extent. But you are moving the goalposts a bit...either you are talking ONLY about sexual orientation, in which case your analogy is invalid because the Oculus case has nothing to do with that, or you are just referring to private businesses and refusing service in general, in which case, I pointed out that isn't always legal.

NoOther said:
Riiiiight....cuz OR has not reached out to devs to develop games for them....
Click to expand...

Possibly, but my guess is the devs who are boycotting Oculus are not ones who received any sort of "incentive" from Oculus to develop for them. Otherwise they'd probably be in breach of contract, would be my guess.

NoOther said:
No doubt, I would probably be pissed too, but at the same time, jobs are scarce and oftentimes employees don't have an easy decision to leave the company. So they are still affected by it. This is why I never take a boycott of any kind lightly.
Click to expand...

To these devs, I don't think they have taken this decision lightly - not making their game available to a wider audience hurts them, too, in terms of potential sales.

I don't want to see anyone lose jobs, either. But I don't think that's an excuse to give money, whether directly or indirectly, to a company/CEO/whatever whose views you don't agree with. No one is beholden to Oculus to develop games for them and make them money. If I were them, I would be getting a board meeting together to discuss Palmer's antics...
 
MavericK said:
It isn't, but since then several states have passed laws to that extent. But you are moving the goalposts a bit...either you are talking ONLY about sexual orientation, in which case your analogy is invalid because the Oculus case has nothing to do with that, or you are just referring to private businesses and refusing service in general, in which case, I pointed out that isn't always legal.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, what goal posts did I move? I haven't moved any goal posts. You are the one that was insinuating their was illegal discrimination in the case and therefore it was different. However, there was not. I am talking about decisions to refuse service. Discrimination comes in all forms, if you choose not to do business with a company based on their CEOs personal beliefs, that is still discrimination. However, it is not illegal discrimination. So really, the only one shifting anything is you.

MavericK said:
Possibly, but my guess is the devs who are boycotting Oculus are not ones who received any sort of "incentive" from Oculus to develop for them. Otherwise they'd probably be in breach of contract, would be my guess.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but we don't know. The statement that OR does not request Devs make games for them or does not offer incentives is false though. If they did not, there would probably be far less exclusive titles for OR. Also if that were not the case, there would be no reason for Gabe Newell to call them out on it and specifically offer a program to allow for more vendor neutrality in VR.
 
NoOther said:
This strikes me as the same idiocy that came of the Chic-fil-A strike. It is just more hypocrisy by farther leaning liberals. The owner/CEO is entitled to their own opinions and views. The company as a whole does not necessarily follow those same views. Punishing the company for what an individual privately does is just pure prejudice.

FTFY:

In regards to constitutionality, I don't really think that plays here. The devs can do whatever they like despite how guided/misguided you find it. This has to do more with capitalism than constitutionality.
Click to expand...
I think your logic doesn't really hold up here. It might be easier if you look at it in the abstract:

You are against policy X. A CEO of company Y funds political organizations to make policy X a reality. Company Y has nothing to do with policy X, nor do its employees, however, it is safe to assume that by soliciting company Y, some of your money is going towards bankrolling policy X. Therefore, you decide to boycott company Y, because you don't want your money funding policy X. This seems like a logically consistent standpoint to me, I'm not sure what the hypocrisy is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top