True, but for the same reason most people find stuff like Toddlers and Tiaras gross, most people wouldn't want to keep pictures like those around even if they're not prima facie illegal.
Right, but when a place like 8chan decides it is open to anything that isn't illegal, it has the right to do this, even if most people would disapprove of some of the content that will naturally appear. I think a major appeal of 8chan is that people can make their own rules for their own boards.
Certainly, i want a world where we have the right to express disapproval of bad statements.
You say "bad" like it's an objective thing everyone agrees on. I believe in a world where we have the right to make bad statements. I can't believe in using force to make everyone "correct." Fuck that.
The exploitation of actual children in a 'sexually suggestive' context that falls outside the legal definition of pornography is still exploitation and still extremely bad.
The safety of those children and their futures and their mental wellbeing are things that need to be considered.
That is actually what we're talking about here, right? Actual children being made to pose sexually? There's no reasonable way to defend that.
More people have said that and been killed than there are thorium decay products.
It's a pretty creepy thing to do, yeah. Those children probably are blissfully unaware, at least. My view on people getting off on it is "I disapprove, but whatever."
True, but for the same reason most people find stuff like Toddlers and Tiaras gross, most people wouldn't want to keep pictures like those around even if they're not prima facie illegal.
Right, but when a place like 8chan decides it is open to anything that isn't illegal, it has the right to do this, even if most people would disapprove of some of the content that will naturally appear. I think a major appeal of 8chan is that people can make their own rules for their own boards.
Certainly, i want a world where we have the right to express disapproval of bad statements.
You say "bad" like it's an objective thing everyone agrees on. I believe in a world where we have the right to make bad statements. I can't believe in using force to make everyone "correct." Fuck that.
what are you talking about
no one is advocating using ''force'' (???) to "make everyone correct"
the statement being offered here is "masturbating to pictures of children regardless of their state of undress is wrong".
True, but for the same reason most people find stuff like Toddlers and Tiaras gross, most people wouldn't want to keep pictures like those around even if they're not prima facie illegal.
Right, but when a place like 8chan decides it is open to anything that isn't illegal, it has the right to do this, even if most people would disapprove of some of the content that will naturally appear. I think a major appeal of 8chan is that people can make their own rules for their own boards.
Certainly, i want a world where we have the right to express disapproval of bad statements.
You say "bad" like it's an objective thing everyone agrees on. I believe in a world where we have the right to make bad statements. I can't believe in using force to make everyone "correct." Fuck that.
i said nothing of force, i said 'express disapproval'.
Although i would hope we, as a society, could agree that some things go beyond merely being bad statements.
Like, to use the most obvious example, if someone taped himself murdering someone, i think we could agree that doing so should be illegal, if for no other reason than the act of murder itself is bad. It's not even a question of free speech.
Ditto any other 'statement' that requires, for its production, the performance of harmful acts in real life.
I think we need to iron out a few points before the conversation can continue, either that or take a break because none of here would or should be fine with the exploitation of children.
Is this a point we can all agree on. child exploitation is bad?
But, we are talking about actual photographs of real, live, in the flesh children, they are being harmed by that. It's exploitative, bare minimum.
If the photos are inappropriate, it could be harmful to create them. If they're being spread around, it could also indirectly cause harm to their subjects. You can't really harm someone by lusting after a photo of them, even if it's imprudent or immoral.
But, we are talking about actual photographs of real, live, in the flesh children, they are being harmed by that. It's exploitative, bare minimum.
If the photos are inappropriate, it could be harmful to create them. If they're being spread around, it could also indirectly cause harm to their subjects. You can't really harm someone by lusting after a photo of them, even if it's imprudent or immoral.
You can because you are creating a market for such things. If nobody wanted to look at such things, they would not be made.
It's like, if nobody bought conflict diamonds, the wars over the diamonds would not take place and as such there would be no conflict. The demand is directly responsible for the bad things that occur satisfying that demand.
What exactly is the point in amiibos? When i asked my brother and his friend, they reacted like i was crazy for not seeing the appeal.
Like, what do they do that DLC doesn't, other than taking up shelf space and ultimately winding up in landfill?
I heard someone mention "collector fandom" once.
Basically people like to collect things. Plus, once the Weyou goes out of production you can still have these things tangibly laying around, as opposed to say, online markets for DLC or something disappearing.
Holy shit. 100+ new posts. Looks like I'm breaking out the mass-reply again... or we can move this to a much more appropriate thread.
FYI I've quoted here stuff from a private thread. However, seeing as they're all related to the topic of videogames and the GamerGate controversy, I've gone ahead and posted this since they're relevant to what I'm posting. But if you want any of your quotes to be anonymized, please let me know.
----
@Morven: "The problem is that defensive people don't necessarily have good judgment or make good decisions, and I think the Gamergate mess has shown that again."
This.
----
@Klinotaxis: "again, get the argument, but then they hired jack thompson."
Yeah, that was incredibly stupid.
----
@Morven: "Also, I suspect that she and other feminist critics of gaming DO want social censorship, even if not government censorship."
like censorship, by definition, involves the government, or some other legal body."
Here's the problem with the term "censorship".
It's basically used to mean every instance of "you're not letting me say the things I want to say", no matter how mild or severe.
What the GGers are complaining about is these "SJWs" (to use their terminology) are trying to make the sorts of games they like, and the ways they like to play their games, socially unacceptable. And doing so in a way that shames those people who play those games and play them in those ways.
However, in doing so, they are resorting to tactics of intimidation, everything from lame ad hominem jokes up to stalking and threats of mass murder.
If both count as censorship...fine. But saying that "your games are bad and you should feel bad" is way, way less severe than threats of violence and stalking.
----
@Magic Jane: "Black people are a persecuted group (at least in America), gamers are not."
Incidentally, some people -- where by "people" I mean "those folks who make all those colorful PNGs that get thrown around in Twitter -- actually do try to claim that the "SJWs" are trying to make gamers into a persecuted group.
----
@Section42L: "I'm not really "for" Anita and Co., but I find their enemies are consistently much worse people than they are."
This.
----
@Morven: "So in that post I was looking for the gems in the sewer of shit and wasn't really talking about the shit, which must have given the impression that I didn't see it?"
Now you see my problem when talking with people on various places of the internet. The notion of "not having flamed something hard enough".
----
@Magic Jane: "The thing that bothers me here is the idea that GamerGate actively attempting to end or ruin lives and the activists being sometimes mildly annoying are somehow equivalent."
This.
Both sides may be complaining about something, but the way they complain is very, very different.
----
@Magic Jane: "I question the value of sifting through sewage to find gems in the first place, though, both metaphorically and literally."
@naney: "sometimes the baby isn't worth the bathwater, y'know?"
Whether a person decides to sift through sewage to find gems does not affect whether the sewage does indeed contain gems.
Same with the baby analogy. But in that case I think people generally would consider a baby worth saving, even if they dispute the value of recovering gems.
----
@Morven: "Because when things turn into war, people stop looking for nuance and start the "Everything our side is doing is Good and Right, everything they do and believe is Wrong and Evil" thing and it bugs me."
I definitely agree with this, and this is why I really try very hard to look at things from the perspective of the side I disagree with.
----
@naney: "It bugs me too, but if you try too hard to react against this phenomenon you end up sounding like that one Dril tweet."
I don't think that one should judge one's actions solely on "I could sound bad when I do this".
One should be choosing one's actions on the basis of ethics, then figuring out how to communicate them properly afterwards.
----
@Magic Jane: "I understand having problems with the mentality in the abstract, but in a case like this where one side is very clearly, if not totally right, much more right than the other, I don't see the value in nitpicking. If anything, this should be easy to agree on."
You don't see the value in what you call "nitpicking", but for other people, that's what something means to them.
You have to remember you're dealing with real individual people here, and dismissing their opinions -- on a basis other than the merits of their opinions -- isn't fair to them either.
----
@Miko: "There is no press for the games I actually like that's in English, except only very rarely, and written by people who at least ostensibly know what they're talking about."
@Magic Jane: " That is because your preferred genre of games is rather niche outside of Japan."
Yeah, this is roughly my perspective too. Most of this GamerGate nonsense has kinda been going on outside my radar since I follow stuff about JRPGs and doujin games and such.
The most I've run into with this is however this controversy relates to various lower-tech western indie games. I've never yet played any of Phil Fish's games, though, so even in that way I haven't been directly involved.
That said, one thing I definitely don't like about GamerGate is how they're intent on perpetuating an idea of the world of gaming that is an idea I've disliked for years.
----
@Morven: "It leaves me to conclude that the "corruption" the GGers mostly hate is the influence of what they consider "outsiders", not the inside-gaming corruption of mega-corporations buying positive reviews etc."
This.
I've stated, again and again, that (to put it lightly) GamerGate has been "distracted" by this fight against "SJWs" and going after small-fry indie devs and have sorely missed the much bigger problems of the enthusiast press that is game journalism.
----
@Miko: "I haven't taken a pro review seriously in forever but sometimes I look at them for amusement."
I don't think I've ever read a pro review of a game _before_ I've bought it.
Some things that are legal to express can nevertheless cause harm to others, if expressed in the wrong place or at the wrong time or to the wrong people.
i posted an elaboration of my thoughts on "free speech fetishism" in my personal thread, btw, since i felt it was derailing this one.
Since a remark like "communication is not an objective good" is one that probably warrants elaboration lest people think i'm advocating something i'm not.
The ending song is all right, as songs of that type go.
I find the dialogue amusing but I can't honestly say I think it's good.
Anyway, having beaten the game about 29 times I think I've exhausted its playability for now.
It is a little awkwardly phrased at times, but I enjoyed it. I don't really care whether SotN's dialogue is "good" according to some arbitrary definition, so long as I enjoyed it.
i think we were talking about images freely distributed online? It's still supply and demand, though.
Another issue with the photographs that wasn't brought up before is that sexual images of children are used in grooming, so the distribution of such images can harm children other than those photographed.
Comments
The safety of those children and their futures and their mental wellbeing are things that need to be considered.
That is actually what we're talking about here, right? Actual children being made to pose sexually? There's no reasonable way to defend that.
Although i would hope we, as a society, could agree that some things go beyond merely being bad statements.
Like, to use the most obvious example, if someone taped himself murdering someone, i think we could agree that doing so should be illegal, if for no other reason than the act of murder itself is bad. It's not even a question of free speech.
Ditto any other 'statement' that requires, for its production, the performance of harmful acts in real life.
i mean yeah it was GG people defending it but it's kind of way beside the point
p sure most GGers are not pro-pedophile
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Like, what do they do that DLC doesn't, other than taking up shelf space and ultimately winding up in landfill?
Basically people like to collect things. Plus, once the Weyou goes out of production you can still have these things tangibly laying around, as opposed to say, online markets for DLC or something disappearing.
FYI I've quoted here stuff from a private thread. However, seeing as they're all related to the topic of videogames and the GamerGate controversy, I've gone ahead and posted this since they're relevant to what I'm posting. But if you want any of your quotes to be anonymized, please let me know.
----
@Morven: "The problem is that defensive people don't necessarily have good judgment or make good decisions, and I think the Gamergate mess has shown that again."
This.
----
@Klinotaxis: "again, get the argument, but then they hired jack thompson."
Yeah, that was incredibly stupid.
----
@Morven: "Also, I suspect that she and other feminist critics of gaming DO want social censorship, even if not government censorship."
@Magic Jane: " what is "social censorship"
like censorship, by definition, involves the government, or some other legal body."
Here's the problem with the term "censorship".
It's basically used to mean every instance of "you're not letting me say the things I want to say", no matter how mild or severe.
What the GGers are complaining about is these "SJWs" (to use their terminology) are trying to make the sorts of games they like, and the ways they like to play their games, socially unacceptable. And doing so in a way that shames those people who play those games and play them in those ways.
However, in doing so, they are resorting to tactics of intimidation, everything from lame ad hominem jokes up to stalking and threats of mass murder.
If both count as censorship...fine. But saying that "your games are bad and you should feel bad" is way, way less severe than threats of violence and stalking.
----
@Magic Jane: "Black people are a persecuted group (at least in America), gamers are not."
Incidentally, some people -- where by "people" I mean "those folks who make all those colorful PNGs that get thrown around in Twitter -- actually do try to claim that the "SJWs" are trying to make gamers into a persecuted group.
----
@Section42L: "I'm not really "for" Anita and Co., but I find their enemies are consistently much worse people than they are."
This.
----
@Morven: "So in that post I was looking for the gems in the sewer of shit and wasn't really talking about the shit, which must have given the impression that I didn't see it?"
Now you see my problem when talking with people on various places of the internet. The notion of "not having flamed something hard enough".
----
@Magic Jane: "The thing that bothers me here is the idea that GamerGate actively attempting to end or ruin lives and the activists being sometimes mildly annoying are somehow equivalent."
This.
Both sides may be complaining about something, but the way they complain is very, very different.
----
@Magic Jane: "I question the value of sifting through sewage to find gems in the first place, though, both metaphorically and literally."
@naney: "sometimes the baby isn't worth the bathwater, y'know?"
Whether a person decides to sift through sewage to find gems does not affect whether the sewage does indeed contain gems.
Same with the baby analogy. But in that case I think people generally would consider a baby worth saving, even if they dispute the value of recovering gems.
----
@Morven: "Because when things turn into war, people stop looking for nuance and start the "Everything our side is doing is Good and Right, everything they do and believe is Wrong and Evil" thing and it bugs me."
I definitely agree with this, and this is why I really try very hard to look at things from the perspective of the side I disagree with.
----
@naney: "It bugs me too, but if you try too hard to react against this phenomenon you end up sounding like that one Dril tweet."
I don't think that one should judge one's actions solely on "I could sound bad when I do this".
One should be choosing one's actions on the basis of ethics, then figuring out how to communicate them properly afterwards.
----
@Magic Jane: "I understand having problems with the mentality in the abstract, but in a case like this where one side is very clearly, if not totally right, much more right than the other, I don't see the value in nitpicking. If anything, this should be easy to agree on."
You don't see the value in what you call "nitpicking", but for other people, that's what something means to them.
You have to remember you're dealing with real individual people here, and dismissing their opinions -- on a basis other than the merits of their opinions -- isn't fair to them either.
----
@Miko: "There is no press for the games I actually like that's in English, except only very rarely, and written by people who at least ostensibly know what they're talking about."
@Magic Jane: " That is because your preferred genre of games is rather niche outside of Japan."
Yeah, this is roughly my perspective too. Most of this GamerGate nonsense has kinda been going on outside my radar since I follow stuff about JRPGs and doujin games and such.
The most I've run into with this is however this controversy relates to various lower-tech western indie games. I've never yet played any of Phil Fish's games, though, so even in that way I haven't been directly involved.
That said, one thing I definitely don't like about GamerGate is how they're intent on perpetuating an idea of the world of gaming that is an idea I've disliked for years.
----
@Morven: "It leaves me to conclude that the "corruption" the GGers mostly hate is the influence of what they consider "outsiders", not the inside-gaming corruption of mega-corporations buying positive reviews etc."
This.
I've stated, again and again, that (to put it lightly) GamerGate has been "distracted" by this fight against "SJWs" and going after small-fry indie devs and have sorely missed the much bigger problems of the enthusiast press that is game journalism.
----
@Miko: "I haven't taken a pro review seriously in forever but sometimes I look at them for amusement."
I don't think I've ever read a pro review of a game _before_ I've bought it.
Maybe after. For amusement, like Miko said.
I also like the ending theme song.
I find the dialogue amusing but I can't honestly say I think it's good.
Anyway, having beaten the game about 29 times I think I've exhausted its playability for now.
ignore this post please
Since a remark like "communication is not an objective good" is one that probably warrants elaboration lest people think i'm advocating something i'm not.
Another issue with the photographs that wasn't brought up before is that sexual images of children are used in grooming, so the distribution of such images can harm children other than those photographed.
The script is icing on the cake. It just adds to the grandness.
The grandeur comes from the setting and the music and the atmosphere.
Because the point of the story was to be presented as epic. Not as everyday smal talk.
well, I will agree with this at least.
I assure you, I will never run out of inane video game related shit.
everything has to be shitpost shitpost shitpost
"Ok we'll take it to another-"
"NOT THE THREAD"
discussions are fine
but we don't want that discussion anymore
no more
nor that thread
nor any thread
would you could you with a mouse