Jesus Christ, people actually got offended at what he said? Bloody hell, some people are highly strung these days.
Developer Apologizes for Accidentally Threatening Kittens
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Jesus Christ, people actually got offended at what he said? Bloody hell, some people are highly strung these days.
Nobody would care if they threatened humans. Somehow though, those horrible, ungrateful, spiteful balls of fur seem to have gained an untouchable status.
People should really just relax. It's not like they were going to go all Edison on the cats.
On a side note, I went straight to their Greenlight page to vote for them after seeing this.
On a side note, I went straight to their Greenlight page to vote for them after seeing this.
Normally, I wouldn't really approve of devs saying stupid things. When you speak to the public, wise up with what you say, lest you end up alienating your customers.
In this case, I agree with most of these comments. Not because people are "too sensitive nowadays" (It's alwayys been like this. You're just noticing now), but because this was very clearly a joke. We've heard this joke so many times it's not funny (buy my product and the kitten lives!). Making light of animal cruelty? Seriously? Have you seen what cats can survive from?
In this case, I agree with most of these comments. Not because people are "too sensitive nowadays" (It's alwayys been like this. You're just noticing now), but because this was very clearly a joke. We've heard this joke so many times it's not funny (buy my product and the kitten lives!). Making light of animal cruelty? Seriously? Have you seen what cats can survive from?
I don't think you guys understand. You can't threaten cats on the internet. Period.
It's not about offense. It's not about taking a joke. It's a cardinal-fucking-sin. It's one of the most powerful thou-shalt-nots.
You DO NOT threaten CATS on the INTERNET. The internet likes cats 1,000x more than it likes people. This is rudimentary stuff.
It's not about offense. It's not about taking a joke. It's a cardinal-fucking-sin. It's one of the most powerful thou-shalt-nots.
You DO NOT threaten CATS on the INTERNET. The internet likes cats 1,000x more than it likes people. This is rudimentary stuff.
It was worded in poor taste, and they should get all the punishment they deserve.
"All the punishment they deserve" in this case equates to, "Irritated fans posting irritated messages on the greenlight page, followed by them being forced to say a quick, 'Whoops, my bad, sorry guys'."
Sometimes a gaffe is just a gaffe. You don't get indignant about "The PC Police", you don't demand blood in retribution. The offending party apologizes like an adult, and you move on with your life. Luckily, it looks like THATS WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. So were all good.
"All the punishment they deserve" in this case equates to, "Irritated fans posting irritated messages on the greenlight page, followed by them being forced to say a quick, 'Whoops, my bad, sorry guys'."
Sometimes a gaffe is just a gaffe. You don't get indignant about "The PC Police", you don't demand blood in retribution. The offending party apologizes like an adult, and you move on with your life. Luckily, it looks like THATS WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. So were all good.
I think all the angry and offended people, be they upset about imaginary kittens, a feminist on Kickstarter or the endings of a certain SF series, must apologise for making the Net a more irritating and exasperating place.
Curses, beat me to it.bkd69 said:Younglings.
Back in my day, we KNEW how to threaten animals to raise sales.
EDIT: stoopid flickr image sharing/escapist block codes
There's nothing wrong with this sort of marketing, as long as it isn't serious.
Are you outraged at the outrage internet? Why give me $5,000 and I will personally travel to somewhere that legally allows it and eat an entire cat.
We'll show those meddling animal lovers whose boss one forkful at a time.
We'll show those meddling animal lovers whose boss one forkful at a time.
itsthesheppy said:
These.lukey94 said:
xkcd: CAT PROXIMITY
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cat_proximity.png
'Threatening' cats and kittens on the internet is the equivalent to defaming Mohammed in front of ultra conservative muslims in Pakistan.
[HEADING=2]Riots in the streets. Deaths on film at 11. [/HEADING]
Nope. If they threatened human children I'd react the same way. There is a difference -- Child's Play says "The more money you give us, the more we can help the children relieve their pain." If they said "If you don't help us, then children will be in pain!", then that would be bad.Somethingfake said:
The funny thing is that assuming they're talking about the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), they hardly rescue any animals, so that's not where the donation would be going. The HSUS is mostly a lobbying and legal organization.
Here's the difference: threatening harm, like on that National Lampoon magazine cover, is a joke, and is designed to make you laugh. If the joke worked, it will make you want to read more of the comedy contained within the product being sold. This was a marketing stunt to tug at the heartstrings of cat lovers. There's no relationship between the pitch and the product; it's simply an attempt at emotional manipulation. There is a difference, and it didn't work.Res Plus said: