431–440 of 953 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the specific organization we're discussing is not feminist, they only disguise themselves as such.
No true feminist... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Or, as in this case, it's not a feminist organization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How can i see cyberpunk but not hentai? There are filter by tags too. Works pretty well to filter out like all anime or hentai games.
I like my game platforms how I like my streaming platforms. One for explicitly porn, and another for explicitly not porn. GoT on netflix while spicy is not porn. The issue is mixing porn with not porn. I shouldnt have to go click a bunch of special porn tags to not see that shit on the home page. I like anime games but cant seem to keep them without the hentai. Poor experience. The fact the default is porn games in y…
And no, Steam don't mess them up with Cyberpunk.
What is wrong with these people who try to block certain content? Don't like porn? Don't buy it. Simple as that. No one, including governments or payment processors, should be in the position to decide whether a platform can sell something or not. I wish there was a payment processor who was brave enough to say a big fucking NO to censorship.
> Don't like porn? Don't buy it. Simple as that. The claim isn't "we don't like it", the claim is "this is damaging to society". I don't agree with such things in many cases (and many people disagree with me when I'm the one saying something is damaging to society), but it's important to note the difference or you will always be arguing against something other than their claim. > No one, including governments or paym…
There is some truth to that, but if one were to operate at that level then Facebook would be illegal.
Porn is a convenient thing to weaponize anger in your constituents (just like babies not being born). It pushes emotional triggers and riles people up and then they're waiting to be told what to hate/attack next.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is being pushed by an Australian Feminist organization, not the American Religious Right. The founder is Christian and writes and speaks in Christian venues and publications. She's not a "feminist" by any reasonable and modern definition of the word.
Being Christian does not mean one is not feminist. This person seems to advocate for a multitude of things including ones that are historically feminist (of at least one commonly accepted variety of feminism). Those advocations make it reasonable to call her a feminist.
I meant that this person chooses Christian venues to voice her opinions, and shares with them non-feminist values such as being "pro life", etc.
Hers is not a feminist organization, and Collective Shout is perceived by some as a right-wing group seeking to also ban LGTB+ depictions in videogames (which is not standard feminist agenda). Like another commenter mentioned, Collective Shout receives funding from evangelical organizations. And really, you have to ask yourself: since when exactly payment processors paid any attention to what genuine feminist organizations had to say about anything?
At some point you cannot ignore the evidence anymore. At best you can point the non-empty intersection of conservative Christian groups and some sex-negative feminists who both seek to ban pornography, but this doesn't make them the same thing.
TL;DR this is a variation of "will somebody think of the children!?" pearl-clutching, and everyone should know by now it doesn't lead to anything good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I've seen video games cause people to destroy their lives. What else should we arbitrarily ban based on this criteria? It doesn't seem to hold up to much scrutiny.
I'm not saying we should ban anything. Sure video games can be unhealthy. Maybe I'm weird but I would much rather prefer my son plays video games 8 hours a day than watches adult content 8 hours a day. Let's stop pretending like they're comparable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since when has protected speech required being valuable? And who made you the pronouncer of said value?
> Since when has protected speech required being valuable? For this specific topic in the US, it's necessary. The third prong of the Miller Test is "Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Don't like porn? Don't buy it. Simple as that. The claim isn't "we don't like it", the claim is "this is damaging to society". I don't agree with such things in many cases (and many people disagree with me when I'm the one saying something is damaging to society), but it's important to note the difference or you will always be arguing against something other than their claim. > No one, including governments or paym…
> the claim is "this is damaging to society" There is some truth to that, but if one were to operate at that level then Facebook would be illegal. Porn is a convenient thing to weaponize anger in your constituents (just like babies not being born). It pushes emotional triggers and riles people up and then they're waiting to be told what to hate/attack next.
Banning porn is not going to do a whole lot. Pornography is illegal in South Korea and if anything they have some of the worst gender toxicity.
What is wrong with these people who try to block certain content? Don't like porn? Don't buy it. Simple as that. No one, including governments or payment processors, should be in the position to decide whether a platform can sell something or not. I wish there was a payment processor who was brave enough to say a big fucking NO to censorship.
The problem is actually the slippery slope happened earlier, with advertisers. The slippery slope was advertisers not wanting to advertise on porn sites and adult content. It is the same thing we see with the creation of Algospeak and self-censorship. As the article points out, it is also very hard to accurately classify this information. I mean even on YouTube the other day I got a video in my shorts feed that was flagged for sensitive topic. The video? About a veteran who was wearing a shirt that said "Do not give in to the war within. End veteran suicide." Here's the vid, it still has the content warning[0]. What about this video is sensitive? That it mentions the word "suicide?" (Twice?) There's not even options in the settings and YouTube definitely knows I'm in my 30's.... How do I even say "this was improperly flagged?" We're just letting algorithms shape our culture in a way we clearly don't want. We wouldn't have Algospeak if we wanted it... Sure, covert speech has formed in the past but mostly under duress and the current form allows for a much more rapid iteration and I really don't think that's good for society. It comes with the best intentions, but I guess we all know the old clique, right? The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. As much as it sucks to admit, a lot of "evil" is created by "good" people trying to do "good" things (quotes to let you define good and evil however you want)
The reason I point out the argument is we can modify "Don't like porn? Don't buy it." can be modified to "Don't like porn? Don't advertise on those sites."
But I think payment systems should have a different regulation. Similar to internet, common carrier. I'm actually surprised this isn't already a rule (it has to be, right?). As long as it is legal, they should be compelled to perform the transaction. Anything else seems like it is actually holding your money ransomed.
I'll admit I'm biased and I think payments should be private and we should try to make the system so that digital transactions are as similar to cash transactions as possible, but I'm not convinced either party is in favor of that, nor the banks themselves which would like to make money on that information.
What is wrong with these people who try to block certain content? Don't like porn? Don't buy it. Simple as that. No one, including governments or payment processors, should be in the position to decide whether a platform can sell something or not. I wish there was a payment processor who was brave enough to say a big fucking NO to censorship.
They are targeting incest/rape games. I wouldn't call that 'LGBTQ' like some people seem to imply. If Itch and Steam don't want to police their store fronts _before_ the law gets involved, then I am not surprised that other businesses such as payment providers will choose not to work with them. Visa and MasterCard are in the business of making money, they're not doing this for fun.
Video games don't even involve actual human bodies like GoT does. It's crazy that "Collective Shout" thinks this is worth invoking violence and violating peoples volition for. Certainly not consistent with all other aspects of entertainment in society. Makes me think there are probably other fame, power and money motivations behind their behavior. But it doesn't explain people agreeing with them. That's the weirdest part of this.