Super Seducer no longer releasing on PS4, possibly due to pressure from Vice Motherboard

You said it does not kill anyone. So I made another example. Both are against the la if you want it or not. You just do not touch people in such a way you dod not know.
It’s a situational thing, you don’t do it to random strangers but like a kiss you get the sense when to dive in.
 
You MIGHT want to look up the definition of strawman argument because I'm pretty sure that last sentence is the textbook definition.
A strawman argument is to defeat an argument the other person never made. The other person made the argument that the content of the game is irrelevant since he "doesn't know anything about it" and "doesn't care" what it's about - all he cares about is presumably that a game, whatever it may be, is getting denied access on Steam and PS, and that is bad, because censorship is bad, period. That we should "let the market decide" the value of all possible games rather than allow Sony/Steam to curate their own storefront. It's not my fault his claims were based on overly broad platitudes that don't hold up to closer examination. My example game description is to show that he doesn't actually believe his own claims, or at least is dishonest to himself about them. Had my imaginary game been banned by Sony/Steam, he would, I assume, be pro-censorship as well, despite framing himself as an anti-censorship absolutist.
 
It’s a situational thing, you don’t do it to random strangers but like a kiss you get the sense when to dive in.
These days, sense isn't enough because the girl could go ballistic SJW on you. I'd just steer clear of anything.

Kissing is a bit different, because you don't smack your face into theirs, they can back off and say no since you should be going in slowly. A butt smack is pretty unavoidable.
 
These days, sense isn't enough because the girl could go ballistic SJW on you. I'd just steer clear of anything.

Kissing is a bit different, because you don't smack your face into theirs, they can back off and say no since you should be going in slowly. A butt smack is pretty unavoidable.
And yet I'v read enough postings on OldGAF along the lines of 'ask her if kissing is alright'.
 
These days, sense isn't enough because the girl could go ballistic SJW on you. I'd just steer clear of anything.

Kissing is a bit different, because you don't smack your face into theirs, they can back off and say no since you should be going in slowly. A butt smack is pretty unavoidable.
I guess it’s all different with Tinder now, dating has changed since my day.
 
You don't know what this game is about beyond its title? What if I told you this game had you playing as a Nazi pedophile pulling levers in a gas chamber to kill Jewish children? I assume you would still defend it in this exact way, since your argument apparently doesn't care about the content of the game, it only cares about whether someone is trying to censor something that is otherwise legal! So let's just imagine, from here on out, that your arguments are an attempt to defend that kind of game, since you keep pretending that the content is irrelevant.

In any case, the only meaning to be found is that Sony will 1) lose no money and 2) win a small PR victory. If you want Sony to keep this game on their platform, show to them it has monetary value worth the cost of the bad publicity. Here's a hint: it won't because it's a shit game. Banning the game is "good" and "justified" for Sony, as a company that wants to make money by having a positive public image. Sorry if that offends your purist sensibilities, but that's how public companies operate - by having fairly strict guidelines and cultural norms to make their image most appealing toward their user base. Sony also doesn't allow AO games on their storefront - CENSORSHIP!!! Cue my eye roll. And your continued refusal to understand the significant difference between a company rejecting a product (which allows it to exist in other places), and the government banning a product (which doesn't allow it to exist in other places), is continually amazing. It's a free market: go to the place that allows your product if you want that product so badly.

And for the second (and hopefully last) time, I'm not removing anything from a store front, I'm not censoring anything, I'm not protecting anyone from anything. It's hilarious you think I'm the CEO of Sony. I defend the "role of the censor" because I defend a company's right to do whatever the fuck the want with their own storefront, especially if it's in their best interest, which this decision clearly was.
I love that you willfully misuse a word and then gleefully revel in it like the intellectual dishonesty inherent in misusing a term makes your argument stronger.

Your reading comprehension is abhorrent as well. Obviously, i know you dont control sony. The point is that you are okay with censorship when it falls in line with your moral values, and in fact you want things outside that moral view censored. That is why i call you a censor, not because i think you are ceo of sony... but hey, its clear you are happy just being as intellectually dishonest as possible.

Now you suddenly claim you support it because sony can do as they please, which again is intellectually dishonest because nobody is claiming they cant. In fact, of course sony, as owner of the market place, can do as they please. Thats never been argued otherwise here, at least not by me and i dont recall anyone else. But where you flip and flop like a fish is your inability to recognize this is still censorship.

Your silly nazi thing continues to miss the point, guess what? Content IS irrevelant. If you censor it, its censorship. It doesnt suddenly become `not censorship' because you agree with it being censored. That youd imply it does is ridiculous. Yes, taking a nazi pos game and banning it from sale is censorship. That you put me in the position of saying that, so it looks like im defending nazi crap, is further proof that your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds. You are a censor. Like i said last time, own it, stop trying to justify that you want content in stores to match your current moral compass. Just own it. I dont care if content matches my moral compass. Im not into some of the crazy hardcore porn out there, but i dont begrudge others making and selling it.... even though im sure some people still want softcore porn banned. if it isnt breaking laws making it [ie, snuff, etc] then whatever floats your boat.

You can buy all sorts of crap music and crap books and crap films promoting all sorts of fucktardery. Whatever. I dont buy it. But the point is, if you advocate disallowing the sale of it, ypu are promoting censorship. What about this is hard to understand? Im not defending the fucktardery, im simply explaining to you what censorship is. But you are are too busy being the morality police to even realize you are the morality police.
 
Last edited:
For anyone who says the game has no merit, or those who want some dating advice, I highly recommend this Geek Remix lets play series of the game. Two women play it, and they praise the good advice, say what's bad, and even add some good advice of their own. I'd even recommend it over playing the game itself.

 
And yet I'v read enough postings on OldGAF along the lines of 'ask her if kissing is alright'.
ROFL. Ah, OldGAF. No one should ever take dating advice from a bunch of inexperienced neckbeards and third wave feminists.

Edit: ^Those videos linked above and their commentary are genuinely fun to watch.

If I wasn't so snowed under with personal game projects, I'd be tempted to make contact the developer and suggest that they double down on the "bad option"/humour part and make a sequel purely focused on the "Lets Play" market. And then follow that with a physical retail conversion and a limited physical release for retro game consoles (and vintage PC). There's a market there waiting to be exploited.
 
Last edited:
Mind you I have not played the game in question and am not interested enough to learn more about it. But I can see how treatment of women is a sensitive issue. There are a lot of cultures around the world dealing with machismo. Y'know, the guy's in charge and women just have to look good and subject. I'll tell you, I'm exempt from it as a man, but what some women have to go through is no joke. And the culture perpetuates.

It's similar to the porn debate. It objectifies and degrades women and portrays an unrealistic depiction of sex to teens who are exploring their sexuality. As that takes over culture, it becomes the new normal that people mirror themselves against. Kind of like beauty ideals. People like to think they are not affected by it, when in fact they are.

It's interesting, I saw an interview with this American woman. Don't remember if it was Vice or Vox. She was kind of speaking her mind about porn, pointing to concerns and negative effects, but was quick to say it was ok and everyone should be free to watch it, downplaying what she had just previously said. Ironic how the pressure of freedom of speech/expression impeded her from speaking her mind freely.

Problem is, recalling a dubious game can direct attention to it and further spark controversy, making your move counterproductive. It's an interesting discussion though. There are boundaries to free speech. Else, you can regard hate speech or violence as just another expression that should not be interfered with. Question is: where do we lay those boundaries?
 
Mind you I have not played the game in question and am not interested enough to learn more about it. But I can see how treatment of women is a sensitive issue. There are a lot of cultures around the world dealing with machismo. Y'know, the guy's in charge and women just have to look good and subject. I'll tell you, I'm exempt from it as a man, but what some women have to go through is no joke. And the culture perpetuates.

It's similar to the porn debate. It objectifies and degrades women and portrays an unrealistic depiction of sex to teens who are exploring their sexuality. As that takes over culture, it becomes the new normal that people mirror themselves against. Kind of like beauty ideals. People like to think they are not affected by it, when in fact they are.

It's interesting, I saw an interview with this American woman. Don't remember if it was Vice or Vox. She was kind of speaking her mind about porn, pointing to concerns and negative effects, but was quick to say it was ok and everyone should be free to watch it, downplaying what she had just previously said. Ironic how the pressure of freedom of speech/expression impeded her from speaking her mind freely.

Problem is, recalling a dubious game can direct attention to it and further spark controversy, making your move counterproductive. It's an interesting discussion though. There are boundaries to free speech. Else, you can regard hate speech or violence as just another expression that should not be interfered with. Question is: where do we lay those boundaries?
Even though I do not think that porn is harmful at all. And yes I also watch porn I ind of get your point however this is not really the game to go after since it teaches men foremost respect and friendly behaviour. It never goes nto any aggressive way or portrayal that you only succeed if you have sex with her. He also mentions friendship new social circles all the time. And in all of these 10 scenarios there is one that has ended in sex. Everthing else is getting a number, maybe even set up a first date. But even the club scene is handled that the women who has just met the guy tells him how she is not comfortable going to his house and that she wants to meet again. And it was totally fine and there was no pressure at all.
 
Else, you can regard hate speech or violence as just another expression that should not be interfered with. Question is: where do we lay those boundaries?
Literal physical violence is not 'speech' - I don't know where this braindead idiocy has come from but I have seen it several times lately in reference to free speech. Punching someone in the face is not free speech and noone ever suggested it was. Ironically, those advocating for restrictions on free speech are exactly those who would ideally punch those they disagree with instead of debating them in an open forum.
 
I love that you willfully misuse a word and then gleefully revel in it like the intellectual dishonesty inherent in misusing a term makes your argument stronger.

Your reading comprehension is abhorrent as well. Obviously, i know you dont control sony. The point is that you are okay with censorship when it falls in line with your moral values, and in fact you want things outside that moral view censored. That is why i call you a censor, not because i think you are ceo of sony... but hey, its clear you are happy just being as intellectually dishonest as possible.

Now you suddenly claim you support it because sony can do as they please, which again is intellectually dishonest because nobody is claiming they cant. In fact, of course sony, as owner of the market place, can do as they please. Thats never been argued otherwise here, at least not by me and i dont recall anyone else. But where you flip and flop like a fish is your inability to recognize this is still censorship.

Your silly nazi thing continues to miss the point, guess what? Content IS irrevelant. If you censor it, its censorship. It doesnt suddenly become `not censorship' because you agree with it being censored. That youd imply it does is ridiculous. Yes, taking a nazi pos game and banning it from sale is censorship. That you put me in the position of saying that, so it looks like im defending nazi crap, is further proof that your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds. You are a censor. Like i said last time, own it, stop trying to justify that you want content in stores to match your current moral compass. Just own it. I dont care if content matches my moral compass. Im not into some of the crazy hardcore porn out there, but i dont begrudge others making and selling it.... even though im sure some people still want softcore porn banned. if it isnt breaking laws making it [ie, snuff, etc] then whatever floats your boat.

You can buy all sorts of crap music and crap books and crap films promoting all sorts of fucktardery. Whatever. I dont buy it. But the point is, if you advocate disallowing the sale of it, ypu are promoting censorship. What about this is hard to understand? Im not defending the fucktardery, im simply explaining to you what censorship is. But you are are too busy being the morality police to even realize you are the morality police.
bro, you don't even know what censorship is. censorship can only be done BY THE GOVERNMENT, not by private companies like Sony. Private companies are free to curate their content as they please!

if sony doesn't want a shitty game on their platform, THAT IS THEIR RIGHT. Get over yourself, please.
 
bro, you don't even know what censorship is. censorship can only be done BY THE GOVERNMENT, not by private companies like Sony. Private companies are free to curate their content as they please!

if sony doesn't want a shitty game on their platform, THAT IS THEIR RIGHT. Get over yourself, please.
This is a pretty naive and also extrem dangerous thinking. The most power these days in terms of censorships have private groups and social outcry

Let me quote the ACLU

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
What is censorship
 
Even though I do not think that porn is harmful at all. And yes I also watch porn I ind of get your point however this is not really the game to go after since it teaches men foremost respect and friendly behaviour. It never goes nto any aggressive way or portrayal that you only succeed if you have sex with her. He also mentions friendship new social circles all the time. And in all of these 10 scenarios there is one that has ended in sex. Everthing else is getting a number, maybe even set up a first date. But even the club scene is handled that the women who has just met the guy tells him how she is not comfortable going to his house and that she wants to meet again. And it was totally fine and there was no pressure at all.
I cannot comment on the game itself, and what I get from what you tell me is that there are much better fights to pick.

Do want to point out that ignorance and discrimination can come out in relatively innocent ways. Like someone complimenting a person from another race on how well they speak the language, automatically assuming she's a migrant (when in fact she was born there and is 3rd generation). Or a youth friend of mine saying how 'cool' it was we had a black guy in our friend circle.

Literal physical violence is not 'speech' - I don't know where this braindead idiocy has come from but I have seen it several times lately in reference to free speech. Punching someone in the face is not free speech and noone ever suggested it was. Ironically, those advocating for restrictions on free speech are exactly those who would ideally punch those they disagree with instead of debating them in an open forum.
If you take that logic to the extreme, you could argue that violence is an expression.

I once went to a screening of a film on eating meat. I overheard a woman saying how meat eaters are destroying the world and even vegetarians were evil ('cause they consume dairy products). I told the girl who organized it about it and her response was that the woman was entitled to her opinion. I wanted to tell her (but didn't) how blowing yourself up is also an opinion. I try to be conscious of my impact on others and nature, but this was straight up extremism. Made me want to go out and eat a meat sandwich.
 
Last edited:
bro, you don't even know what censorship is. censorship can only be done BY THE GOVERNMENT, not by private companies like Sony. Private companies are free to curate their content as they please!

if sony doesn't want a shitty game on their platform, THAT IS THEIR RIGHT. Get over yourself, please.
Bro, is this a parody post? I mean seriously it's about as uninformed as you can get not to mention completely ignores the entire thread. I'll keep it simple, you are wrong and do not understand the meaning of the word. If you would like some books to read on the subject id be more than happy to create a reading list of respected academics who have written on the topic.

It's similar to the porn debate. It objectifies and degrades women and portrays an unrealistic depiction of sex to teens who are exploring their sexuality. As that takes over culture, it becomes the new normal that people mirror themselves against. Kind of like beauty ideals. People like to think they are not affected by it, when in fact they are.

It's interesting, I saw an interview with this American woman. Don't remember if it was Vice or Vox. She was kind of speaking her mind about porn, pointing to concerns and negative effects, but was quick to say it was ok and everyone should be free to watch it, downplaying what she had just previously said. Ironic how the pressure of freedom of speech/expression impeded her from speaking her mind freely.
What is a realistic depiction of sex? How you like it? You can find porn of women berating men while pegging them brutally. Is that objectifying men? Or simply an accurate, realistic depicition of the simple truth that some people of both genders are into that?

Rather than assume porn somehow warps everyone, isnt it possible it just forces us to confront that we are human, and may be into some kinky shit?

Notice how you say its degrading to women, despite the fact that women produced porn is a huge market now. Despite the fact that much porn seems to celebrate the female while reducing men to off camera nothings whose value can be measured in inches.

Regarding a single interview, there are also ones of female porn stars who talk about how empowering is for them to do what they do. Does it matter if i agree with them or not? Are they wrong? Is my view more important than theirs, when they are the actual person in that situation?

Now, i tend to agree porn objectifies people. But so what? Its billions of people getting off on fantasies. Of course it objectifies. A billion orgasms a day, all spent in fantasy land imagining their own perfect scenario of the perfect person doing the perfect thing, whether that means dominant or submissive, male or female, rough or sensual. Are we only supposed to get off on fantasies where, somehow, the other imaginary person or persons are fully sentient individuals capable of emotions and consent? That doesnt even make sense... getting off is getting off, and it essentially requires reducing someone to source material, whether on film, in a romance novel, or in your head.
 
Last edited:
Not naive at all. If you even bothered to look at that link, it shows that private groups are protected by the 1st amendment.

Quit whining over being oppressed.
I realize that reading isnt your strong point, but noone is saying sony cant remove something from its marketplace. Of course it can. But that is still censorship. I know, i know, it sucks when words dont mean what you want them to mean, but perhaps try researching what censorship actually is. There are many posts in this thread already treading this ground.

EDIT TO ADD

you know, this is a very important subject so I'm going to edit in an example that perhaps you may better identify with. Let's talk Fox News. Do you agree that they play a strong role in controlling what news, voices, and viewpoints make it on to their platform? This corporate filtering of ideas is a form of censorship, and always has been, with no government involvement. This is especially problematic when one media conglomerate owns a large segment of the market. In the US, only a few conglomerates share the entire Market. By the same token , when a Marketplace bans a product for moral reasons they are engaging in censorship. You may agree with the censorship but it is still censorship. Going back to the fox example imagine if Fox had the dominant console and use their worldview to dictate what messages were allowed in games they sold on their Marketplace. Now, they would own the Marketplace so of course they can control what games are sold there... But it is still censorship . Censorship is harder to see when you agree with the end result but that does not change the fact that something like this is censorship . If a dominant market like, say, Amazon decided that they would no longer sell books that depicted sex in any way, it would instantly have a chilling effect on Publishers as they scrambled to adapt to the new market and decided how to censor themselves enough to remain in the marketplace. Now, of course, in that situation it would be likely that another bookstore would rise in Amazon's place, but that's sort of the point. When a dominant market player applies pressure that controls content it is censorship. And If you think only the government can censor, you're being willfully ignorant of how censorship actually works. Hiding behind the idea that only government can censor is not just incorrect, it's dangerous.
 
Last edited:
I cannot comment on the game itself, and what I get from what you tell me is that there are much better fights to pick.

Do want to point out that ignorance and discrimination can come out in relatively innocent ways. Like someone complimenting a person from another race on how well they speak the language, automatically assuming she's a migrant (when in fact she was born there and is 3rd generation). Or a youth friend of mine saying how 'cool' it was we had a black guy in our friend circle.
If someone really has an issue over being mistakenly complimented like that, they're the problem.

This isn't a case of overgeneralizing like saying all Asians are good at math. It's just complimenting someone's English skills, which hopefully the assumption is made when an accent is heard. Heck, some immigrants end up having better English than local born people.
 
I just want to add that I found a lot of good content on this thread from both sides of the spectrum. This thread in itself is proof of how valuable it is to be able to discuss whatever we find important. Maybe people participating won't change their mind about what they think but a bunch of people is just lurking and forming an opinion based on this information. The result of this is that we, as society, are forming more informed opinions and this information will be passed a long at some point, somehow and in the future people will be making decisions based on this.

It might be uncomfortable but it is absolutely necessary that we keep engaging, discussing and exchanging information (no matter the topic) so each one of us can make informed decisions that are not based on hearing just one side of the history.

If you have a chance please watch/listen to this TED Talk about a Westboro church ex member that precisely talks about hearing the other side: https://www.ted.com/talks/megan_phe...the_westboro_baptist_church_here_s_why_i_left

It's not about making people change their minds. It's about making sure we are making the right decisions based on all the available information.

Keep it up GAF!
 
I just want to add that I found a lot of good content on this thread from both sides of the spectrum. This thread in itself is proof of how valuable it is to be able to discuss whatever we find important. Maybe people participating won't change their mind about what they think but a bunch of people is just lurking and forming an opinion based on this information. The result of this is that we, as society, are forming more informed opinions and this information will be passed a long at some point, somehow and in the future people will be making decisions based on this.

It might be uncomfortable but it is absolutely necessary that we keep engaging, discussing and exchanging information (no matter the topic) so each one of us can make informed decisions that are not based on hearing just one side of the history.

If you have a chance please watch/listen to this TED Talk about a Westboro church ex member that precisely talks about hearing the other side: https://www.ted.com/talks/megan_phe...the_westboro_baptist_church_here_s_why_i_left

It's not about making people change their minds. It's about making sure we are making the right decisions based on all the available information.

Keep it up GAF!
Yea like I mentioned in another thread, it isn't about changing the mind of the people within the argument or discussion. Its about providing the info so others might gain information and learn something from the discussion, as I did from that discussion.
 
I love that you willfully misuse a word and then gleefully revel in it like the intellectual dishonesty inherent in misusing a term makes your argument stronger.

Your reading comprehension is abhorrent as well. Obviously, i know you dont control sony. The point is that you are okay with censorship when it falls in line with your moral values, and in fact you want things outside that moral view censored. That is why i call you a censor, not because i think you are ceo of sony... but hey, its clear you are happy just being as intellectually dishonest as possible.

Now you suddenly claim you support it because sony can do as they please, which again is intellectually dishonest because nobody is claiming they cant. In fact, of course sony, as owner of the market place, can do as they please. Thats never been argued otherwise here, at least not by me and i dont recall anyone else. But where you flip and flop like a fish is your inability to recognize this is still censorship.

Your silly nazi thing continues to miss the point, guess what? Content IS irrevelant. If you censor it, its censorship. It doesnt suddenly become `not censorship' because you agree with it being censored. That youd imply it does is ridiculous. Yes, taking a nazi pos game and banning it from sale is censorship. That you put me in the position of saying that, so it looks like im defending nazi crap, is further proof that your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds. You are a censor. Like i said last time, own it, stop trying to justify that you want content in stores to match your current moral compass. Just own it. I dont care if content matches my moral compass. Im not into some of the crazy hardcore porn out there, but i dont begrudge others making and selling it.... even though im sure some people still want softcore porn banned. if it isnt breaking laws making it [ie, snuff, etc] then whatever floats your boat.

You can buy all sorts of crap music and crap books and crap films promoting all sorts of fucktardery. Whatever. I dont buy it. But the point is, if you advocate disallowing the sale of it, ypu are promoting censorship. What about this is hard to understand? Im not defending the fucktardery, im simply explaining to you what censorship is. But you are are too busy being the morality police to even realize you are the morality police.
I see someone is getting emotional. I never said "censorship is okay when it falls in line with (my) moral values." I said Sony and Steam can "censor", or not "censor" whatever they like based upon their company interests. If Sony banned a feminist game I would equally claim Sony has a right to do what they want with their own goddamn storefront. Stop pretending to be a mind reader and address the arguments I'm actually making. Whether or not you or I or anyone else approves/disapproves of censorship is irrelevent because Sony and Steams right to curate their own storefront as they see fit supersedes everything else.

As for the hypothetical pedophile-Nazi-killing-Jewish-children game, I assume you would want Sony and Steam to allow it on their storefronts. I want an explicit yes or no in your next reply. If you ignore my scenario again I'm bailing on this conversation since you're clearly not debating in good faith. You keep pushing towards the absolutist claim that "censorship is always bad in all cases in all times for everyone" so I want you to admit to the fruits of that labor. Tell me how it's bad for Sony and Steam to "censor" a game about a pedophile Nazi killing Jewish children for the thrill of it.

Finally, I'm not a censor, as I am not censoring anything. To be a censor, you need to censor things. If I approve of theft, but I don't steal, that doesn't make me a thief. Learn how words work. I mean, I know it makes you feel good to keep calling me a "censor" but you're just factually completely wrong. Ok? Like, you really seem to be struggling with this concept which makes me think English isn't your first language. Do I need to start quoting a dictionary at you?
 
Last edited:
He was hypothetically against your Nazi game but that does not matter, he was simply stating that censoring it is censorship.

You are supporting censorship. What is hard to understand? It's not about whether it is right to not allow it, simply that by not allowing it you have censored it, rightly or wrongly.
 
Last edited:
After rereading I did some editing of my previous post, but was not abe to post before the 5-minute time limit expired
---

Bro, is this a parody post? I mean seriously it's about as uninformed as you can get not to mention completely ignores the entire thread. I'll keep it simple, you are wrong and do not understand the meaning of the word. If you would like some books to read on the subject id be more than happy to create a reading list of respected academics who have written on the topic.



What is a realistic depiction of sex? How you like it? You can find porn of women berating men while pegging them brutally. Is that objectifying men? Or simply an accurate, realistic depicition of the simple truth that some people of both genders are into that?

Rather than assume porn somehow warps everyone, isnt it possible it just forces us to confront that we are human, and may be into some kinky shit?

Notice how you say its degrading to women, despite the fact that women produced porn is a huge market now. Despite the fact that much porn seems to celebrate the female while reducing men to off camera nothings whose value can be measured in inches.

Regarding a single interview, there are also ones of female porn stars who talk about how empowering is for them to do what they do. Does it matter if i agree with them or not? Are they wrong? Is my view more important than theirs, when they are the actual person in that situation?

Now, i tend to agree porn objectifies people. But so what? Its billions of people getting off on fantasies. Of course it objectifies. A billion orgasms a day, all spent in fantasy land imagining their own perfect scenario of the perfect person doing the perfect thing, whether that means dominant or submissive, male or female, rough or sensual. Are we only supposed to get off on fantasies where, somehow, the other imaginary person or persons are fully sentient individuals capable of emotions and consent? That doesnt even make sense... getting off is getting off, and it essentially requires reducing someone to source material, whether on film, in a romance novel, or in your head.
I'll tell you this. I watched a report on 3 guys going to the porn scene in LA to get a glimpse of that world and meet their favorite porn stars. They were open and enthusiastic about their porn viewing habits. That changed over the course of their visit.

One woman told them she was in need of money and got into it that way. She just wanted to do some girl on girl stuff, make a quick buck. She was pressured into doing more and more, stuff she really didn't want or had planned to do, and ended up doing bunch-of-guys-one-girl scenes (there's a word for that). She described how abusive that was for her body (and spirit). One particular time she got throat bleed. It also damaged her vagina. She eventually got out and was now looking for a man to start a family. But who wants to marry a former porn star? Guys may get off to them, but for a wife they'll look at a 'decent' woman, as there's introduction to and judgement from family and friends.

They also went to a studio where they did live porn streams, hours on end. At one point one of the woman was breaking down. She wanted out, but was not allowed to. When it was finally over, it was the producer's turn to 'exercise his privileges'. Pretty disgusting. The 3 guys were shaken by witnessing all of this. One of them was gay. His fantasy dude turned out to be straight: he somehow got into doing masturbations scenes, which we're marketed as gay porn. He told him: do your best, study, go to college. He was making changes in his life and hoped to some day be able to make a living without having to pull his dick out. He also said: imagine the person you absolutely do not want to find out what you do for a living, like say your grandma. She will.

So in conclusion, porn is not as innocent and free choice as you describe. It is a business and a relentless one. People often get into it due to financial troubles and/or lack of other viable options. And once they're there, they pressured into doing that stuf they do not wish to. That's abusive. At the end of the ride, they are left broken, forever marked by that experience of having to go through the meat-grinding machine. No doubt some of them do it by choice. If they can make a living doing something they like, good for them. But for a lot of them, it's pretty fucked up.

If someone really has an issue over being mistakenly complimented like that, they're the problem.

This isn't a case of overgeneralizing like saying all Asians are good at math. It's just complimenting someone's English skills, which hopefully the assumption is made when an accent is heard. Heck, some immigrants end up having better English than local born people.
I understand what you're saying, but you don't have the full picture. In this particular case, I told her to take it with good stride, as it was meant well. And she understood that. She also told me she was looking for an apartment to rent at the time, making phone calls, and as soon as they asked her her name, the tone changed. She could't find a place.

That's just one of the issues she is facing every day. Discrimination is something you experience on a daily basis. Even if you're a soft person, it can get to a point where it wears you down and you just feel you've had enough. If you're not subject to that, you cannot know what it's like.
 
I tend to disagree. I told her to take it with good stride, as it was meant well. And she understood that. She also told me she was looking for an apartment to rent at the time, making phone calls, and as soon as they asked her her name, the tone changed. Discrimination is something you have to deal with every day. Even if you're a soft person, it can get to a point where it wears you down and you just feel you've had enough. If you're not subject to it, you cannot know what it's like.
I understand what you're saying, but you don't have the full picture. In this particular case, I told her to take it with good stride, as it was meant well. And she understood that. She also told me she was looking for an apartment to rent at the time, making phone calls, and as soon as they asked her her name, the tone changed. She could't find a place.

That's just one of the issues she is facing every day. Discrimination is something you experience on a daily basis. Even if you're a soft person, it can get to a point where it wears you down and you just feel you've had enough. If you're not subject to that, you cannot know what it's like.
Dude you responded to me twice lol!

There's a difference between honest mistake and discrimination, and it's also up to the person's self-confidence. If they're being called racist names, then yeah, that is real discrimination. If they were told "Oh you speak good English for an immigrant", then of course that's also insulting. If it's delivered like this: "You speak English very well. Did you move here from another country?" That's not discrimination.

Also, it depends on the area as well. Obviously, America has a lot of anti-immigration sentiment, but in Canada, we probably have more immigrants than local born, and we embrace it.
 
Dude you responded to me twice lol!

There's a difference between honest mistake and discrimination, and it's also up to the person's self-confidence. If they're being called racist names, then yeah, that is real discrimination. If they were told "Oh you speak good English for an immigrant", then of course that's also insulting. If it's delivered like this: "You speak English very well. Did you move here from another country?" That's not discrimination.

Also, it depends on the area as well. Obviously, America has a lot of anti-immigration sentiment, but in Canada, we probably have more immigrants than local born, and we embrace it.
After rereading I did some editing of my previous post, but was not abe to post before the 5-minute time limit expired
(Should've reread before posting)
But yes, I agree. The way it is formulated makes a big difference.

Just imagine what's it like if you see people's faces change every day from friendly to suspicious and rejecting, the moment they notice your face/ descent. I was flying through the US once and got stares and interrogations from customs personnell like I was a potential terrorist. Very intimidating. (And no I'm not Arab). Anyway, it pleases me when people treat me with respect and dignity. Makes me feel good.

My black friend told me people were afraid of him when he'd get on buses, especially older people, and bus drivers wouldn't talk to him. He started smoking a lot of weed as an escape route for his problems (of course you can't blame that on discrimination, but it certainly didn't help) and he eventually left the country. I have heard Canada is very friendly and open towards migrants and diversity, but my country unfortunately is different.

---

@autoduelist: It's interesting to note, those 3 porn-loving gentlemen used the same arguments you did: it's consent and freedom of choice. What they saw was very different.

And since we all came from a woman
Got our name from a woman and our game from a woman
I wonder why we take from our women
Why we rape our women, do we hate our own women?
I think it's time to kill for our women
Time to heal our women, be real to our women
'Cause if we don't we'll have a race of babies
That will hate the ladies, that make the babies
And since a man can't make one
He has no right to tell a woman when and where to create one
So will the real men get up
I know you're fed up ladies, but keep your head up
Tupac Shakur

Few rappers have the balls to make a statement like that.
 
Last edited:
For anyone who says the game has no merit,
26 mins, 50 mins.... Yeah I preferred Jim Sterling's 10 to 15 minute videos on why the game has no merit personally; I'm not gonna watch an hour YouTube video : I find the sweet spot 8-15 minutes, after that it's mostly clutter.

That said I did watch boogie2988 stream this several hours for several days and after having watched the nearly entire game I'm willing to say this game offers nothing of value - It's not really even a game and any positive info is outweighed by negative.
 
@Electric wizard : Fuck porn. I think webcam shows have become huge because of that : Your own time, your own choices, your own hours, your own partner. It's a beautiful thing people can just broadcast their life from their own homes without the negatives like personal intersction, ridiculous contracts and pushing boundaries they don't want to.


As a consumer it's also more enjoyable watching someone have fun who isn't forced. Win win, with a third win for being a step closer to taking down the porno industry and it's ridiculous practices.
 
@Electric wizard : Fuck porn. I think webcam shows have become huge because of that : Your own time, your own choices, your own hours, your own partner. It's a beautiful thing people can just broadcast their life from their own homes without the negatives like personal intersction, ridiculous contracts and pushing boundaries they don't want to.


As a consumer it's also more enjoyable watching someone have fun who isn't forced. Win win, with a third win for being a step closer to taking down the porno industry and it's ridiculous practices.
That indeed sounds like a much better alternative to porn.
 
@Electric wizard : Fuck porn. I think webcam shows have become huge because of that : Your own time, your own choices, your own hours, your own partner. It's a beautiful thing people can just broadcast their life from their own homes without the negatives like personal intersction, ridiculous contracts and pushing boundaries they don't want to.


As a consumer it's also more enjoyable watching someone have fun who isn't forced. Win win, with a third win for being a step closer to taking down the porno industry and it's ridiculous practices.
Except when they become even more fake then the scripted videos to garner people to spend money on them.
 
So in conclusion, porn is not as innocent and free choice as you describe. It is a business and a relentless one. People often get into it due to financial troubles and/or lack of other viable options. And once they're there, they pressured into doing that stuf they do not wish to. That's abusive. At the end of the ride, they are left broken, forever marked by that experience of having to go through the meat-grinding machine. No doubt some of them do it by choice. If they can make a living doing something they like, good for them. But for a lot of them, it's pretty fucked up.
Nothing wrong with porn, as long as the proper rules are being followed. When that doesn't happen, people need to be sued. Simple as that. Anyone would agree with that. On the other hand, people need to take responsibility for themselves as well. Ultimately this girl you talked about decided herself that she'd do group scenes or whatever. Even if they pressured her, she could still say no. She's also the one who decided she'd do a quick porn shooting, rather than clean bathrooms for a few weeks or something. I find it hard to feel sympathy for these people, just like poor schmucks who get tricked into smuggling drugs in their luggage. You know what you're getting yourself into, now you have to live with the consequences.
 
He was hypothetically against your Nazi game but that does not matter, he was simply stating that censoring it is censorship.

You are supporting censorship. What is hard to understand? It's not about whether it is right to not allow it, simply that by not allowing it you have censored it, rightly or wrongly.
You don't seem to understand. His logic:

1) censorship is always bad

therefore

2) no game should ever be restricted from a company's storefront

That's his entire line of logic. And I'm calling bullshit on point #1 via my pedoNazi game analogy. I said I support a company having control over the products they want to sell. He claims that a company exerting this control is censorship. So is his argument that companies should not be allowed to have control over the products they sell? Who knows? It's completely unclear to me what he actually wants to be the law of the land.

Also keep in mind the point of this thread is about whether this game should be censored and "whether it is right or not to allow it." This thread is not about proving whether darksol devil is "supporting censorship" - both of you seem somewhat obsessed on this point. Sometimes I support censorship. Sometimes I do not. In this case I've argued that Sony made a rational, good business decision to "censor" this game. And I've also made it clear that I don't think censorship is always bad. If this means that you get to label me a "censorship supporter"..... okay? This label has literally no descriptive value in relation to the argument I'm making.
 
You don't seem to understand. His logic:

1) censorship is always bad

therefore

2) no game should ever be restricted from a company's storefront

That's his entire line of logic. And I'm calling bullshit on point #1 via my pedoNazi game analogy. I said I support a company having control over the products they want to sell. He claims that a company exerting this control is censorship. So is his argument that companies should not be allowed to have control over the products they sell? Who knows? It's completely unclear to me what he actually wants to be the law of the land.

Also keep in mind the point of this thread is about whether this game should be censored and "whether it is right or not to allow it." This thread is not about proving whether darksol devil is "supporting censorship" - both of you seem somewhat obsessed on this point. Sometimes I support censorship. Sometimes I do not. In this case I've argued that Sony made a rational, good business decision to "censor" this game. And I've also made it clear that I don't think censorship is always bad. If this means that you get to label me a "censorship supporter"..... okay? This label has literally no descriptive value in relation to the argument I'm making.
The problem here is that this should not even a debate if you would allow such harmless thing on your platform or not. It was removed because the lynchmob Journalists and left caused another social outrage about it. Making it something that it never was to begin with. This product caused outrage in between a small but very loud extreme minority no one should normally ever listen to.

And I do not think it was a good decision? Whats next? Last Night not being on PS4 because it may or may not feature values or describes a fictional setting these idiots do not agree with? Fact is these articles were blatant lies and because of these kind of lies it was removed by Sony out of fear to lose image.
 
You don't seem to understand. His logic:

1) censorship is always bad

therefore

2) no game should ever be restricted from a company's storefront

That's his entire line of logic. And I'm calling bullshit on point #1 via my pedoNazi game analogy. I said I support a company having control over the products they want to sell. He claims that a company exerting this control is censorship. So is his argument that companies should not be allowed to have control over the products they sell? Who knows? It's completely unclear to me what he actually wants to be the law of the land.

Also keep in mind the point of this thread is about whether this game should be censored and "whether it is right or not to allow it." This thread is not about proving whether darksol devil is "supporting censorship" - both of you seem somewhat obsessed on this point. Sometimes I support censorship. Sometimes I do not. In this case I've argued that Sony made a rational, good business decision to "censor" this game. And I've also made it clear that I don't think censorship is always bad. If this means that you get to label me a "censorship supporter"..... okay? This label has literally no descriptive value in relation to the argument I'm making.
His point is that censorship is censorship. Regardless of whether you think it is right or wrong. I'm so confused that this has to keep being stated to you.

You admitted in that post that sometimes you support it, therefore it follows that you are a censor. That was his logic.
 
Last edited:
And I'm calling bullshit on point #1 via my pedoNazi game analogy.
That's a crime that would be punished by the authorities, if it ever materialized (which is beyond highly unlikely, to say the least).

those advocating for restrictions on free speech are exactly those who would ideally punch those they disagree with instead of debating them in an open forum.
Yes it seems so.

Few rappers have the balls to make a statement like that.
Not sure whom he was addressing.
I don't rape people.
I also don't kill people.
In both cases of any gender.
And I don't quite get why would it be OK to rape people, if we "came from man".

Sounds like a mainstream cheap shot to appease certain crowd, zero courage required.
 
Last edited:
Not sure whom he was addressing.
I don't rape people.
I also don't kill people.
In both cases of any gender.
And I don't quite get why would it be OK to rape people, if we "came from man".

Sounds like a mainstream cheap shot to appease certain crowd, zero courage required.
I don't know if I'd use the word courage, but 2pac definitely said what he wanted to say and ignored the trends of rap music. He also did so in 1993, so it's not like he was appealing to exclusively liberal music critics or whatever. He wasn't appeasing anyone.

Respect for women in rap music isn't the most common theme, and that was even more so in the early 90s.
 
Respect for women in rap music isn't the most common theme, and that was even more so in the early 90s.
I don't know how it worked in US back then, but even if it was very different, I still can't make sense out of his words.

Whom he's going to kill and whom he's going to stop raping? What does "we came from <insert sex>" have to do with it?


I was brought up in USSR, where parallel to all the commie propaganda (mostly "USA are crazy militarist fucks"), we were taught to NOT think of people as lesser or better beings because of their skin color, sex, ethnicity or even Surname (i.e. offspring from a famous family). From that perspective, concept of "gender respect" as well as "gender protection" sounds demeaning as he regards women as if they were helpless objects needing his protection.
 
I don't know how it worked in US back then, but even if it was very different, I still can't make sense out of his words.

Whom he's going to kill and whom he's going to stop raping? What does "we came from <insert sex>" have to do with it?


I was brought up in USSR, where parallel to all the commie propaganda (mostly "USA are crazy militarist fucks"), we were taught to NOT think of people as lesser or better beings because of their skin color, sex, ethnicity or even Surname (i.e. offspring from a famous family). From that perspective, concept of "gender respect" as well as "gender protection" sounds demeaning as he regards women as if they were helpless objects needing his protection.
I think it's more about hypocrisy than anything else. My interpretation:

And since we all came from a woman
Got our name from a woman and our game from a woman
- - Seeing as mothers / women are an important part of our lives. - -
I wonder why we take from our women
Why we rape our women, do we hate our own women?
- - Why do some in my culture treat weapon so poorly, which can appear in the form of phyiscal or sexual violence. The "we" in this case isn't 2pac, you, or myself. It's a criticism of those who DO treat women as being beneath the importance of men. - -
I think it's time to kill for our women
Time to heal our women, be real to our women
- - I feel the "kill for our women" line is more about protecting women. You can make the case that too is sexist, but at least it's mostly referring to biological differences in strength and the traditional male role of a protector. - -
'Cause if we don't we'll have a race of babies
That will hate the ladies, that make the babies
- - Again, expressing concern for those in his community who view women as less then men. - -
And since a man can't make one
He has no right to tell a woman when and where to create one
- - This can be seen as either a "men can't have a child on their own, so only a women should have any say when it comes to having a baby" stance, or a "men can't have a child on their own, so men and women should have equal say when it comes time to deciding when and how to start a family"
So will the real men get up
I know you're fed up ladies, but keep your head up
- - "real men" has always been a way of criticizing male behavior, which is what 2pac is doing here, when it comes to the subject of men who view women as "bitches" rather than equals.

If you like the idea of men and women being treated equally, you may appreciate this track from the latest Wu-Tang Clan album, stressing the importance of fathers.

As Chris Rock once said of the "you don't need a man to raise a child" mentality, "Yeah, you can do it. And you can drive a bus with your feet, but that doesn't make it a good idea." Respect for the women who do so out of necessity, but statistically speaking, it's very important for children to grow up in a two parent household.
 
Last edited:
His point is that censorship is censorship. Regardless of whether you think it is right or wrong. I'm so confused that this has to keep being stated to you.

You admitted in that post that sometimes you support it, therefore it follows that you are a censor. That was his logic.
He had many value claims wrapped up his many replies, including the moral character of censorship, of the "letting the market decide" alternative, of company autonomy over their own marketplace, and attempting to characterize a single platform holder as sole representative of the entire free market system. But now you are attempting to salvage his many poorly made claims into a singular point about censorship being censorship. Your one sentence summary is clearly not an accurate characterization of our debate, as he was clearly an anti-censorship absolutist (I can dig up some quotes if you really need them). So, don't be confused, you don't need to keep repeating yourself. Your summary is intentionally disingenuous in his favor, so I'm going to keep rejecting its validity.

It also doesn't "follow" that because I sometimes support censorship (i.e. a company controlling their storefront) I am therefore a censor. I threatened to quote a dictionary at him, but since you are persisting in this English language spectacle, I will quote a dictionary at you.
cen·sor

noun
1.
an official who examines material that is about to be released, such as books, movies, news, and art, and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
1) I am not an official
2) I do not suppress material
3) Therefore I am not a censor.

I mean I don't know how to break it down any further than that.


That's a crime that would be punished by the authorities, if it ever materialized (which is beyond highly unlikely, to say the least).
I agree, but I think he would even go so far as to say the government outlawing the game is "bad" (because it's censorship) in the same way as Steam banning it, so the legal status of the analogy doesn't really matter.


The problem here is that this should not even a debate if you would allow such harmless thing on your platform or not. It was removed because the lynchmob Journalists and left caused another social outrage about it. Making it something that it never was to begin with. This product caused outrage in between a small but very loud extreme minority no one should normally ever listen to.

And I do not think it was a good decision? Whats next? Last Night not being on PS4 because it may or may not feature values or describes a fictional setting these idiots do not agree with? Fact is these articles were blatant lies and because of these kind of lies it was removed by Sony out of fear to lose image.
It doesn't matter "what's next." If enough games that can make enough money get banned from one platform, a different platform will spring up to support them. If The Last Night was banned (which it won't be, just as Kingdom Come wasn't), then I would buy it directly from the devs website or whatever other platform supported it. Again, Sony didn't sign on to be a free-speech free-market absolutist, but some of you keep thinking that is their role. It really, really isn't their role. The fact of the matter is that The Last Night and KC are actually good games that will make money. This game was neither of those things. It's really not worth all the pearl clutching that's taken place in this thread.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter "what's next." If enough games that can make enough money get banned from one platform, a different platform will spring up to support them. If The Last Night was banned (which it won't be, just as Kingdom Come wasn't), then I would buy it directly from the devs website or whatever other platform supported it. Again, Sony didn't sign on to be a free-speech free-market absolutist, but some of you keep thinking that is their role. It really, really isn't their role. The fact of the matter is that The Last Night and KC are actually good games that will make money. This game was neither of those things. It's really not worth all the pearl clutching that's taken place in this thread.
I had fun with it. I played it twice for all the wrong choices and hilarious FMV scenes. And if Sony is free to ban a game because some journalists were outraged by it and were spreading lies I can also criticize this decision. I love Sony but I think they dropped the ball here listening to an extreme minority. In the end thanks to the outrage the game probably sold more than it would have otherwise. Same by the way did happen with Hatred and Hatred was indeed a shitty game this is a fun FMV game which also tries to teach young men to be respectful and not creepy to women while flirting.