Alison Rapp fired by Nintendo

[Damajin]

Oh, so you're just an ignorant dunce that thinks sexual orientation is a choice. Cool story, you're going against an assload of scientific research.

You still can't comprehend a basic concept. If your daughter had suicidal tenancies, and you preached to her every day that suicidal people were absolute garbage that should just die, how likely do you think she would be to seek help?

So yeah, they have a problem. Putting them into a lose/lose scenario is just absurd. If they seek help, society and everyone they know will shit on them for the rest of their lives. If they don't seek help, they have the potential to live a normal life. People like YOU make the latter choice more attractive to them. If you want to reduce the chance of child abuse, stop shitting on all of them as a whole, stop instantly promoting hate towards them. Instead, support the idea of pedophiles seeking the help or support they need without all of the condemnation in absence of them acting on it.

Your logic is just retarded.

The irony in how creepy this statement is, is astounding. I'd refrain from saying something like this in public, considering it may make YOU look like a pedophile. You don't need to "stand up for your daughter's sexual sanctity", you need to act like a normal fucking parent.

I specifically said in the very thing you quoted "sanctity in every way that it exists" of which there is more than sexual but of which that IS a part. Part of being a parent is safeguarding them against that until it's age appropriate for them which IS being a normal fucking parent, this is real simple parenting shit that I can easily tell you don't know anything about. You should probably talk about things you know and not those you don't know as there was no irony found in my statement at all, just a normal fucking parent having a normal protective outlook over their child.

How will society shit on them if the help is private, as all mental health stuff is? If you go to a psychologist and talk about this stuff that whole patient/client privilege notion pretty much guarantees you an open forum to get it out of your system and actually resolve it. You're acting like none of that exists when that's the entire fucking deal in a nutshell.

It's ironic that you harp on me and throw around retarded like its no big deal. Hypocrite much?

Suicidial people are a completely different situation, by your own statements since suicidial people aren't "born that way" you know? How about use an allusion that actually applies and is valid under your own terms.

They have 2 problems. 1 is having pedophilic fantasies and 2 is being so caught up in what other people are saying that they don't do shit about it. Again, get help or just frankly admit that you're a full blown pedophilic who doesn't want help with it and doesn't want to be anything else. This going 'oh these people calling them names are the reason they're not seeking help' is a fucking joke. YOU decide what you do and don't do and no amount of criticism or lack of it on the flipside can say otherwise.

Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation, slippery slope much?

[Kithelle]

That woman is a bloody nutter... How the fuck are people even defending her on twitter after reading her tweets? Jesus.....

Morons and white knights who think they may have a chance to hook up with her if they defend her? The World is a fucked up place and you'll have degenerates defending anyone...just look at the Boston marathon bomber and the stupid little girls who said he was to cute to be guilty.

[Sama-81]

I'm not making the argument that we should emulate all of the behaviors of other primates. But because you brought up infanticide, we should be clear - humans commit infanticide all the time, mostly because of scarcity and environmental stress. Scarcity and environmental stress lead to lots of negative behaviors. I would like to make the distinction between scarcity-driven behaviors and natural behaviors, with the latter including behaviors observed at significant frequency in the absence of significant scarcity. Through this lens, it becomes much easier to pass moral judgements on the behaviors of apes and humans.



I'd also like to mention that humans kill and eat the young of other species regularly, and it's hardly a moral tribulation for us (unless you're vegan).

Since you make the distinction, we should also be clear on the fact that, concerning apes and infanticide, the occurence is not due to environmental stress, at the very least not entirely; it does constitute a natural behaviour. To what degree and for which species, I'm not entirely sure, but that it is a natural behaviour for some of them would be exceptionally hard to contest. In which cases the reason for it obviously isn't to acquire food. But I likely already digressed too much from the actual topic at hand, and I'm not really contesting what you said either - I just found the mentioning of bonobos and their sexual behaviour largely, maybe not wholly, irrelevant in the context of the same in humans.

As for mental development, 24 is around the age when our prefrontal cortex finishes developing, and some areas of the brain don't fully mature until 30. If you want to make the 'brain development' argument, you should support abstinence until 24. But this is all largely irrelevant, because we already know that objective mental development isn't the issue here; people are fine with young people having sex with each other, after all. And beyond this, our rules for consent vary drastically by age and topic. No, the issue here is fear - fear that someone with more experience and understanding of the world will take advantage of someone who is still learning about themselves and their environment. And sure - in some cases, this can be a legitimate concern. But I liken it to strength. Males are stronger than females. One might fear that males would therefore always rape females, because they can. But this doesn't happen. So we've learned to accept that differences in strength are acceptable. On a more general level, we accept relationships wherein the two individuals have differences of power; another inconsistency.

Finally, your last sentence evidences a deep hypocrisy. When you say that parents should be able to make decisions for their children whether or not they agree, you open the door to many things. You acknowledge that consent is irrelevant under certain circumstances. And I would agree with you. I think harm is the real harm. But in sexual interactions, I see no innate harm.

I would claim that there is a "slope", between "certainly not ready for sex" and "certainly ready for sex", which varies between groups and, in particular, individuals. I do fail to see why acknowledging that and letting it influence the age of consent would automatically lead to it being placed at an age where mental development is fully complete; it could surely be taken into account without leading to such a conclusion? I mean, the goal could certainly be set to reach a number where an overwhelming majority is ready, for instance, even if not all are? A stance that, at least to me, also seems to logically lead to different ages of consent for different things, such as alcohol and driver's licences - due to the different natures of the risks (and benefits) involved - to me, that is not an argument against this sort of reasoning, but rather for it.
As for being fine with young people having sex with each other - yes and no. Largely, I would agree, but there most certainly is an age limit even for that, in the minds of most people. Here, I would be willing to wager a lot on it, actually, being tied to, or at least in the near vicinity of, the current age of consent. An age that I myself find reasonable (below 18 with some margin).

The last sentence and hypocrisy, well everyone agrees that we should be able to make decisions for children whether they agree or not. The only disagreement there, is at what age it should end (and to some extent, concerning what). As opposed to you, however, I do see a risk even in sexual interactions, if in too young an age. I'm not saying that you are definitely wrong, not at all, just that I am far from convinced that you are right either; I could definitely see some potential mental harm coming into play (in regards to the masses that is, for some individuals there certainly are - if seen that much myself), and until I'm not, due to being shown enough evidence to the contrary, I'm rather keen on keeping the age of consent we have in place here. Either way, your argument is well put, imho, which demands consideration, and it's an interesting topic. Nice to see that some people on here are capable of sound reasoning and discussion, because one does sometimes wonder...

[Edge-]

She was a terrible PR person

Good thing she worked in marketing and not PR!

[Edge-]

Alrighty.

She was terrible at marketing.

Still just as true, funny enough.

Was she? What work did she do that was terrible? I've only seen tidbits of this so I haven't seen any critique of the actual quality of her work while at Nintendo.

[Edge-]

Mocking customers complaining about a Nintendo product on twitter for one.

That's not her work, that's her personal life. And I've really only seen the screencaps of her "advocating" pedophilia (which none of them have actually shown that). What kind of mocking did she do of people on Twitter?

[Edge-]

Her Twitter account directly links to her employer. Separating the two is a little silly.

Directly links or not is irrelevant. Nowadays, regardless of if you put your place of employment on your social media accounts your online actions reflect back upon your employer, so that's a meaningless distinction.

Either way, she she did there was not "her work". That was her behavior. If she behaved poorly, that's one thing. But that's not speaking to the quality of her work at Nintendo as part of their marketing department.

I think she was a shit marketing rep for 1. Mocking people complaining about the Fire Emblem Fates localization (Of which she works on in her role at treehouse) and 2. For moonlighting by selling scantily clad pictures of her using Nintendo products! /facepalm

Neither of which have anything to do with her actual work (and I'm unaware of who she directly mocked?), not to mention she's marketing...she doesn't control and isn't involved in what goes on during localization. Those are two different departments that will work together on occasion but have entirely different roles.

As for her moonlighting, that's entirely irrelevant to the quality of her work at Nintendo.

That's why Nintendo had cause to fire her for holding a second job that "Violated corporate culture"

Yup! And they were well within their rights to do so.

So you have issues with her behavior on social media and her second job. That's cool. But neither are related to the quality of work in the marketing department at Nintendo.

Edit: Honestly, I'm surprised at how much attention this topic has gotten overall, both here and elsewhere. Seems largely "ho-hum" to me. Sure, invoking the name of "GAMERGATE!" is a clarion call for loud, obnoxious folks from all sides, but damn if this isn't one of the most boring "controversies" I can think of in recent memory.

[Deleted]

Is she the same pedophile that ruined the new Fire emblem game with a poor translation, and SJW changes to the script?

[Edge-]

I guess we just have a difference of opinion then.

Not really. You're mistaking her personal comments for her professional work. That's you being unclear about the difference between the two, not a difference of opinion.

For all we know, she did superstar work in her role at Nintendo and they were very pleased with the quality of her work. Because it was her second job that was what caused her to lose her job, not what was said or done on social media.

Is she the same pedophile that ruined the new Fire emblem game with a poor translation, and SJW changes to the script?

Not sure who you are thinking of, but she doesn't work localization (so had no hand in translating the game or its script) nor is she a pedophile. At least not from what I've seen of the alleged comments "proving" she's a pedophile.

[Pebrocks The Warlock]

Hopefully future employers look her up before hiring her and understand the type of person she is.

[Underverse]

Since you make the distinction, we should also be clear on the fact that, concerning apes and infanticide, the occurence is not due to environmental stress, at the very least not entirely; it does constitute a natural behaviour. To what degree and for which species, I'm not entirely sure, but that it is a natural behaviour for some of them would be exceptionally hard to contest. In which cases the reason for it obviously isn't to acquire food. But I likely already digressed too much from the actual topic at hand, and I'm not really contesting what you said either - I just found the mentioning of bonobos and their sexual behaviour largely, maybe not wholly, irrelevant in the context of the same in humans.

It's relevant. Human behavior is subject to intense cultural pressures, many of which originate from circumstances well outside of our evolutionary heritage (agriculture, sedentary settlements, etc). Observing the behavior of our closest relatives outside of those cultural pressures can be valuable. I'm not saying that we should emulate apes; but I would say there are useful perspectives to be gained there.

Cases of infanticide in apes generally revolve around males not being willing to care for the offspring of other males (obviously not a problem in bonobo societies). The scarcity here is mating partners and resources (which again, is not true in bonobo societies). Without the scarcity, the act disappears. In humans, infanticide follows similar patters, and is usually committed by the mother, who does not have the time or resources to care for an infant.

Infanticide is immoral for a bunch of reasons, but like most other things, can be justified under certain circumstances, such as extreme environmental stress. But pedophilia does not follow this pattern; it's a behavior seen routinely and in the absence of environmental stress. These two behaviors are really pretty different and can easily be separated into categories beyond 'apes do it'.

I would claim that there is a "slope", between "certainly not ready for sex" and "certainly ready for sex", which varies between groups and, in particular, individuals. I do fail to see why acknowledging that and letting it influence the age of consent would automatically lead to it being placed at an age where mental development is fully complete; it could surely be taken into account without leading to such a conclusion? I mean, the goal could certainly be set to reach a number where an overwhelming majority is ready, for instance, even if not all are? A stance that, at least to me, also seems to logically lead to different ages of consent for different things, such as alcohol and driver's licences - due to the different natures of the risks (and benefits) involved - to me, that is not an argument against this sort of reasoning, but rather for it.

Who judges the readiness of an individual for sex?

If it's the individual, we have no need for consent laws. If it's not the individual, then you need a premise for external judgement. But I think this is irrelevant; this idea that people are 'mentally ready' for sexual interactions is a fabrication. There is no evidence to suggest that sexual interactions are innately destructive before a certain age. All we have is data showing that, in a society that condemns sexual interactions with young people as morally reprehensible, those who engage in said acts are more likely to have mental problems. But this is the same for anything that is socially condemned. That's what social condemnation does. We saw it with homosexuals. We see it with trans individuals. We are the ones creating this problem. It's not innate.

As for being fine with young people having sex with each other - yes and no. Largely, I would agree, but there most certainly is an age limit even for that, in the minds of most people. Here, I would be willing to wager a lot on it, actually, being tied to, or at least in the near vicinity of, the current age of consent. An age that I myself find reasonable (below 18 with some margin).

Children exploring their sexuality with each other, even at ages as young as 5 or 6, has long been acknowledged to be natural under the acceptable premise that children are not yet 'cultured'. This behavior is also reflected in other apes.

The last sentence and hypocrisy, well everyone agrees that we should be able to make decisions for children whether they agree or not. The only disagreement there, is at what age it should end (and to some extent, concerning what). As opposed to you, however, I do see a risk even in sexual interactions, if in too young an age. I'm not saying that you are definitely wrong, not at all, just that I am far from convinced that you are right either; I could definitely see some potential mental harm coming into play (in regards to the masses that is, for some individuals there certainly are), and until I'm not, due to being shown enough evidence to the contrary, I'm rather keen on keeping the age of consent we have in place here. Either way, your argument is well put, imho, which demands consideration, and it's an interesting topic. Nice to see that some people on here are capable of sound reasoning and discussion, because one does sometimes wonder...

Why would mental harm occur? That's the dogma, but I don't see any evidence for this unless the child is either abused (and I mean actually abused - harmed - not 'touched' - this is not abuse) or condemned society for their participation in an act considered so morally reprehensible as to incite calls for torture.

There is a potential for harm of course, as there is a potential for harm with any act. But we don't outlaw sex because some people are raped. Moreover, outlawing pedophilia forces those with pedophilic tendencies to the fringes of society, where they are more likely to actually harm someone. It's a sad fall from grace considering that the origins of this behavior are parental and benevolent; it's become so twisted by cultural stigma and disgust, and people now only see it for its worst.

[Kyanion]

Not really. You're mistaking her personal comments for her professional work. That's you being unclear about the difference between the two, not a difference of opinion.

For all we know, she did superstar work in her role at Nintendo and they were very pleased with the quality of her work. Because it was her second job that was what caused her to lose her job, not what was said or done on social media.

I don't care how much of a 'superstar' she could have been for Nintendo, when she is using her work linked Twitter to promote her camgirling among other things that detracts from the 'quality' of her work. Her second job wasn't separate from Nintendo because she linked to it.

[Edge-]

I don't care how much of a 'superstar' she could have been for Nintendo, when she is using her work linked Twitter to promote her camgirling among other things that detracts from the 'quality' of her work.

I was talking about Boomzy's criticisms of her work as a marketer, not anything else.

Her second job wasn't separate from Nintendo because she linked to it.

Her second job was separate from Nintendo, that's why it was a second job. She was fired because it wasn't in-line with Nintendo's corporate culture etc. and was very likely a breach of contract because of it.

You're conflating two separate issues/discussions here, they're not directly linked.

There is no difference between the two when she is representing herself publicly as a marketer for Nintendo.

Yes, yes there is. They are connected, but they are not the same.

If she said "Fuck Nintendo they suck" on her twitter would you still be arguing this?

Yup! But Nintendo would likely fire her ass, or at least talk to her, because of those types of comments.

No, of course not, because it affects Nintendo's image. You and me just have a difference of opinion on if it actually affects Nintendo's image for her to do what she did on Twitter.

I'm not arguing that it doesn't impact Nintendo's image, I'm arguing that it doesn't impact the quality of her work as part of the marketing team there, which is specifically what you critiqued. It does impact their image, anything you say/do on social media does when you work for a major company. That's why a lot of major companies encourage their employees to minimize/limit social media use or to be very careful when posting/using it.

[Kyanion]

Her second job was separate from Nintendo, that's why it was a second job. She was fired because it wasn't in-line with Nintendo's corporate culture etc. and was very likely a breach of contract because of it.

You're conflating two separate issues/discussions here, they're not directly linked.

Except it WASN'T separate from Nintendo because she used her Nintendo handle to link to that 2nd job. That caused them to not be separate anymore. She was fired because she tried to hide the existence of that job by using an anonymous name among other things she did. If the other job was truly separate she'd never have mentioned it, linked to it, posted pictures from it, etc. Instead she LINKED the two by doing such things. Period.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no difference between the two when she is representing herself publicly as a marketer for Nintendo.

If she said "Fuck Nintendo they suck" on her twitter would you still be arguing this? No, of course not, because it affects Nintendo's image. You and me just have a difference of opinion on if it actually affects Nintendo's image for her to do what she did on Twitter.

Remember she was in Marketing not in accounting or something like that. Her entire purpose is to make Nintendo and it's products look better, not worse.

yup exactly the point I'm trying to make. Does not matter what the message was, it was reflecting on her as an employee of Nintendo.

[Edge-]

Except it WASN'T separate from Nintendo because she used her Nintendo handle to link to that 2nd job. That caused them to not be separate anymore. She was fired because she tried to hide the existence of that job by using an anonymous name among other things she did. If the other job was truly separate she'd never have mentioned it, linked to it, posted pictures from it, etc. Instead she LINKED the two by doing such things. Period.

That's not her "Nintendo" handle, that's her account where she lists her occupation and links to her employer. She was fired because Nintendo found out about what her second gig was somehow, apparently some anonymous person tipping them off.

I'm not arguing she was the smartest, because if she was she would have used a separate account for her second job, using the same account was stupid. That's what you get when you use social media without thinking much.

yup exactly the point I'm trying to make. Does not matter what the message was, it was reflecting on her as an employee of Nintendo.

Never said it didn't. And even if she was in accounting, or anything else, it would still reflect badly upon Nintendo.

You guys seems to think I'm arguing things that I'm not arguing at all...

[Deleted]

i know that. but it's bad because it was pedo, not because it was incest. that person said it was worse because it was incest. it can't be worse, it's pedo.

consenting adults doing incest stuff, that's a-ok.

Incest is fucking disgusting. Stop encourageing inbread morons to get children with their own children.

Its so fucking wrong

[Edge-]

She advertised her second job on her Twitter account, along with "Sneak Peeks" of her photo shoots.

Yup, which I've said was bloody stupid of her. I've never claimed she was a smart person : P

[Karamaru]

Is she the same pedophile that ruined the new Fire emblem game with a poor translation, and SJW changes to the script?

Considering she was in PR and Marketing she did a pretty lousy job at it since Fire Emblem Fates is seen now as "tainted" in the eyes of the most players and every tweet nintendo is making its bombarded by hash tags and arguements.
But no she had no take in it despite her claiming she did she should have been fired over her lousy doing a lousy job not over what she had written but her posting pictures of her half naked with nintendo products did not help either.

[Poppincaps]

Apparently her second job was being a cam girl. She also did some sexy photoshoots with Nintendo products. So I understand why Nintendo, a family friendly company, wouldn't want her to be representing them.

As for her pedophilia thing, I believe her thesis was basically about how people judge Japan for being pedophilic when the legal age there is 13 and her thesis was basically saying that that isn't fair. Personally I think 16 being the legal age is fine, but 13 is pretty young. Biologically though it makes sense. 13 is the age where you are able to give birth.

Also, pedophilia is having sexual urges towards pre-pubescent children. Being attracted to a 13 year old is not being a pedophile. Honestly though unless a pedophile is molesting children then I feel bad for them. It'd really fucking suck to be attracted to a group of people and not be able to act on your urges.

[Karamaru]

Though i am anti-SJW, trying to have conversations with some of the GGers is like bashing your head against a wall. They don't care about nuance, or discussions, they just scream BURN THE PEDO! and tear down anything in their way with accusations of kiddy-diddling.

to be pretty honest sending the wayne foundation after her was a pretty shitty thing to do and GG was to be above that and not use the same under handed tactics as the others tend to use.