Jump to content
The King of Hate Forums

Sam

Members
  • Content Count

    123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Sam last won the day on September 23 2016

Sam had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

42 Excellent

3 Followers

About Sam

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. And the shots just keep coming. I for one am shocked, yet also laughing at the savagery.
  2. The word you want is immoral and no, that sentence is incorrect because I don't disagree with Twitch's business practices, so streaming with them wouldn't be immoral. You are confused. The contradiction you think you found doesn't exist.
  3. If you know that a public poll is ripe for sabotaging and will be invalidated because of it, then why even bother setting it up in the first place?
  4. Thank you. You saved me the trouble of reiterating it myself. This was the true point of my post quoting Traditional Games. You misunderstand. Not having a problem with something and it being weird are not mutually exclusive. I find his behavior weird in this instance, but not wrong, hence I don't have a problem with it.
  5. I second getting a down rep button. I don't know if he'd do the same thing in Jimmy's shoes, but I do know that if he were in those shoes and spewed the same vitriol as that post, then he wouldn't have a show much longer. Of course, if he were in charge, I doubt he would have had Nintendo on at all in the first place.
  6. Please read the entire post. If you had quoted my next sentence as well, you would see that I addressed about when there are no alternatives or when doing so is your only means of survival. Also let me make this clear before you or someone else misunderstands. I have no problem with Phil going back to Twitch. I'm glad he did it and it was the right move. It is not hippy bullshit. It is called morality. Just because it is apparently a foreign concept to you, does not mean that the majority of people don't possess it. It is not normal and no, people do not do it all the time. If they di
  7. In that same vein, I've noticed a couple times now that Phil has stated very clearly that he does not agree with Twitch's business practices, yet he continues to do business with them. It's very weird to me cause normally if you disagree with the way a company or service runs, you don't continue to work or use said company or service. Now I understand that sometimes you don't have a choice because it is the only way you will survive or they are the only option, which is fine but you can no longer claim a moral high ground. It's just odd to me to so flagrantly point out that you are compromisin
  8. Indeed he is a tool and like any host of a show doing an interview or promotion, he is going to promote and saying nice things about whatever the subject, that's just the way it works, but and this is key here, Jimmy Fallon is also a horrendously bad actor. His excitement, specifically his physical fidgeting, was real. He went over the top a couple times, specifically during Mario Run which was more exaggerated, but he started losing his shit for real with the Switch. Why else would he keep interrupting Reggie or talk about how the Switch has a kickstand or the controllers come off for 2 playe
  9. Do you not know what an incentive is? Why do you think Phil even has events as a goal on Patreon? He is using the promise of a stream to entice patrons. I know you understand this because you pledged a large amount for one of his past goals, the Sonic one I believe. Now I could be mistaken, but didn't you donate something like $200 in order to make sure that he reached the goal and did the event? We are talking about a stream where the allure is fan interaction, right? Phil's is lower quality because the other streamers offer greater fan interaction. The pop ups when someone donates or
  10. The stream is a good idea, that I agree on. However, I disagree about it being a good idea once it becomes a Patreon goal and Phil says he requires the extra funds from Patreon in order to even do it in order to mitigate the possible risk of loss from the stream, completely ignoring that the stream itself will generate some measure of profit(potentially even more than a normal day on YT) and acting like not uploading a single day's worth of videos will be disastrous for his channel/business. Actually the original word was emote. Nowhere did I mention shilling and it wasn't in the quote ei
  11. Can you cite what part of the definition on that page proves BrightsideViking wrong? I read through it, but I'm having trouble finding a part of that says parodies can not be comprised of the original work. This is a wonderful point and I don't know why we are arguing about it either, but I must say that I am enjoying the discussion. It may be pointless since the only thing that will truly decide whether they are legal or illegal is a court ruling, but it's just nice to have an interesting and heated discussion about something that isn't in the random thoughts thread.
  12. I would suggest you pay attention to elections then because that example you gave happens a lot in politics. Campaigns are full of out of context soundbites from their opponent. But that isn't even what is happening. No one is splicing together audio clips of you to make you say things you didn't and in my experience, the moments taken are rarely out of context. I'd be careful making that claim in general if I were you cause that's something people can actual research and prove what the context was and if it was taken out of it. In general, TIHYDP's don't have much creator voice. Most are just
  13. If people are going to use the word slander and describe something as slanderous, then can you please make sure you know the actual definition of the word? " to make a false spoken statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone" that is from Merrian-Webster, but since we are dealing with legal matters how about a legal definition, this one is from dictionary.law.com; "oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed". For further and more in-depth reading, here is a link to another
  14. See, I'm with you there. The idea of someone seeing that and mistaking it as Phil being serious, is indeed laughable. The issue is I'm not sure how many people truly believe that. I've seen comments saying it, but I always took those comments as exaggerations either for the sake of being humorous or to emphasize how appalled they were. Much like how Phil was overreacting and reacting in an opposite manner in an attempt at humor. You can't take all those comments at face value and 100% serious and not do the same for Phil's commentary during that scene. That would be a double standard
  15. Yes. You are welcome for being civil, though I'm not sure why you'd think I wouldn't be about this. Can I ask why the question in the first place? Was I unclear? Are you illustrating a point? Did you post this in the wrong thread? I may be mistaken, but it sounds more like a response to what was said in the "Why do people get so angry" thread located here: https://thekingofhate.com/forums/topic/2822-why-do-people-get-so-emotionally-angry-when-phil-does-the-following-things/?page=2
×
×
  • Create New...