|
|
Post by 🧀Son of Suzy Creamcheese🧀 on Oct 20, 2018 6:35:42 GMT -5
...I would not play that game. Problem solved. Yeah, I think I'm done with this thread now. Sorry to leave a whole reply and then bail, Griff, but we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Oct 20, 2018 7:06:07 GMT -5
(I find it funny we're talking about such a serious issue that has stemmed from discussion over an anime titty game, but it's the root of all this) Yeah seriously. In all honesty, I'm actually a bit of a SJW myself--I agree with the root philosophies, and when I first saw videos of Senran Kagura (I think it was the second one) my reaction was "yeah, I don't want to touch this game," and one of my standards for whether an anime is gonna be worth watching is "is your introduction to the lead female literally a panty shot?" (11 Eyes and Bastard!! are two anime I can name immediately which do that, and while Bastard is kinda redeemable, 11 Eyes just sucks). And I honestly do think gaming's treatment of women has taken a step backwards. Used to be we had heroines like Alis Landale, Laura Bow, Samus... Lara Croft is a mild case as while she was sexualized, she fits Wyrdwad's description of a woman who is sexy but still quite badass. And yet these days, it seems like the only way women get into games is if they're in skimpy clothes. Look at how the female CIA Agent in the NES Ninja Gaiden dressed like a professional, but in the X-Box remake she didn't. Then of course there's how both Lara Croft and Samus Aran got turned into helpless, gasping little girls... it caused outcry in Samus' case but not in Lara's for some reason. The hell? (Honestly, what I want is another character like Laura Bow, someone who is just a regular effing person who looks, acts, dresses, talks etc. like a normal person you'd meet on the street, but that's impossible... women in games today have to be either sex objects or else political rallying points, so Bow would today not be allowed around a man without either banging him or else getting angry at innocuous comments so she can deliver a verbal takedown). I'd be totally on Social Justice's side if only they handled their philosophy better, instead of constantly asking for censorship and thinking everyone who is against it is an Neo-Nazi cis white male (not talking about anyone in this topic... just in general. Please don't kill me. Yet.) The worst is probably just how the argument gets exaggerated--I was once accused of being a sexist pig just for pointing out the fact that Sailor Moon is often seen as a feminist icon, and for criticizing how Lindsay Ellis read Frank Herbert's Dune, a book rich in mind-boggling philosophy that can legitimately change your view of the world you live in and help you understand and thrive in it better, and all she came away with was "this book is sexist because two women talk about babies at one point." Senran Kagura does totally repulse me--and I'm speaking as a man who actually has a slight phobia of sexual matters--but it totally deserves to exist uncensored. Western games are more and more obsessed with storytelling and creating some believable 'world'. That's just 'in', right now, and overt sexuality doesn't fit with that. Why does overt sexuality make the world less believable? The REAL world has sex dens, BDSM clubs, and people who literally walk around naked but you can't tell because they're painted to look clothed. Also, from what I understand (never played a God of War game) these games take place in Ancient Greece... one of the oldest surviving novels from Greece is about people screwing a donkey. |
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Oct 20, 2018 7:36:30 GMT -5
(Honestly, what I want is another character like Laura Bow, someone who is just a regular effing person who looks, acts, dresses, talks etc. like a normal person you'd meet on the street, but that's impossible... women in games today have to be either sex objects or else political rallying points, so Bow would today not be allowed around a man without either banging him or else getting angry at innocuous comments so she can deliver a verbal takedown). I'd say look to indie gaming. I'm constantly amazed by just how progressive the indie scene is right now -- strong, non-sexualized female protagonists are basically the norm these days, and it seems like it's because the creators WANT to create strong, female protagonists, not because they feel they HAVE to. Which is awesome to see, and gives me a lot of hope for the future of the industry. Especially since, as I've always said, today's indies are tomorrow's AAA developers. But seriously. Just off the top of my head, you've got Freedom Planet, Crypt of the NecroDancer, Knytt Stories, Knytt Underground, Timespinner, La-Mulana 2, Forgotton Anne, Transistor, Saira, Cosmic Star Heroine, Aquaria, Ghost 1.0, Touhou: Luna Nights, Iconoclasts, Alwa's Awakening, CrossCode, Tokyo Dark, Celeste, Ib, arguably the Shantae games (if you count them as indies and count them as non-sexualized, both of which are debatable)... and I KNOW I'm forgetting a ton. Indies are basically all I play these days (aside from retro MSX games, anyway -- which also surprisingly feature a lot of games with strong female protagonists!), and a lot of that is because of the dearth of creativity and reliance upon tropes in modern AAA titles. So yeah... like you, I'm also not personally a fan of titillating anime games, despite my professional attachment to some of them. I may defend these titles to the death, but it's for the same reason you do: simply because they have a right to exist, and a right to exist as they were created. -Tom |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2018 7:49:20 GMT -5
Gonna shoot this one down right now: There is no effing "rise of Naziism." That's some scare tactic certain facets of the internet came up with basically to discredit people they disagree with who might not even be preaching Nazi-like views. The closest I've ever heard to it being reality is some rally in Charlottesville... where the supposed neo-Nazis proved themselves to have basically no organization, showed no self-control, wound up turning everyone against them and basically shot themselves in the foot due to sheer incompetence. Anyone "emboldened" by that is probably due for a Darwin Award, and it proves my point--these people were allowed a platform, and it did far more damage to their cause than any censorship could ever do. The only thing that mystifies me is why people still bring it up in fearful tones--I have a buddy on Skype who used it as an example of Naziism being on the rise, which is how I know of it in the first place, but within an hour of Google searching I had learned not only all the above, but also that these people had been denied permits for any more meetings on the grounds of "Dude, last time you guys gathered, the city had to clean up your shit, so f__k off." These guys are as likely to be "on the rise" as Pinky and the Brain are to ever successfully conquer the world. You literally have a president that will not condemn racist, nazi-like behaviour - someone who believes there are "baddies on all sides" when it comes to being ANTI-NAZI. A President who supports attacks on the free press, publicly admitted he has sexually assaulted people and encouraged another man to do so. Most of his supporters STILL think he is 100% right and could do nothing that would make them change their minds on supporting him. In Europe there has been the rise of the right wing more and more, in the UK it pretty much has a stranglehold on the government currently. Yesterday in Northern Ireland a banner was hung over a bridge over one of the main motorways saying "No Gays No Irish" (yeah, no Irish in Northern Ireland for fuck sake- that's the mentality you are dealing with). The reason why is people have allowed these opinions to become normalised, to allow it to be spoken without any real threat of consequence. You can claim "oh it's silly and won't come to nothing" all you want - probably because it will for the time being not effect you. This, sorry - you can go ahead and get your knickers in a twist that games are actually having to be a little sensitive over their depictions of women. You can get all sad that you can no longer molest your little anime girls - adios. |
|
|
|
Post by toei on Oct 20, 2018 10:55:30 GMT -5
edmonddantes There is no such thing as the "marketplace of ideas", and the idea that nazism is just an idea to be considered among others legitimizes an ideology that promotes genocide. Even the white nationalists, who talk about "creating an ethnostate", are essentially talking about genocide. You can't deport over 100 million people without causing mass-scale casualties, similar to what Turkey did the Armenian. It's not up for debate. Molesting children is also not something that is up for debate. It's unambiguously wrong, and doesn't need a platform. There is plenty of evidence that shows that providing equal platforms to fringe ideas helps them grow, particularly when their growth is based on fear, alienation and dishonest propaganda. The whole "no limits to free speech, ever" mentality is wildly irresponsible. Actually that all applies to wyrdwad, too except this, too: "I wouldn't play the game. Problem solved." Obviously not. You are part of a larger construct known as society, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. Letting these things fester is bad for society as a whole, even if they don't affect you personally (because you don't have any non-white friends, or know anyone who was abused as a child, or choose not to care), and claiming that they should absolutely not be banned so a few perverts and hateful assholes can get their jollies is childish and ridiculous. The slippery slope argument is nonsense. You can set very strict and specific criteria for what is not allowed, and that's it. GamerL Yes, protesting any sort of sexual content, or even simply sexy characters, can be considered puritanism, and I also oppose it (though people are still free to dislike it, whether from a conservative or feminist standpoint). The problem is when you get into molesty/rapey shit, even if it's presented as playful - and you could argue that presenting molestation as a cute, funny mini-game makes it worse, not better. You really should make a difference between the two. There's nothing to be gained by confusing the issue. I agree Senran Kagura is probably not the most egregious example of that (or anything else), but I can understand if Sony doesn't want to associate with this shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Oct 20, 2018 11:45:46 GMT -5
This discussion has gotten ridiculous, so I'm just gonna quote choice passages from a thing I was just reading:
"The other thing you need to know is, if you behave in this way, if you seek to shut down debate because you don’t like what they say, if you want to try and get someone banned from speaking at an event, you are an intellectual lightweight. You have no place at the discussion table of intelligent people, because the baseline of being an intelligent person is the ability to hear arguments and perspectives, weigh them up and come to one’s own conclusions."
"It’s perfectly timed that a comment came through on one of my more recent posts yesterday which said 'I hope this post is removed' because he disagreed with it, because I attacked what he stood for. Well guess what champ? Just because you don’t like or disagree with something that I (or anybody else) wrote, does not mean:
1. It’s wrong
2. Other people shouldn’t see it
3. That it should be removed because it offends you
4. That I don’t have a right to say it
Welcome to the real world. You don’t like something? You want to change people’s minds? Make a compelling case. Your offense and/or disagreement means nothing."
|
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Oct 20, 2018 12:54:39 GMT -5
Toei: You can say all you want that I'm just being insensitive, and the slippery slope argument is a load of baloney... but at the end of the day, that's just your opinion, and it's an opinion I completely disagree with on a fundamental level. And not because I'm male, or because I'm white, but because I've seen it happening all around me. Based upon my own personal experiences within the industry, I can definitively say that the "slippery slope" is real, and is dangerous, and is already affecting more than people realize. Can I prove this to you? Not yet -- not without violating NDA, anyway, and even then, it's open for interpretation at this point. Sadly, the only time I'll be able to say "I told you so" is if and when things have progressed past the point of no return -- and I very much hope we never reach that point, even though I fear it's coming in the next few years.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see. And I can only hope you're right, even though I genuinely don't believe you are.
I considered arguing some new points in this post -- such as the fact that a surprisingly large number of Senran Kagura fans are actually women -- but ultimately, the only thing this will achieve is to prolong an argument that's not going to accomplish anything anyway, since you've clearly made up your mind on this subject, and obviously we have as well. We're not going to change one another's minds, so we might as well just call the debate here and agree to disagree.
-Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by toei on Oct 20, 2018 13:44:33 GMT -5
wyrdwad You're talking about industry practices rather than laws and regulations. People can protest anything they like, and companies can choose to respond in different ways. All of it is a function of free speech. Sony choosing to remove content it has power over as a company is within their rights. They were not forced to do it as a result of law, or, indeed, actually forced to do it at all. So the slippery slope you claim is already taking place is a natural result of companies existing in a society where people express their opinions, and the decisions they make in that regard, and it has nothing to do with free speech. What else do you suggest? That people not be allowed to complain about or protest content that they deem promotes sexual harassment? That would be the anti-freedom of speech position. That companies simply ignore protests? They can, but it may or may not be to their benefit. It's a choice they have to make. For the record, games that involve molesting children are already obviously illegal in pretty much the entire Western world, and have been, by default, for decades, since they constitute child pornography. It has not caused any unrelated content to become illegal over time. Banning child pornography has not lead to adult pornography being banned, either! It's almost like that's not how things actually work. Similarly, banning games that ban white supremacy, or any kind or outright genocidal ideology, would not cause any unrelated, legitimate content to become illegal. edmonddantes You have to quote some random forum post to accuse people of being "intellectual lightweights"? lol. No one cares about "changing the minds" of nazis and pedophiles. They're not actually trying to debate anyone, either! They're only interested in putting forth disingenuous arguments to try and convince more idiots. Richard Spencer has said on a podcast that he's not actually for freedom of speech at all; they only use it to try and advance their position, but if they ever came into power, they'd wouldn't take long to kill and imprison their opponents, as every fascist has ever done. What matters is minimizing the damage they cause as much as humanly possible, not "changing" them. If they want to change, that's on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Oct 20, 2018 14:02:40 GMT -5
That's a fair point, and as I've stated, my objection to this policy is purely a philosophical one. I feel that ethically, it is not in the platform-holder's place to make decisions like this, but in the publisher's -- and it's especially not in the platform-holder's place to make this decision at the 11th hour after having long since previously approved the game for release, which I think is the one thing we can all agree on.
But yeah. Technically, they were well within their rights here. I just personally feel this was a poor and somewhat unethical business practice (again, purely IMHO), and is indicative of a very regressive mindset in terms of the "free market of ideas" concept, which I very much support (and which you clearly do not, thus our disagreement here).
-Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by X-pert74 on Oct 20, 2018 14:16:09 GMT -5
This discussion has gotten ridiculous, so I'm just gonna quote choice passages from a thing I was just reading: "The other thing you need to know is, if you behave in this way, if you seek to shut down debate because you don’t like what they say, if you want to try and get someone banned from speaking at an event, you are an intellectual lightweight. You have no place at the discussion table of intelligent people, because the baseline of being an intelligent person is the ability to hear arguments and perspectives, weigh them up and come to one’s own conclusions." "It’s perfectly timed that a comment came through on one of my more recent posts yesterday which said 'I hope this post is removed' because he disagreed with it, because I attacked what he stood for. Well guess what champ? Just because you don’t like or disagree with something that I (or anybody else) wrote, does not mean: 1. It’s wrong 2. Other people shouldn’t see it 3. That it should be removed because it offends you 4. That I don’t have a right to say it Welcome to the real world. You don’t like something? You want to change people’s minds? Make a compelling case. Your offense and/or disagreement means nothing." Oh for fuck's sake. Minority groups should not be expected to defend their right to fucking exist, whenever some bigot comes along and threatens said right. I have no interest whatsoever in "making a debate" about this kind of thing. People who promote violence and genocide against other groups based on who they happen to be, should not be tolerated in any society whatsoever. While you expect them to "hang themselves with their own rope", most of them aren't even looking for a serious chance to actually debate. They just want to hurt others, and they should not be given the space to do so. EDIT: That's a fair point, and as I've stated, my objection to this policy is purely a philosophical one. I feel that ethically, it is not in the platform-holder's place to make decisions like this, but in the publisher's -- and it's especially not in the platform-holder's place to make this decision at the 11th hour after having long since previously approved the game for release, which I think is the one thing we can all agree on. But yeah. Technically, they were well within their rights here. I just personally feel this was a poor and somewhat unethical business practice (again, purely IMHO), and is indicative of a very regressive mindset in terms of the "free market of ideas" concept, which I very much support (and which you clearly do not, thus our disagreement here). -Tom Tom, I'm very curious to see how you feel about this essay (in particular, the idea that protecting one's hate speech actually threatens to impose on others' right to free speech) - Refusing to Tolerate Intolerance - As someone who myself once heavily believed in free speech absolutism, I definitely do not feel the same way anymore, and this plays a part in why I don't hold such a mindset today. |
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Oct 20, 2018 16:22:22 GMT -5
Tom, I'm very curious to see how you feel about this essay (in particular, the idea that protecting one's hate speech actually threatens to impose on others' right to free speech) - Refusing to Tolerate Intolerance - As someone who myself once heavily believed in free speech absolutism, I definitely do not feel the same way anymore, and this plays a part in why I don't hold such a mindset today. Well, let's find out! Right off the bat, I disagree with this supposition. While this is true for most people, for me, there is NO EXPRESSION OF SPEECH WHATSOEVER that I refuse to tolerate. When it comes to free speech, I am basically an anarchist, straight up. Anything goes. I may not like what I hear, but I will always defend anyone's right to say it. Again, I substantively disagree with this. That statement is 100% correct. Speech and action are wholly separate things, and I strongly believe that speech is incapable of directly harming others. We even learn this as children, with the popular phrase "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." I do get what the author here is saying about how all speech is spoken with the intent to nudge others in a particular direction, but that's the thing: it's purely intent. It's up to each of us whether or not we actually take the speech to heart, regard the speaker as a blubbering idiot, or anything in between. We must each be held accountable for our own actions, and believing the words of another are OUR OWN ACTIONS. The speaker is not responsible, but rather the listener, for following through on the ideas the speaker presented. Ideas, in and of themselves, are not dangerous. It's those who act upon that that MAKE them dangerous. Libel and slander is addressed next, and I don't really see that as an exception either. If someone spreads lies about someone else, that is still free speech -- but, again, nothing is without consequence. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from repercussion, so if your words constitute libel or slander, you must face the repercussions for that. A general summary of my response to this is: same deal. It's not the speech acts that are to blame, but the people who take those words to heart and take action based upon them. If you actively harm someone based on your beliefs, then it's not the person who preached those beliefs who should be punished: it's YOU, for actively harming someone. There can be a sense of intimidation based around a large majority speaking their mind, but that's indicative of a wholly separate problem. When a majority of people share a reprehensible mindset, then the problem exists and much be dealt with at a social level. Preventing people from speaking their minds isn't going to change the hatred that exists in the hearts of the majority, and it is my belief that that hatred will still manifest itself one way or another. If anything, allowing the hate speech makes the hatred that exists within society more visible, thus making it easier to identify and deal with. If the hate speech is suppressed, then the people who hold that hatred will operate from the shadows, and be much harder to identify -- and their hatred will fester and grow over time, since their statements will be met with far less opposition and far fewer counterpoints. ...I dunno, mine sure are! Using the word "never" here seems like a pretty significant exaggeration. They are often politically motivated, but certainly not always! Some of us, such as myself, are simply armchair idealists who want to see the world become a better place. All good responses. Again, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from repercussions. He spoke freely, and he suffered repercussions as a result. The system works! This is absolutely correct, and is one of the many reasons I can't stand Gamergaters, who pull this kind of crap all the time. I am anti-censorship, but that doesn't mean I think pro-censorship pundits shouldn't have a voice, nor does it mean their concerns are unwarranted. But it seems like the vast majority of anti-censorship voices online want nothing more than to suppress the voices of those who feel differently than they do, and that's only hurting their cause. Nope! Not even close.  I completely agree with all of this, but fail to see how it relates to anything else the author is saying. This is all perfectly fine. My issue is solely one of personal preference, and it's a belief that all speech deserves to have a platform -- and that if you own one of the biggest platforms out there, then I believe it's only right for you to allow anyone and everyone to speak from upon it, and let the court of public opinion tear them a new one if they disagree. I fully acknowledge that it's within the rights of that platform-holder to deny this of others, but that ACTION will have consequences that I feel will eventually have a profound negative impact. So I am personally of the opinion that to deny the platform to anyone with something to say -- regardless of what that thing may be -- is an unethical business practice. Not an illegal one. Not an immoral one. But an unethical one. In my personal opinion, based on my personal philosophy. ...And telling someone that they CAN have that platform, then at the last minute being like, "Nah, actually, you can't"? That's just a dick move in general. No, it's an admission that the type of speech in question is irrelevant. Whether it's hate speech or cute pictures of kittens doesn't actually matter. The reason people like myself turn the conversation away from the fact that it's hate speech we're talking about is purely because IT IS IRRELEVANT. When you make the discussion about the content that's being suppressed, rather than the act of suppressing ANY content at all, you take focus away from what's really important. See, that's horrible. And that's why I feel no-platforming should simply not be tolerated, under any circumstances! That is an ACTION that actively has negative consequences for everyone, everywhere. If a platform is made available to anyone, from any walk of life, regardless of what they intend to preach upon it, then yes, hate speech will happen -- but so too will important speech that might've otherwise been thwarted by those who seek to politically suppress those they disagree with. It's a give-and-take, and is a perfect example of the slippery slope in action. First off, yes, this does happen. And it's always very sad to see. There are a lot of really misguided and awful people in the world. But I also feel this touches upon a fallacy that I've always found particularly offensive: the idea that those who have not personally experienced a form of discrimination cannot possibly formulate valid opinions about it. That idea completely dismisses the concepts of humility and empathy -- it assumes a cold, emotionless existence from those of us who were born with privilege. And while there are plenty of examples of this, I am personally of the opinion that EVERY ONE OF US -- regardless of skin color, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. -- is capable of fully empathizing with those born into other walks of life, and our opinions should not be dismissed simply because we do not stand in the shoes of those we speak of. To do so is, itself, a form of racism, as far as I'm concerned. Dismiss a person's opinions if he/she shows evidence of being misguided, racist, sexist, discriminatory, etc. But not simply because he/she doesn't belong to the same in-group as the people he/she is discussing. Make no mistake, I am very concerned with hate speech... but only because there are people who buy into it, and then ACT upon it. And not nearly as many people who speak out against it as there used to be. It's indicative of a downward trend in society at large, and needs to be addressed a.s.a.p. I am also not concerned with "call-out culture" at all. Call people out all you want! Hell, we need more of that! It's when you call for those people to be SILENCED ALTOGETHER than I feel a line has been crossed. ...So, yeah. I have exited the essay. And it has changed none of my opinions at all. Honestly, it felt unfocused, and as if it were focusing on the wrong things and "barking up the wrong trees," so to speak. Still a worthwhile read, but... well, you said you were curious what I would think of it. And unfortunately, the answer is... not a whole lot. Sorry! -Tom |
|
|
|
Post by GamerL on Oct 20, 2018 20:07:55 GMT -5
Griff, I don't think that it's that people can't 'handle' sexual content. It's, again, the context, and simply the fact that western culture is moving in a different direction. That doesn't mean people have a problem with sexy girls in games. The public's taste is evolving. People are no longer interested in schlocky sexual content like you'd see in God of War or GTA. Just like how other aspects of gaming are changing. Western games are more and more obsessed with storytelling and creating some believable 'world'. That's just 'in', right now, and overt sexuality doesn't fit with that. God of War used to be a flashy action series. The new one is more toned-down. Culture is constantly moving on. If you want an indication of how much we've moved on, remember that Playboy of all things got rid of topless photos for a brief while. Which, for the record, I think was totally idiotic, but seriously, we don't live in 2005 anymore. You can blame it all on censorship and PC-ness, but the world is just changing. It's fine if you like sexual/sexy content in your games. But as a culture we're just going different places. I dislike some of the changes that the industry has seen in the last decade as well, but I'm not the only person playing games. And again, it's not like this type of content is completely gone. Again, look at the range of male character designs there are and then look at female characters. Most female characters are slim, attractive and young. That doesn't mean they can't have fleshed out personalities, but it's still very telling. Women still have a profoundly different role in a lot of media, video games perhaps first and foremost. Cho Aniki is something we all laugh at for its homoerotic overtones, but meanwhile, most fighting games still have most or all of its female characters dress up in skimpy clothing. And regarding Senran Kagura, think of it this way. Imagine you're a woman who has had to deal with sexual abuse or harrassment. You also know other women who have had similar experiences. Now imagine there's a game where you grope young girls and they look bothered/uncomfortable by it. You would feel that a serious and shitty situation you've been through got reduced to a cute minigame. Things like this won't be considered acceptable anymore 15 years from now, I'm sure. I just think it stinks that sex appeal is disappearing from western games, it's not a direction I like at all. It's just my personal tastes. We'll always have Otaku culture though thankfully and if someone like Sony wants to stop it there'll always be PC, so I'm not too worried about it. And frankly, I don't think this is a trend that will last forever, I think you'll see sex appeal in western games again one day, even if they don't come from mainstream games. |
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Oct 20, 2018 23:22:51 GMT -5
edmonddantes You have to quote some random forum post to accuse people of being "intellectual lightweights"? lol. No one cares about "changing the minds" of nazis and pedophiles. They're not actually trying to debate anyone, either! They're only interested in putting forth disingenuous arguments to try and convince more idiots. Richard Spencer has said on a podcast that he's not actually for freedom of speech at all; they only use it to try and advance their position, but if they ever came into power, they'd wouldn't take long to kill and imprison their opponents, as every fascist has ever done. What matters is minimizing the damage they cause as much as humanly possible, not "changing" them. If they want to change, that's on them. Oh for fuck's sake. Minority groups should not be expected to defend their right to fucking exist, whenever some bigot comes along and threatens said right. I have no interest whatsoever in "making a debate" about this kind of thing. People who promote violence and genocide against other groups based on who they happen to be, should not be tolerated in any society whatsoever. While you expect them to "hang themselves with their own rope", most of them aren't even looking for a serious chance to actually debate. They just want to hurt others, and they should not be given the space to do so. [slow clap] Thanks. You guys have done more damage to your credibility than I ever could. I'm sure my explanation will fall on deaf ears--similar to how you guys still say "but but TRUMP!" when I pointed out (with a long divergence about human history) that leaders aren't representative of society--but here it is anyway: X-Pert -- where did I--or the thing I quoted--say ANYTHING about minorities needing to "defend their right to fucking exist?" nobody is saying they don't have that right. THAT IS A BOGEYMAN YOU INVENTED. Our current topic was about one particular video game which your side--of course--spiraled into being about some kind of oppression. And we have toei claiming anyone who disagrees with him is either a Nazi or a Pedophile. Yeah, he's a real voice of reason, he is. Let's be honest: You ARE intellectual lightweights. Wyrdwad works in the industry and I have lots of reading in history, we presented cogent arguments... and in return have received people like you putting words in our mouth and throwing all sorts of foul accusations at us. In fact I've never seen an argument of this type that went any other way--anyone who doesn't fall in lock-step is a monster of some sort (even Mangaminx, who is a lesbian, is hated by Tumblr--as is Cyborcat, a trans speedrunner). Maybe if your ideology was based on the real world in some degree, your arguments would be more sound. |
|
|
|
Post by toei on Oct 20, 2018 23:47:40 GMT -5
edmonddantes No one has accused you of being a pedophile or nazi. The conversation went there because someone asked you a few pages back whether games about molesting children or white supremacy should be allowed to exist, after you said no censorship should exist ever, and you said yes. You then proceeded to defend that position in several posts, in part by repeating that everything needs to be up for debate, including the Neo-Nazis, etc. Granting a platform to nazism in the "marketplace of ideas"=asking minorities to justify their right to exist, as Xpert stated. Do you get it, now? Have you actually forgotten your own posts, and all the other posts you replied to? Are you having a meltdown? Also, don't try to be cute with that "intellectual lightweight" shit. You've been lagging behind literally everyone throughout this entire discussion with your weak attempts at logic. "If you try to ban something, it'll just drive people further into it". Right, we should probably legalize simple assaults, there'd be fewer murders, huh? That's literally the quality of reasoning you're putting forward. I disagree with wyrdwad, but he's coherent, and actually addresses replies to his posts. You don't even have the honesty to do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bumpyroad on Oct 21, 2018 2:44:35 GMT -5
Sure, you can say it's not going to turn someone into a rapist or molester etc. However it's still fucking tasteless as all hell- and frankly if you are creating it or playing it for entertainment or whatever, that shouldn't really just be a case of going "oh well, it's just how they choose to express themselves/enjoy themselves". I played Resident Evil: Code X dressed as Veronica many times. |
|
