751–760 of 953 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The claim isn't "we don't like it", the claim is "this is damaging to society" That's their framing , it's not what they actually do. If Collective Shout was a group that studied which things caused harm, and then campaigned against those things, then the point you're trying to make could stand. They're not. They've campaigned to ban rap artists, GTA 5, "50 Shades", lingerie ads, whatever random thing is around at…
[flagged]
This actually took longer than I thought. It is really weird that for all my adult content I have to go to a dedicated adult store, yet for games I can find them on Steam and gog where kids shop for games. You don’t get porn movies on Netflix or Disney stream. You don’t get adult toys in your local grocery store. Why do we sell porn on Steam? Why haven’t game stores just spin off separate store front for porn content…
Bookstores have adult book with images and kids books.
Walmart also sells some adult toys, lubricant, and condoms. They also sell magazines with nudity.
ESPN did The Body Issue magazine in stores for a decade [1]
If a kid has access to steam, do they not have access to the internet? If you are parental blocking the internet, then why not steam?
[1]: https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/27400369/the-bo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty wild that people think that porn is more damaging to society than censorship.
They may both be damaging, but currently we have a lot more porn than censorship, so it looks like it's causing more damage. If we flip to having a lot more censorship we'll feel that damage more clearly. Or we won't, depending how successful the censorship is.
Porn might involve large media files which gives it an up-front advantage re: "more", but it doesn't create shockwaves the way censorship does. Remove a porn video and the world stays largely unchanged. Undo an act of censorship and, well, maybe the world stays unchanged, or maybe everything is different.
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…
It's pretty wild that people think that porn is more damaging to society than censorship.
Anyway, some people wouldn’t even call it censorship if private businesses disagree and decide not to do business, for any reason, even if it’s public pressure. Should private payment processors be free to choose whose money they process? If not, why not? Be really careful with your answer, because taking away their freedom to choose is a type of censorship, and possibly a worse one because it would be a public/government censorship and not a private transaction censorship. Steam and Itch.io do still have the right to ship all these games, they’re choosing not to. They also still have the right to use other payment processors, and/or create their own.
I’d be willing to bet the payment processors in question would rather not be forced to cut off business, and do not care whether people pay for porn. They are simply trying to avoid public backlash and avoid being blacklisted by a large number of people who happen to believe porn is damaging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the evidence is coming half a century after when everyone got cancer Yes. Then the evidence was suppressed for decades more. We have no analogy here. > Precautionary principle should always prevail Why? Why assume the status quo is perfect? Also, what part of pornography isn't embedded into the human status quo ? > don't use a random pesticide, unless you have a full proof that's it's harmless There is no such thin…
> Why? Why assume the status quo is perfect? Also, what part of pornography isn't embedded into the human status quo? No one said that. But you should fool yourself saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Here is your own quote: > I have seen zero evidence that any of these games are harmful.
My long-held belief is that there's a certain hubris to saying that you know best for everyone. So I default to letting people do things, since preventing them is exerting power over them. With that framing, you would need evidence that something is harmful if you're going to exert power over other people to prevent them from doing it.
This actually took longer than I thought. It is really weird that for all my adult content I have to go to a dedicated adult store, yet for games I can find them on Steam and gog where kids shop for games. You don’t get porn movies on Netflix or Disney stream. You don’t get adult toys in your local grocery store. Why do we sell porn on Steam? Why haven’t game stores just spin off separate store front for porn content…
>Why haven’t game stores just spin off separate store front for porn content? It is basically free, since they already have the infrasructure. Because the payment processing is unreliable and prohibitively expensive. For all the whining about "moral pearl clutching", the reality is that adult oriented businesses deal with massively higher rates of fraud and charge-backs. Visa and Mastercard couldn't care less about t…
This gets repeated, but it's not the real reason. If it were, Visa/MasterCard would be fine with a store like Steam offering those games as e.g. crypto-only purchases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty wild that people think that porn is more damaging to society than censorship.
You can’t have a free market without censorship. It’s one or the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if we read the literature published by members of Collective Shout, they have in fact done this Granted, I've skimmed, but I'm genuinely not seeing it [1]. The closest is this study [2], which counted how many times thirty-eight women "who self-identified as having experienced unwanted or non-consensual sexual experiences in relationships" and were "recruited via social media," when "given the opportunity to reflec…
You kind of missed the point. It doesn't matter if what they did is or isn't real science. They believe it is, and so as far as they are concerned, it's proven. So then what? Since they really believe what they said, how can you blame them for their actions? You might argue that since they are wrong, their beliefs should be changed. Well sure, maybe they should. You could commission a study to confirm that, then try…
Historically, my observation is that some of the most evil things ever perpetrated by humans were done in the name of trying to make society better. So I'm pretty hesitant to enforce my views on other people or even attempt to. If they were acting in good faith, this would be sort of like a Black Lives Matter type of approach that is trying to raise public awareness around an issue. But they're not acting in good faith in trying to get society to see their point of view. Instead, they are trying to go after the fulcrums of society and enforce their view using backroom deals. It's a transparent power play, and it's not in good faith: real good faith actors look at both sides of the issue, both the values and the harm, and they try to develop a balanced response. This is not what's happening here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They may both be damaging, but currently we have a lot more porn than censorship, so it looks like it's causing more damage. If we flip to having a lot more censorship we'll feel that damage more clearly. Or we won't, depending how successful the censorship is.
> it looks like it's causing more damage what damage is it causing?
she is awesome, and very responsive in the bedroom, but she is no longer a beautiful woman in her 20s. if i've been watching porn in the last month or so, my satisfaction with our sex is much lower. if i haven't, i'm happy.
there is also a lot of stuff that seems default in porn, like choking or anal. when i watch porn, i want those things. when i do not watch porn, i don't. my wife does not enjoy those things, but will do them if i ask. but they honestly do not make the sex any better for me.
you will say, "well don't watch porn then." but it isn't easy to not watch it. it has a powerful draw. i enjoy watching it in the moment. and it is always just a few taps away on the phone. it takes willpower not to watch it. if all the tube sites were banned, my life would be better.
the damage to me is small. i do not have an addictive personality. i do have a lot of willpower. other people might not be as lucky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pornography is the canary in the coalmine of protected speech. When you give a group the ability to censor content on the basis of "obscenity", then that group and other groups can use this to label other subjects they don't like as obscene. LGBTQ+ interest topics are especially vulnerable to this, as it is often made the case that being gay or trans is only about sex. You don't have to consume pornography yourself i…
I don't think LBGTQ+ are too harmed by the removal of "Sex adventures Incest Family" or "Interactive Sex Mother Son Incest BDSM" or "Reincarnation adventure going to rape all NPCS VR" front he steam store. I don't think too many LGBTQ like to include rapists or incest adventures into their group. I could be wrong though.