Support NeoGAF

[autoduelist]

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.

Feel free to show me where i have ever said nothing should be censored, ever. Or that censorship is always bad. You are making up my position as you go. Every post of mine in response to you has been in direct response to your constant, fluctuating misuse of the term. Your constant spinning of what i am saying isjust that, your spin.

I dont bother having debates on the merits of a topic if its clear the other indidual is using a warped definition out of the gate. It is only meaningful to discuss the various advantages and disadvantages of censorship if both parties actually understand what censorship is, and what is being debated. However, though your entire platform wobbles like it was sitting on a waterbed, at the beginning you were taking the simplisitic and incorrect stance that only government can censor, which is wrong. Then you switched to mocking any other type of censorship, to the point that i think you continue to have zero grasp on the topic.

Your continued inability to understand this, and your constant intellectual dishonesty [even here, as i literally predicted, you used your stupid nazi pedo example to imply i support selling that shit, even though i said no such thing]. I take issue with your inability to understand that you are the morality police, the church lady celebrating some album being banned at tower records. That you draw coorelations between some relatively tame dating sim and nazi pedo crap trying to sell your version of censorship is absurd. Its because you just cant resist, or escape, wrapping up your morals and your logic. So you make up ridiculous gotcha scenarios trying to prove you are morally righteous and on the right side, and anyone who disagrees with you supports x,y, and z. If you want shit censored, own it. Just dont hide behind the false claim that only government can censor and you are just supporting a corporation in good faith.

And please stop thinking that just because someone thinks someone else can create something means they also support it. You cant decipher my opinion on the subject because you are so accustomed to villifying those who dont agree with you that you assume i must be into vile shit because i call you out on misusing a term.

The history of music, literature, and art has been through all these growing pains before. People have been literally executed for making material others found objectionable. Rock and roll was the devils work, ready and willing to twist the youth into sex crazed criminals. Lets burn Huck Finn at the stake, right next to lenny bruce.. The growing pains gaming is going through is nothing new. Heck, weve already been around the block with violence in videogaming. The people burning books thought they were morally just too, just as they thought those defending books and authors were the heathens and perverts. This dance is an old dance, and i dont think you realize what side you are on, nor what song is playing.

 

[Electric-Wizard]

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.

It isn't that simple. People put under pressure will do things they would otherwise never do. Countless psychological experiments have proven this, as well as real life situations every day (which is one big psychological experiment anyway).

Also people get misled, suckered into things. When they finally realize, it can be too late. I understand there's personal responsibility. Goes without saying. But there's also the responsibility of people preying on others. Do not underestimate the power of deception, intimidation and the likes.

 

[Marvel]

Just watched Funhaus play this, lol wow.

 

[prag16]

Haha, those fools. I guarantee by drawing attention to the game in this way, it'll sell more than it would have otherwise as a game that most people would never have even known about.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

Haha, those fools. I guarantee by drawing attention to the game in this way, it'll sell more than it would have otherwise as a game that most people would never have even known about.

No, the fools are the people who purchased the game thinking they've made a political statement about censorship.

Just sexist hypocrites. I was trying not to say anything to see if this topic would die, but apparently, some people insist on being unashamedly misogynistic. Truly a blight on GAF fueling its current reputation as sullied.





Further reading:
https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/28/17058040/super-seducer-iampattyjack-dmca-takedown

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/03/08/super-seducer-review/

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/201...aign=Feed:+PlagiarismToday+(Plagiarism+Today)

 

[autoduelist]

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.

I think you are missing my point. Obviously some people get severely messed up by porn. It's a very public display of a traditionally intimate Act. Not everyone is ready for that, even some who think they are. And of course people get in it for the money, or perhaps for the chance at fame.

I could not do porn. I also could not work in a slaughterhouse, be a police officer, or be an EMT. All these jobs would have psychological ramifications that I know I'm not prepared for. I do not do them. Others, sadly, may have little choice but to do a job they are mentally unprepared for because they need to feed their family. Do you think they would prefer being told they're not allowed to work?

So I fail to see where this leads us. Just because I am not prepared to do this job does not mean someone else wouldn't do it willingly. And clearly some people willingly take jobs in these professions. People are allowed to take jobs that risk their very lives, let alone their mental state.

So my point was not that there are never cases where people have issues, but that even if there are cases where people have issues what do you expect to be done about this? Do you actually think criminalizing porn is even an option? Just because some people can't handle it? Does worrying about the mental state of the pornstar you are currently getting off to somehow make it better? Are you suggesting nobody should use porn at all?

My secondary point, was that you cannot even point at specific sub-genres, where people are brutalize or humiliated, because some people are also into that. Your sexual mores are not everyone's, though based on your original post it seemed as if you have some vision of what realistic sex is. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to fantasize about being on either side of, say, a gang bang. Likewise it's perfectly reasonable that an individual may want to be filmed being part of that.

Somewhere you mistranslated my point and seem to think that I am saying nobody gets mentally damaged by porn. Of course someone does. But my point is that doesn't change anything. People should still be allowed to perform porn if they choose to, people should still be able to consume porn if they want to. And we can't limit genre or fetish [ beyond what is already illegal] because people are into whatever sick s*** you can think of.

 

[Dunki]

No, the fools are the people who purchased the game thinking they've made a political statement about censorship.

Just sexist hypocrites. I was trying not to say anything to see if this topic would die, but apparently, some people insist on being unashamedly misogynistic. Truly a blight on GAF fueling its current reputation as sullied.





Further reading:
https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/28/17058040/super-seducer-iampattyjack-dmca-takedown

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/03/08/super-seducer-review/

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2018/03/06/the-worst-false-dmca-notice-ive-seen/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+PlagiarismToday+(Plagiarism+Today)

So what does have the DCMA to do with you accusing the game being misogynistic? Also I love how people like you totally ignore women who think this also has some pretty good advice for flirting and also was stupid fun to play/stream Anti feministic yeah maybe misogynistic? NO.

 

[prag16]

I was trying not to say anything to see if this topic would die, but apparently, some people insist on being unashamedly misogynistic. Truly a blight on GAF fueling its current reputation as sullied.

Who is being "unashamedly misogynistic" in here? Show me the posts and I'll stand side by side with you to denounce them.

However I expect that either you can't/won't, or whatever you point to will be a pretty big stretch.

 

[A.Romero]

No, the fools are the people who purchased the game thinking they've made a political statement about censorship.

Just sexist hypocrites. I was trying not to say anything to see if this topic would die, but apparently, some people insist on being unashamedly misogynistic. Truly a blight on GAF fueling its current reputation as sullied.

If by defending the fact that I don't want other people to decide what I should be able to play I'm a sexist hypocrite then so be it.

I will defend free speech always, even when it's about something I don't agree with like your opinion.

 

[Arkage]

Feel free to show me where i have ever said nothing should be censored, ever. Or that censorship is always bad. You are making up my position as you go. Every post of mine in response to you has been in direct response to your constant, fluctuating misuse of the term. Your constant spinning of what i am saying isjust that, your spin.

I dont bother having debates on the merits of a topic if its clear the other indidual is using a warped definition out of the gate. It is only meaningful to discuss the various advantages and disadvantages of censorship if both parties actually understand what censorship is, and what is being debated. However, though your entire platform wobbles like it was sitting on a waterbed, at the beginning you were taking the simplisitic and incorrect stance that only government can censor, which is wrong. Then you switched to mocking any other type of censorship, to the point that i think you continue to have zero grasp on the topic.

Your continued inability to understand this, and your constant intellectual dishonesty [even here, as i literally predicted, you used your stupid nazi pedo example to imply i support selling that shit, even though i said no such thing]. I take issue with your inability to understand that you are the morality police, the church lady celebrating some album being banned at tower records. That you draw coorelations between some relatively tame dating sim and nazi pedo crap trying to sell your version of censorship is absurd. Its because you just cant resist, or escape, wrapping up your morals and your logic. So you make up ridiculous gotcha scenarios trying to prove you are morally righteous and on the right side, and anyone who disagrees with you supports x,y, and z. If you want shit censored, own it. Just dont hide behind the false claim that only government can censor and you are just supporting a corporation in good faith.

And please stop thinking that just because someone thinks someone else can create something means they also support it. You cant decipher my opinion on the subject because you are so accustomed to villifying those who dont agree with you that you assume i must be into vile shit because i call you out on misusing a term.

The history of music, literature, and art has been through all these growing pains before. People have been literally executed for making material others found objectionable. Rock and roll was the devils work, ready and willing to twist the youth into sex crazed criminals. Lets burn Huck Finn at the stake, right next to lenny bruce.. The growing pains gaming is going through is nothing new. Heck, weve already been around the block with violence in videogaming. The people burning books thought they were morally just too, just as they thought those defending books and authors were the heathens and perverts. This dance is an old dance, and i dont think you realize what side you are on, nor what song is playing.

Jesus that's a lot of whining and personal attacks to sort through. You do know that the more time you spend insulting me rather than addressing the points I make, the weaker your argument looks?

We never needed quality gatekeepers

You said we "never needed" quality control gatekeepers, i.e. censors. This is an absolutist position by definition since you used the word "never" and it was an analogy to demonstrate your opinion about current gatekeepers (which, by the way, includes government censorship). This is a clear anti-censorship stance. Combined with your constant snarkiness of "Oh please save us from the bad stuff!" ranting, you were clearly heading towards an absolutist stance. Keeping this in mind, let's take a closer look at your view of government censorship:

if it isnt breaking laws making it [ie, snuff, etc] then whatever floats your boat.

Governments are much more powerful quality control gatekeepers than Sony or Steam or a record label could ever be. The government censors stuff by making it illegal, like childporn/snuff/etc, which is clearly a GOOD THING. Do you support the government censoring this stuff? If so, doesn't that make you a "censor" too? Oh no, then we're both censors in our own way! (This was my entire goddamn point from the beginning.) The only way to avoid being labelled a "censor" is to be an anti-censorship absolutist, which is why I assumed that was your belief system; it's the only way your use of that label would make sense. You constantly trash "censors" as the PC white knight police, but you meanwhile approve of the government doing this exact thing.

TLDR: Calling me a "censor" means nothing, because everyone is a censor to some extent unless you're an anti-censorship absolutist.

And again, you've refused to answer my question as to whether the nazipedojewishchildmurdergame should be censored. I never asked if you supported it or would buy it, I asked if you think Steam/Sony should censor it assuming it wasn't explicit enough to be outright illegal. I'm just going to keep asking you this until you respond with something other than a dodge.

Answer the question.

 

[LegendOfKage]

No, the fools are the people who purchased the game thinking they've made a political statement about censorship.

Just sexist hypocrites. I was trying not to say anything to see if this topic would die, but apparently, some people insist on being unashamedly misogynistic.

DMCA takedowns are censorship. Private pressure groups shaming a company into saying "no" when they already said "yes" on their own is also censorship. Two wrongs don't make a right, and I would never defend the stupid DMCA takedown crap this guy pulled. I might point out that he apologized and offered money for the lost video revenue, but what he did was still bullshit and absolutely an example of censorship. It was also trying to silence criticism on a personal level, which in a sense makes it worse. "I must stop people from saying something bad about my game" vs "I must stop people who think approaching women this way is acceptable."

Still we're talking about a PEGI 16 rated game that, at least in concept, is about humorously offering opinions as to the right and wrong way for a man to express his interest in a woman. You can certainly feel that various examples found in the game are wrong, and I might agree with you. I might feel that there's tons of bad "advice" in this game. But to suggest that this is so offensive or harmful that it shouldn't be released for people to make up their own mind, that I find to be a bit much. I would hope you wouldn't think that I hate or distrust all women because I hold that opinion (your "some people insist on being unashamedly misogynistic," claim), because I also think that would be a bit much.

But yeah, people who bought a game to support anti-censorship when the developer issued a DMCA takedown? We can agree there, that is pretty funny. I also have no personal interest in ever playing this game. FMV games weren't something I cared to play when they first were released, and they aren't something that I care to play now. It is humorous to see Night Trap-ish criticism coming from a FMV game in 2018, though.

And again, you've refused to answer my question as to whether the nazipedojewishchildmurdergame should be censored. I never asked if you supported it or would buy it, I asked if you think Steam/Sony should censor it assuming it wasn't explicit enough to be outright illegal. I'm just going to keep asking you this until you respond with something other than a dodge.

Answer the question.

While I'm not the person you asked, I'll be happy to answer the question. Censorship is the removal or prevention of content for reasons related to personal or political values. It requires someone imposing their own personal or political values to remove or prevent speech or expression.

However, even ignoring personal values, there are non-personal or political reasons Sony might not want to host a game on their service. With your hypothetical game, that is certainly true. And just as Sony may want to avoid associating themselves with the themes you mentioned in your hypothetical example, I could also certainly understand Sony not wanting to associate themselves with the themes of Super Seducer. The answer to your question is a private company deciding not to carry media on their platform does not in itself equal censorship.

The issue in this particular case is that Sony did give a green light to this game, and the game was developed. Time, money, and effort was spent developing a PS4 version. Then a handful of game journalists wrote articles opposed to this game due to personal and political values, they repeatedly reached out to Sony for comment, and then Sony decided not to publish the game. And when people impose their personal or political values to prevent or alter media, that's the definition of censorship.

 

[InterMusketeer]

Whatever happened, it's a bad look for Sony. They can refuse whatever games they want, even after initially accepting the game onto their platform (I assume Super Seducer went through some sort of publishing process before the PS4 version was announced), but this should be done in a timely manner, and with some sort of official statement with explanation why the game was refused. That seems like a fairly normal and expected thing from a company like Sony. You don't just silently ban a game from your platform on the day it was supposed to be released. That's unprofessional, even if in this case the game was pretty small and insignificant. Them potentially listening to a handful of journalists who hated the game? I don't think I have to explain why that would be a horrible course of action. Besides, that never stopped them before from releasing crappy games. I truly hope that's not what happened, but it does seem like the more likely scenario to me.

Like I said before in my short post, I think this game's dumb. I saw some of the clips posted here and I didn't think they were that funny, and the developer frames it as an actual learning tool (lol). It's just a weird and boring product to me, but I certainly wouldn't want to keep others from playing. The whole PUA thing I always thought was a bit overblown. I'd find it hard to believe, but perhaps there's a very slight chance some guy out there playing this game will learn something from it, gain a bit of confidence, and use some of that to find a girlfriend. For women I don't see many downsides. The game doesn't seem to mistreat them, and all that could happen is that some awkward guy approaches you with a dumb pick-up line. Or maybe you're saying this game does indeed contain some secret technique that women wouldn't want to get out? Because in that case I'd have to make an emergency purchase...

 

[Arkage]

While I'm not the person you asked, I'll be happy to answer the question. Censorship is the removal or prevention of content for reasons related to personal or political values. It requires someone imposing their own personal or political values to remove or prevent speech or expression.

However, even ignoring personal values, there are non-personal or political reasons Sony might not want to host a game on their service. With your hypothetical game, that is certainly true. And just as Sony may want to avoid associating themselves with the themes you mentioned in your hypothetical example, I could also certainly understand Sony not wanting to associate themselves with the themes of Super Seducer. The answer to your question is a private company deciding not to carry media on their platform does not in itself equal censorship.

The issue in this particular case is that Sony did give a green light to this game, and the game was developed. Time, money, and effort was spent developing a PS4 version. Then a handful of game journalists wrote articles opposed to this game due to personal and political values, they repeatedly reached out to Sony for comment, and then Sony decided not to publish the game. And when people impose their personal or political values to prevent or alter media, that's the definition of censorship.

Uh, my question is whether Sony should censor a hypothetical Nazipedo game in this other guys opinion. It's pretty specific to my conversation with this other guy if you're confused why I'm asking. I'll move onto the Super Seducer topic since you brought up interesting points.

What specifically does it mean for Sony to give a "green light"? Approve a rough (likely totally innocuous sounding on paper) outline, or did Sony play through a fully functional version of the game, approve it, then it got denied? Due to the controversial nature of the game I would put some of the onus upon the devs to continually reach out to Sony's branch to approve the games specific content/script. Or maybe Sony needs a more robust QA team to weed games like this out earlier, which I'd also support. But I'd also say the devs time, money, and effort spent on developing a PS4 version is part of the risk of game development itself, especially when making a game based upon knowingly hot-button topic material for a platform wanting to maintain its family friendly image.

The chain of events you outlined also don't make a smooth transition. Reporters complained, reporters asked Sony to comment, Sony removed the game. Reporters have no power over Sony to "impose their values" by any measurable means. "Impose" needs to be defined clearly in this context - it's synonymous with force, and I really don't think we can claim the reporters forced Sony to remove the game simply by asking them to comment. If Sony as a company were to take an "official" stance on the topic of PUA content in general, they would more than likely be against it regardless of what reporters think, as it is the safer bet for a hot-button topic, PUA fans are miniscule audience financially, and big tech companies tend to side with the more inclusive/least offensive side of an argument regardless.

 

[EviLore]

Let's deescalate a notch and stay civil all around. Thanks.

 

[Cato]

And again, you've refused to answer my question as to whether the nazipedojewishchildmurdergame should be censored.

Great Whataboutism BTW!

I am not the guy you ask, but I can respond for myself.
Sony can support or block any content they so chose. It is their platform and their choice.

For me, not I do not think that such a game should be censored or banned. Censoring or banning things just turn them to underground channels.
Much better to keep them in the sunlight so they can be criticized.

 

[strange headache]

1) I am not an official
2) I do not suppress material
3) Therefore I am not a censor.

Your argumentum ad dictionarium merely serves as a desperate attempt at hairsplitting in order to deflect from your otherwise weak arguments. If you're in support of (1) censors (in this case SONY) (2) suppressing material, then (3) you are a censor by proxy. I'm sure you're well aware that words don't exist isolated from the context of discussion. If you're in favor of Sony banning this game from its store, then you should at least be honest enough to call a spade a spade.

The fact that you so adamantly refuse to be called a censor merely reinforces your dishonest approach, because if you'd truly believe that censorship were good, you'd have no problem admitting to it.

Jesus that's a lot of whining and personal attacks to sort through. [...] And again, you've refused to answer my question as to whether the nazipedojewishchildmurdergame should be censored. I never asked if you supported it or would buy it, I asked if you think Steam/Sony should censor it assuming it wasn't explicit enough to be outright illegal. I'm just going to keep asking you this until you respond with something other than a dodge.

I don't think that pointing out someone's argumentative dishonesty constitutes a 'personal attack'. With your question you're merely trying to re-frame the discussion, because you're well aware that in the context of this specific case you have no leg to stand on. I really don't see any reason why anybody should engage with your hypothetical question, considering that this topic is about whether Sony was right to ban this specific game or not.

You could save everybody involved in this discussion a lot of time by simply admitting that you don't like this game and are glad it was removed from Sony's store. But you can't do that because it would imply that you're essentially in favor of censorship when it pertains to your subjective taste and sensibilities.

Hence why you're trying to construe some sort of false dilemma by making an argument based on the worst-case scenario rather than the most probable scenario, allowing fear to prevail over reason.

[...] a platform wanting to maintain its family friendly image. [...] Reporters have no power over Sony to "impose their values" by any measurable means.

I hope you're aware that you are contradicting yourself.

 

[LegendOfKage]

What specifically does it mean for Sony to give a "green light"? Approve a rough (likely totally innocuous sounding on paper) outline, or did Sony play through a fully functional version of the game, approve it, then it got denied? Due to the controversial nature of the game I would put some of the onus upon the devs to continually reach out to Sony's branch to approve the games specific content/script. Or maybe Sony needs a more robust QA team to weed games like this out earlier, which I'd also support. But I'd also say the devs time, money, and effort spent on developing a PS4 version is part of the risk of game development itself, especially when making a game based upon knowingly hot-button topic material for a platform wanting to maintain its family friendly image.

Arguably bad dating advice in a PEGI-16 rated game isn't exactly a hot-button topic for most people, outside of a particular group of ideologues. Of course, I hear pool is pretty dangerous.

You do have an interesting point regarding how much is known about a certain project before giving it a green light, though. With that in mind, I'd ask you to name any other game that was canceled entirely the week it was supposed to be released. In response, I would say that even green lighting this game on paper is pretty telling that Sony didn't have an issue with the idea of it, and if it was specific content found within the game they wanted removed, I have to think that it would have been removed. This didn't even get edited.

And Sony doesn't have a "family friendly" image. GTAV required me to torture someone tied to a chair in order to complete the game, and features a scene where your character stomps a man's to death. It would be interesting to show a random group of people the most offensive bits of Super Seducer (in context, of course, meaning that they're the "bad" options) alongside the most offensive bits in GTA V, and ask them what they find more offensive. Not to say nobody would say Super Seducer, but the amount of each would tell you a lot of people are much more offended by a game currently available on the system.

The chain of events you outlined also don't make a smooth transition. Reporters complained, reporters asked Sony to comment, Sony removed the game. Reporters have no power over Sony to "impose their values" by any measurable means. "Impose" needs to be defined clearly in this context - it's synonymous with force, and I really don't think we can claim the reporters forced Sony to remove the game simply by asking them to comment.

The imposing I'm referring to refers to the press imposing their values on the people who would have purchased this game. It doesn't refer to imposing values on Sony. The "force" is that now there isn't a PS4 version of this title.

If Marilyn Manson is set to play your local arena in your happy little conservative town, local reporters write articles associating his music with school shootings and devil worship, those reporters reach out to the arena owners for comment, and those arena owners respond by canceling the show, that is an example of censorship. Those conservative reporters have succeeded in imposing their values on the town. If people are opposed to the conservative ideology that led to the show being canceled, they'll have to travel out of town if they want to see Marilyn Manson, and that might not be an option for some people. I think that's a pretty fair analogy.

If Sony as a company were to take an "official" stance on the topic of PUA content in general, they would more than likely be against it regardless of what reporters think, as it is the safer bet for a hot-button topic, PUA fans are miniscule audience financially, and big tech companies tend to side with the more inclusive/least offensive side of an argument regardless.

I might surprise you here, but I kind of agree with you. While I don't have any issue with bad dating advice appearing on Sony's console, it makes perfect sense that certain sections of the gaming press would flip out over it. This in a FMV type game with barely any gameplay that nobody has heard of. It would have been the smart financial move to say no in the first place. Much more to lose than to gain, here, IMO. But they didn't say no, they said yes. Then the press said "how dare you!" in a matter of speaking, and now here we are. The ideology of the press has been imposed on those who disagree with it, and for people who wanted to see Marilyn Manson in concert play Super Seducer on PS4, they can no longer do so.

 

[Arkage]

Great Whataboutism BTW!

Whataboutism is when you attempt to deflect your own morally bad thing by bringing up your critics own morally bad thing, attempting to change the conversation. My analogy is not this.

The fact that you so adamantly refuse to be called a censor merely reinforces your dishonest approach, because if you'd truly believe that censorship were good, you'd have no problem admitting to it.

As I clearly pointed out my last post, under his use of the word "censor," everyone is a censor "by proxy" whether it be through government or company, so the word as a slur is meaningless despite him constantly using it in that way. Are you a anti-censorship absolutist? No? Then by definition you are a censor "by proxy."

Then you go on to whine for a while about irrelevant shit.

You could save everybody involved in this discussion a lot of time by simply admitting that you don't like this game and are glad it was removed from Sony's store.

I've already said many times, going back to my very first post in this thread, that the game is shit, that the themes are misogynistic, that it's garbage. You could save me a lot of time by actually reading what I've said instead of making a bunch of blatantly false claims that I then have to waste time rebutting by digging up my own post history.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/supe...ice-motherboard.1461349/page-5#post-253206606

I hope you're aware that you are contradicting yourself.

I like how you pull a few words out of two different paragraphs to cherry pick contradictions rather than, say, address my actual argument. "Family friendly" was in context of Sony's own desires as a company. Reporters "imposing" beliefs by "asking for comment" was in context of what qualifies as force in terms of censorship. You might say reporters were forcing Sony to take a side on whether Super Seducer was within their own company norms for "family friendly" but they could in no way force Sony to take their side. And it's especially ironic when people here keep saying these reporters were a small minority fringe and the vast majority of gamers don't care about the game's politics: if this is true, then it's even harder to argue that these reporters could "force" or "impose" anything upon Sony, as they don't represent the gamer population. This actually supports my claim that Sony would've decided against the PUA game regardless of what reporters say. How about we just start admitting Sony (as well as Xbox/Nintendo, and somewhat Steam) is a left-leaning organization? Sorry there are no game companies that are friendly to conservative politics, but you know how it is. Conservatives need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and make their own competing console system. Let the market decide!

Arguably bad dating advice in a PEGI-16 rated game isn't exactly a hot-button topic for most people, outside of a particular group of ideologues. Of course, I hear pool is pretty dangerous.

You do have an interesting point regarding how much is known about a certain project before giving it a green light, though. With that in mind, I'd ask you to name any other game that was canceled entirely the week it was supposed to be released. In response, I would say that even green lighting this game on paper is pretty telling that Sony didn't have an issue with the idea of it, and if it was specific content found within the game they wanted removed, I have to think that it would have been removed. This didn't even get edited.

And Sony doesn't have a "family friendly" image. GTAV required me to torture someone tied to a chair in order to complete the game, and features a scene where your character stomps a man's to death. It would be interesting to show a random group of people the most offensive bits of Super Seducer (in context, of course, meaning that they're the "bad" options) alongside the most offensive bits in GTA V, and ask them what they find more offensive. Not to say nobody would say Super Seducer, but the amount of each would tell you a lot of people are much more offended by a game currently available on the system.

Characterizing MRA tactics created by an MRA leader as "bad dating advice" isn't a reasonable way to assess it's political weight in today's #metoo society.

Sony requiring an edit may have been a more reasonable move, but there was likely zero financial incentive for them to do so. Them spending money on censoring the game down to acceptable standards would probably outweigh any profit they would make from selling it.

As for "family friendly" this game differs from GTA in that parents won't just dismiss it as a bunch of pixels when it's live action video with a dude on a bed with some apparent real-life hookers when you "succeed" at a dialogue choice. This is clearly beyond Sony's family friendly image in a way that GTA isn't due to public perception of game vs live action (correctly or incorrectly). If there was a live-action game of torturing someone it would also be banned.

The imposing I'm referring to refers to the press imposing their values on the people who would have purchased this game. It doesn't refer to imposing values on Sony. The "force" is that now there isn't a PS4 version of this title.

If Marilyn Manson is set to play your local arena in your happy little conservative town, local reporters write articles associating his music with school shootings and devil worship, those reporters reach out to the arena owners for comment, and those arena owners respond by canceling the show, that is an example of censorship. Those conservative reporters have succeeded in imposing their values on the town. If people are opposed to the conservative ideology that led to the show being canceled, they'll have to travel out of town if they want to see Marilyn Manson, and that might not be an option for some people. I think that's a pretty fair analogy.

I'm still not really seeing the connection here. The conservative reporters would only be able to "impose" these values in this way if large numbers of civilians agreed with their argument, leading the local arena owner to cancel the show, though one would wonder why Manson would come to a venue with little financial incentive. Ultimately if the arena owner isn't under threat of violence or illegality, the decision remains totally within his absolute control. It's sort of forcing the owner to take a personal stance on Manson, but even then he could just ignore the reporters if he wanted to. The owner will probably determine this primarily by the financials - how much money will this concert bring in vs how much citizenry will boycott concerts making me lose me money. Ultimately it's still free market money forces of the citizenry making these decisions. Reporters opinions only really matter if their belief is a solid extension of the citizenry (and their spending money) in some capacity.

 

[Dunki]

Characterizing MRA tactics created by an MRA leader as "bad dating advice" isn't a reasonable way to assess it's political weight in today's #metoo society.

He is what now? And again this game teaches you to be respectful to women, to make them feel good etc. It never teaches you to touch a women you do not know. IT teaches you how to day and night are totally different and so on.

Seriously you really lost the plot here and maybe you should play this before arguing further against something you have no idea of....

 

[Electric-Wizard]

I think you are missing my point. Obviously some people get severely messed up by porn. It's a very public display of a traditionally intimate Act. Not everyone is ready for that, even some who think they are. And of course people get in it for the money, or perhaps for the chance at fame.

I could not do porn. I also could not work in a slaughterhouse, be a police officer, or be an EMT. All these jobs would have psychological ramifications that I know I'm not prepared for. I do not do them. Others, sadly, may have little choice but to do a job they are mentally unprepared for because they need to feed their family. Do you think they would prefer being told they're not allowed to work?

So I fail to see where this leads us. Just because I am not prepared to do this job does not mean someone else wouldn't do it willingly. And clearly some people willingly take jobs in these professions. People are allowed to take jobs that risk their very lives, let alone their mental state.

So my point was not that there are never cases where people have issues, but that even if there are cases where people have issues what do you expect to be done about this? Do you actually think criminalizing porn is even an option? Just because some people can't handle it? Does worrying about the mental state of the pornstar you are currently getting off to somehow make it better? Are you suggesting nobody should use porn at all?

My secondary point, was that you cannot even point at specific sub-genres, where people are brutalize or humiliated, because some people are also into that. Your sexual mores are not everyone's, though based on your original post it seemed as if you have some vision of what realistic sex is. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to fantasize about being on either side of, say, a gang bang. Likewise it's perfectly reasonable that an individual may want to be filmed being part of that.

Somewhere you mistranslated my point and seem to think that I am saying nobody gets mentally damaged by porn. Of course someone does. But my point is that doesn't change anything. People should still be allowed to perform porn if they choose to, people should still be able to consume porn if they want to. And we can't limit genre or fetish [ beyond what is already illegal] because people are into whatever sick s*** you can think of.

I read one time they did a study on people's stance on porn and of the male control group, not a single did not watch. Porn is ubiquitous. It has become the norm rather than the exception, and it gets justified and the dark side of it ignored. But the impact of it is real. It is important that people become conscious, see porn for what it really is, look past the facade. Then see if they still feel the same way about it.

It's kind of like, say, starting to ask questions about where your meat comes from. And then you'll read about industrial farming and the horrors of it and suddenly you'll find yourself making an effort to support small farming and consume less meat. The product you buy in the store, became a living being. Similarly, the porn image that those guys were into, became human beings.

Should we not question things, look deeper, and strive to do better?

 

[ar0s]

Then you go on to whine for a while about irrelevant shit.

Oh dear. You have given away there how little you are trying to absorb and understand other peoples' points of view. Especially since you keep stating things that have already been answered, in some cases several times. Dismissing logical argument with that is really disappointing.

It does not matter if it makes everyone a censor by proxy. We are discussing you. You are the only one who is frantically trying to justify how you are not a censor.

Own it, admit it and feel free.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Characterizing MRA tactics created by an MRA leader as "bad dating advice" isn't a reasonable way to assess it's political weight in today's #metoo society.

I always think about things like the widespread acceptance of male circumcision, the overwhelming inequality when it comes to workplace deaths and homelessness, and the infrequency of equally shared custody after divorce when I think of things MRAs care about. Not ways to hit on women.

To be honest, this is kind of news to me. What specific MRA tactics does this game endorse?

Everyone has their own opinions as to what is acceptable or not when approaching the opposite sex, and that's highly subjective to both parties. I would never tell even a small lie to make a connection with someone, but earlier in the thread you had someone posting articles from woman's magazines that suggested doing just that. Seems dumb to me. Seems like bad advice.

Perhaps there is some especially bad scene in this game that I'm not aware of. If you know of any specific examples, I'll be happy to reconsider my opinion.

But unless that's the case, or the game is specifically telling you to use women for sex and then move onto the next, then I think you might be arguing in bad-faith. You could take a "how to meet women" book written by a feminist, and use the "tactics" found in that book for everything from meeting your future wife, to tricking someone into thinking you care about them, screwing them, and moving onto the next.

At the most, this game seems like a mixture of decent advice to approach women, along with some dumb advice that I wouldn't take. As far as metoo goes, if you can point out an actual example of sexual harassment in the game (that is there as an example of something you should do), I'll be happy to take a look.

As for "family friendly" this game differs from GTA in that parents won't just dismiss it as a bunch of pixels when it's live action video with a dude on a bed with some apparent real-life hookers when you "succeed" at a dialogue choice. This is clearly beyond Sony's family friendly image in a way that GTA isn't due to public perception of game vs live action (correctly or incorrectly). If there was a live-action game of torturing someone it would also be banned.

We're not even close to public perception, here. The "public" knows nothing of this game. The public barely knows what Five Nights at Freddie's is, despite their kid wearing his FNAF shirt everywhere. "I don't know, I think it's something about some game he plays." That sort of thing. My point is that show random people both games, and there will be a good number who are FAR more offended by GTA. I think that's a certainty.

The public also doesn't know what the heck an "MRA" is either, nor would they understand why the game with the bearded guy telling you not to creep up behind women is supposed to be worse than the game with the meth head getting curb stomped to death as he's repeatedly called a c***. Oh, and that's only moments after your character had doggie style sex with the guys ex-girlfriend, and as she watches you crush her boyfriend's skull with your boot.

It is stupid to see that guy lying in bed with a few strangely posed women wearing lingerie, but I don't think it would even come close to the most extreme moments of GTA5 for "the public."

I'm still not really seeing the connection here. The conservative reporters would only be able to "impose" these values in this way if large numbers of civilians agreed with their argument, leading the local arena owner to cancel the show, though one would wonder why Manson would come to a venue with little financial incentive. Ultimately if the arena owner isn't under threat of violence or illegality, the decision remains totally within his absolute control. It's sort of forcing the owner to take a personal stance on Manson, but even then he could just ignore the reporters if he wanted to. The owner will probably determine this primarily by the financials - how much money will this concert bring in vs how much citizenry will boycott concerts making me lose me money. Ultimately it's still free market money forces of the citizenry making these decisions. Reporters opinions only really matter if their belief is a solid extension of the citizenry (and their spending money) in some capacity.

Sorry if you saw this already.

https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship

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.

It doesn't come down to "this isn't censorship because the person who caved into pressure could have said no." It comes down to "this is censorship because people succeeded in imposing their personal political or moral values on others."

For an interesting example of television censorship (regarding homosexuality, blasphemy, and a number of other topics) I'd suggest reading this. It's one of the most famed examples of censorship in television history. In this example, the TV show would be Super Seducer / Marilyn Manson, the television network would be Sony / the arena owner, and organized religion and the press would be gaming journalists / anti-Manson journalists.

 

[strange headache]

As I clearly pointed out my last post, under his use of the word "censor," everyone is a censor "by proxy" whether it be through government or company, so the word as a slur is meaningless despite him constantly using it in that way.

That's a moot point though. Everybody lies, that doesn't make lying good neither is it making 'being a liar' any less a slur. What people are discussing is whether being a censor in this particular case is good or not!

Then you go on to whine for a while about irrelevant shit.

Considering your abrasive tone, the only one who's 'whining' seems to be you.

I've already said many times, going back to my very first post in this thread, that the game is shit, that the themes are misogynistic, that it's garbage.

And that's exactly what people take issue with, your tendency to be in favor of censorship when it comes to your subjective and individual taste. I'm sure most people would agree, that this is hardly an adequate benchmark when it comes to something that should be handled in a reasoned and sensible manner, like censorship. A couple of decades ago, people thought AD&D was satanic and Rock'n'Roll was degenerate, by your silly standard that stuff should have been banned too.

Something being 'shit' is no ground for censorship. I think that Justin Bieber is shit, but you don't see me running around trying to get him banned from singing. Also, it should be quite evident that many people seem to disagree with you that the game is 'misogynistic'. If giving crappy/funny/good/whatever dating advice is sexist, then pretty much every women's magazine ever should be censored too.

I like how you pull a few words out of two different paragraphs to cherry pick contradictions rather than, say, address my actual argument.

I'd expect a comment to be at least intrinsically consistent, but maybe that's just me. But even claiming that 'reporters have no power over companies by any measurable means' is inherently contradictory. Reporters have tremendous power when it comes to the public perception. They can make or break a company when it comes to their public image because they can shape public opinion. It's called agenda-setting:

The theory of agenda-setting can be traced to the first chapter of Walter Lippmann's 1922 book, Public Opinion. In that chapter, "The World Outside And The Pictures In Our Heads", Lippmann argues that the mass media are the principal connection between events in the world and the images in the minds of the public. Without using the term "agenda-setting", Walter Lippmann was writing about what we today would call "agenda-setting". Following Lippmann, in 1963, Bernard Cohen observed that the press "may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about. The world will look different to different people," Cohen continues, "depending on the map that is drawn for them by writers, editors, and publishers of the paper they read."

Ramble all you want, but that's essentially what Motherboard/Vice tried to do and successfully so.

Characterizing MRA tactics created by an MRA leader as "bad dating advice" isn't a reasonable way to assess it's political weight in today's #metoo society.

Oh wait, women are allowed to fight for their rights, but men aren't allowed to do the same? Alrighty then...

 

[Moneal]

MRA as it is used by darksol doesn't mean Mens Rights Activists. They mean misogynist, because they believe MRAs are just misogynists. I would wager they don't believe men have any reason to fight for equal treatment for men in any of the areas that LegendOfKage mentioned.

 

[LegendOfKage]

MRA as it is used by darksol doesn't mean Mens Rights Activists. They mean misogynist, because they believe MRAs are just misogynists. I would wager they don't believe men have any reason to fight for equal treatment for men in any of the areas that LegendOfKage mentioned.

Okay, then the question becomes what specific misogynist tactics does this game endorse? I don't think I've read every post in this thread, so if something was mentioned earlier, feel free to point it out. Of course, links to specific scenes in a full playthrough would be best.

I've said my piece on censorship, but I'd be happy to explore the topic of whether or not I personally am opposed to some of this game's content. I may not want it censored, but I might still disagree with it.

 

[Moneal]

Okay, then the question becomes what specific misogynist tactics does this game endorse? I don't think I've read every post in this thread, so if something was mentioned earlier, feel free to point it out. Of course, links to specific scenes in a full playthrough would be best.

I've said my piece on censorship, but I'd be happy to explore the topic of whether or not I personally am opposed to some of this game's content. I may not want it censored, but I might still disagree with it.

If it wasn't clear I don't see the game as misogynistic. Its a part of dating culture.

 

[WaterAstro]

Okay, then the question becomes what specific misogynist tactics does this game endorse? I don't think I've read every post in this thread, so if something was mentioned earlier, feel free to point it out. Of course, links to specific scenes in a full playthrough would be best.

I've said my piece on censorship, but I'd be happy to explore the topic of whether or not I personally am opposed to some of this game's content. I may not want it censored, but I might still disagree with it.

Which part do you disagree with? I'm looking back at posts, but there is just too much, and I can't see any criticisms on the game from a glance.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Which part do you disagree with? I'm looking back at posts, but there is just too much, and I can't see any criticisms on the game from a glance.

"Might still disagree with it" as in my mind might be changed, and maybe there are things in this game that I do feel opposed to. For those who feel that specific content in the game is offensive, I'm asking for that content to be pointed out. Maybe there's common ground to be found, here.

If it wasn't clear I don't see the game as misogynistic.

Oh, that was clear. I was responding to your post, but my changing the question from MRA to misogynist was for anyone who cared to answer. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Electric-Wizard]

autoduelist

To answer your question: I'm in favor of decriminalization. If there's demand, there's going to be supply. Might as well introduce and enforce ethics and best practices. You wanna make a living off of porn? Ok but you'll have to follow these and these rules, ensure safety of your workers and so on.

Legislation can only do so much though. Inspections and having social workers present can make all the difference in seeing what's really going on and to report abuse. You have a producer that bangs his porn actresses? Punish the guy. If your profession is producing porn, then act professional. Also, unions help defend workers' rights.

Same with prostitution. There's going to be demand, so better the state organizes it. You abide by the rules and treat your workers right, good. If not, you get criminally prosecuted. Again have social workers there. See if there is abuse, human trafficking networks behind the scenes and so on.

My point with sex is education. If people are better educated they are less naive and can make better, more conscious decisions. That means tackling the real subjects and talking openly about sex, rather than shaming people. Give people get a realistic view of what's out there. They'll tend to prefer options that pose no harm to others when they have the chance.

Another example. You could say: just let people choose freely what they want to eat. Except they don't/ can't. A 1 billion market wants you to consume snacks and soda beverages and fast food. They've poured millions into marketing research, studies on how to make products more addictive, how to market to kids, and so on. The counterweight to that is education. Thing is, adults who were raised in a convenience, fast food culture, need to educate themselves before they can educate their children.

 

[Arkage]

I always think about things like the widespread acceptance of male circumcision, the overwhelming inequality when it comes to workplace deaths and homelessness, and the infrequency of equally shared custody after divorce when I think of things MRAs care about. Not ways to hit on women.

To be honest, this is kind of news to me. What specific MRA tactics does this game endorse?

Everyone has their own opinions as to what is acceptable or not when approaching the opposite sex, and that's highly subjective to both parties. I would never tell even a small lie to make a connection with someone, but earlier in the thread you had someone posting articles from woman's magazines that suggested doing just that. Seems dumb to me. Seems like bad advice.

Perhaps there is some especially bad scene in this game that I'm not aware of. If you know of any specific examples, I'll be happy to reconsider my opinion.

But unless that's the case, or the game is specifically telling you to use women for sex and then move onto the next, then I think you might be arguing in bad-faith. You could take a "how to meet women" book written by a feminist, and use the "tactics" found in that book for everything from meeting your future wife, to tricking someone into thinking you care about them, screwing them, and moving onto the next.

At the most, this game seems like a mixture of decent advice to approach women, along with some dumb advice that I wouldn't take. As far as metoo goes, if you can point out an actual example of sexual harassment in the game (that is there as an example of something you should do), I'll be happy to take a look.

Sorry I was confusing PUA with MRA, getting the terms confused. The problem with PUA is that lying is acceptable in terms of psychological manipulation. And that pursuing a woman in a relationship (i.e. questioning the value of her relationship in hopes you can make an entry/cheat) are all around shitty ways to be a person. Again, I only watched one chapter of the game and found these two things pretty shitty to do if your goal is be a good person who wants an honest relationship, I'd rather not have to watch more to find more examples. PUA is focused upon only one end goal: getting sex however possible as long as rape or drugging isn't involved (I'd assume). The only reason outright harassment is not a "good thing to do" is because it's less likely to get you sex - not because you actually care about the woman you're pursuing beyond her vagina.

To that end, lying and psychological manipulation are on the table, and practiced as skills. And this loops back into my other argument: even if PUAs aren't "rape culture" per se, Sony would clearly have incentive to avoid supporting an officially designated PUA game on their platform due to the optics of a real life man psychologically manipulating/lying to real life women in the pursuit of sex, and upon winning, ending up in a real bed with real life prostitutes with their own real names.

We're not even close to public perception, here. The "public" knows nothing of this game. The public barely knows what Five Nights at Freddie's is, despite their kid wearing his FNAF shirt everywhere. "I don't know, I think it's something about some game he plays." That sort of thing. My point is that show random people both games, and there will be a good number who are FAR more offended by GTA. I think that's a certainty.

The public also doesn't know what the heck an "MRA" is either, nor would they understand why the game with the bearded guy telling you not to creep up behind women is supposed to be worse than the game with the meth head getting curb stomped to death as he's repeatedly called a c***. Oh, and that's only moments after your character had doggie style sex with the guys ex-girlfriend, and as she watches you crush her boyfriend's skull with your boot.

It is stupid to see that guy lying in bed with a few strangely posed women wearing lingerie, but I don't think it would even come close to the most extreme moments of GTA5 for "the public."

We aren't close to public perception because Sony is mitigating that risk. The game was never released on their platform so the story stops here instead of leading into bigger articles further down the road making claims that Sony is supporting misogyny etc. And what the public does or doesn't know about PUAs isn't well established. PUA has been a thing for decades now going back to the 70s. You also seemed to avoid my main point of that paragraph: it is live action instead of pixels, with apparently real life hookers on a bed with real names and real lives. That's different than pixels. Also: GTA prints money. Also: GTA is an objectively good game. I've said these points many times now sum up why GTA gets a pass and this game doesn't. If GTA were a shitty live action game where all you did was navigate dialogue trees ending in murder and hookers it would be banned.

It doesn't come down to "this isn't censorship because the person who caved into pressure could have said no." It comes down to "this is censorship because people succeeded in imposing their personal political or moral values on others."

For an interesting example of television censorship (regarding homosexuality, blasphemy, and a number of other topics) I'd suggest reading this. It's one of the most famed examples of censorship in television history. In this example, the TV show would be Super Seducer / Marilyn Manson, the television network would be Sony / the arena owner, and organized religion and the press would be gaming journalists / anti-Manson journalists.

We remain divided on what "impose" means. If criticizing a thing and asking if someone agrees with you is now synonymous with "imposing beliefs" then the word "censorship" is being diluted down to the point of near meaninglessness. Now, were reporters threatening Sony, saying they'd boycott Sony and ask Sony fans to boycott and protest as well, like your tv censorship article? Did the reporters who were complaining really have a large amount of social power, like the church did in your article (and like the guy below you in this post claims)? All you said the reporters did was ask for comment. These are different things, and foundational as to whether Sony was being "forced" to do a thing. Force implies a consequence for not doing a thing. When the only consequence is maybe a bit of complaining, then it's clear that Sony is either 1) already aligned with leftist sites to begin with or 2) has an incredibly thin skin. Either way, the onus remains on Sony.

And that's exactly what people take issue with, your tendency to be in favor of censorship when it comes to your subjective and individual taste. I'm sure most people would agree, that this is hardly an adequate benchmark when it comes to something that should be handled in a reasoned and sensible manner, like censorship. A couple of decades ago, people thought AD&D was satanic and Rock'n'Roll was degenerate, by your silly standard that stuff should have been banned too.

Jesus can people read past posts before making a bunch of dumbshit accusations over and over again? I already said that if Sony banned a pro-feminisim game I'd be fine with it because my foundational argument is, and always has been, that Sony can do whatever the fuck they want with its own storefront. I fully support a company's right to censor whatever they want from their own marketplace regardless if I agree with the politics. If a conservative leaning company made their own console and supported this game and banned feminist shit that would also be fine. You people are so wrapped up in your political polarization that you can't help but see every single argument through your partisan lens.

Reporters have tremendous power when it comes to the public perception. They can make or break a company when it comes to their public image because they can shape public opinion. It's called agenda-setting:

ITT:
"Reporters have tremendous power"
"Gamers don't even care about this game, there's no public perception"
"Sony is caving to extremist leftist sites that nobody even reads"

You guys crack me up.

 

[strange headache]

Jesus can people read past posts before making a bunch of dumbshit accusations over and over again? I already said that if Sony banned a pro-feminisim game I'd be fine with it because my foundational argument is, and always has been, that Sony can do whatever the fuck they want with its own storefront.

SONY is well in its right to ban something from its store, but its customers are well in their right to agree or disagree with that. You agree with it, so what? As should be quite evident, quite a few people don't agree with you. In essence, what you're saying has no point whatsoever.

I fully support a company's right to censor whatever they want from their own marketplace regardless if I agree with the politics. If a conservative leaning company made their own console and supported this game and banned feminist shit that would also be fine. You people are so wrapped up in your political polarization that you can't help but see every single argument through your partisan lens.

I'm not the one raging against MRA's and constantly bringing up right and left politics. The only one who seems to be politically polarized seems to be you.

 

[LegendOfKage]

We remain divided on what "impose" means. If criticizing a thing and asking if someone agrees with you is now synonymous with "imposing beliefs" then the word "censorship" is being diluted down to the point of near meaninglessness. Now, were reporters threatening Sony, saying they'd boycott Sony and ask Sony fans to boycott and protest as well, like your tv censorship article? Did the reporters who were complaining really have a large amount of social power, like the church did in your article (and like the guy below you in this post claims)? All you said the reporters did was ask for comment. These are different things, and foundational as to whether Sony was being "forced" to do a thing. Force implies a consequence for not doing a thing. When the only consequence is maybe a bit of complaining, then it's clear that Sony is either 1) already aligned with leftist sites to begin with or 2) has an incredibly thin skin. Either way, the onus remains on Sony.

We aren't close to public perception because Sony is mitigating that risk. The game was never released on their platform so the story stops here instead of leading into bigger articles further down the road making claims that Sony is supporting misogyny etc. And what the public does or doesn't know about PUAs isn't well established. PUA has been a thing for decades now going back to the 70s.

These two things really seem to contradict each other. So game journalists don't have any power, but you feel their next move would likely have been to publicly accuse Sony of supporting misogyny if their personal values were not immediately catered to? And if that game journalism leaked out into the mainstream press, would you suggest that too wouldn't be an example of a large amount of social power?

We'll have to agree to disagree when it comes to our assumptions on how the public would view the worst of this game vs the worst of GTA V. I don't think pixels / live action would matter anywhere near as much as you do.

Full agreement with you on trying to get people to cheat or lying to someone to get close to them, though. That is behavior I'm very much opposed to. Are you suggesting that I'd witness that in the first chapter of this game as the suggested right way to approach a woman? I've seen a few clips from this game, but maybe I should watch a full chapter and decide for myself. Was it the first chapter you watched, or would you suggest something more specific? And again, we agree that Sony probably should have just said no in the first place.

Lastly, just so I don't confuse what you're saying, are you accusing the actresses in this game of being real life prostitutes? Or are you saying that they're supposed to be prostitutes in the game? Is this an assumption, or is it stated somewhere? I don't think that would make a lot of sense either way. "Listen to my dating advise as I sit on this bed with women I paid for." I mean, I guess if they're actresses they were paid for their appearance, but you know what I mean.

 

[ar0s]

The problem with PUA is that lying is acceptable in terms of psychological manipulation. And that pursuing a woman in a relationship (i.e. questioning the value of her relation

Agreed. I also would like to see where this game does that or are you just speaking generally about PUA? If this game is promoting lying and getting people to cheat then I would change my opinion on whether it is potentially harmful (not about whether it should get banned though.)

 

[Dunki]

Recent studies have linked autism to testosterone levels in the womb, so there is evidently a biological basis as you suggest. However, I think people get stuck in a binary mode of thinking and forget that it’s not about all males preferring one thing and all females preferring another thing. There is significant overlap in the distributions as Damore attempted to demonstrate.

It mostly talks about being considered. For example if she was talking how much she likes cats and you answer that you like dogs more which maybe true but in this case its better to "lie" or not even lie but also say cats a cool etc. Another example would be a friend did ask you to take care of her pet and while you have nothing to do you say that you are busy and that you can not. Or that you say that you also like Taccos while in reality you do not.

These are in the games and if they are in there its more about making her feel good instead of being a honest dick.


There is like one questionable thing when you got told from her friend that she actually has a boyfriend. Then you try to "manipulate" her by making him bad. As example was: Does he allow you to talk to other men etc. There also comes the phrase to take independence. By trying to suggest that you boyfriend could be an asshole etc. But this is really the only thing that is questionable in there IMO.

 

[WaterAstro]

It mostly talks about being considered. For example if she was talking how much she likes cats and you answer that you like dogs more which maybe true but in this case its better to "lie" or not even lie but also say cats a cool etc. Another example would be a friend did ask you to take care of her pet and while you have nothing to do you say that you are busy and that you can not. Or that you say that you also like Taccos while in reality you do not.

These are in the games and if they are in there its more about making her feel good instead of being a honest dick.


There is like one questionable thing when you got told from her friend that she actually has a boyfriend. Then you try to "manipulate" her by making him bad. As example was: Does he allow you to talk to other men etc. There also comes the phrase to take independence. By trying to suggest that you boyfriend could be an asshole etc. But this is really the only thing that is questionable in there IMO.

Actually, for the cat and dog example, I feel like the game does present several examples of being honest, but because of the nature of the game, the choices are limited so Richard can make a point.

Saying, I like cats isn't necessarily a lie because it's not mutually exclusive from the fact that you like dogs better. I like cats more than dogs, but I am truth if I say I like dogs because I do. Like you said, it's not a lie if you say cats are cool. It would be a lie if you're terrified of cats or something.

Many other cases, Richard actually suggest presenting the opposite opinion for many cases, although liking dogs more isn't exactly an opposing opinion unlike that one example with the girl in the park when the topic of immigration came up. I could say I like dogs more, and be very intellectual and knowledgeable about dogs, and that might win points. Maybe I can exactly say, "I like dogs more because I have a more active lifestyle, so I want my pet to come along with me while I jog or hike." That makes it a really positive point, at the same time, it may turn off the woman because it does mean you have different interests. In any case, presenting something and using it to look smart is one of the ways to attract a lady, but in this case, if you don't mind cats or like them a bit, it's better to just go with cats.

 

[Arkage]

These two things really seem to contradict each other. So game journalists don't have any power, but you feel their next move would likely have been to publicly accuse Sony of supporting misogyny if their personal values were not immediately catered to? And if that game journalism leaked out into the mainstream press, would you suggest that too wouldn't be an example of a large amount of social power?

We'll have to agree to disagree when it comes to our assumptions on how the public would view the worst of this game vs the worst of GTA V. I don't think pixels / live action would matter anywhere near as much as you do.

Full agreement with you on trying to get people to cheat or lying to someone to get close to them, though. That is behavior I'm very much opposed to. Are you suggesting that I'd witness that in the first chapter of this game as the suggested right way to approach a woman? I've seen a few clips from this game, but maybe I should watch a full chapter and decide for myself. Was it the first chapter you watched, or would you suggest something more specific? And again, we agree that Sony probably should have just said no in the first place.

Lastly, just so I don't confuse what you're saying, are you accusing the actresses in this game of being real life prostitutes? Or are you saying that they're supposed to be prostitutes in the game? Is this an assumption, or is it stated somewhere? I don't think that would make a lot of sense either way. "Listen to my dating advise as I sit on this bed with women I paid for." I mean, I guess if they're actresses they were paid for their appearance, but you know what I mean.

My position on Sony is that they're going to side with progressive politics regardless, so the pressure of reporters isn't actually changing their politics, it's just a means of having Sony own up to their already established positions to begin with. The two quotes you pulled were from two different replies: one addressing what the reporters actually threatened to do (if anything), and the other concerning a hypothetical of how Sony wants to be perceived by liberal leaning publications; two very different scenarios. I again believe that "imposing" requires a threat of public protest/action, not just writing up a critique on their own website and then a request for comment.

Here's the clip I watched. The last 15% of the scenario turns into creep/psychological trickery mode. Prior to that the scenario wasn't bad (except for lying at the beginning in order to start the conversation, pretending to have a female friend that is interested in fashion and you needed a recommendation - not a horrible lie but stupid nonetheless, establishing dishonesty as a workable strategy right away). I haven't watched any others (and am not planning on it) but I'd bet they follow a general 85 normal/15 lyingcreep ratio.

 

[WaterAstro]

My position on Sony is that they're going to side with progressive politics regardless, so the pressure of reporters isn't actually changing their politics, it's just a means of having Sony own up to their already established positions to begin with. The two quotes you pulled were from two different replies: one addressing what the reporters actually threatened to do (if anything), and the other concerning a hypothetical of how Sony wants to be perceived by liberal leaning publications; two very different scenarios. I again believe that "imposing" requires a threat of public protest/action, not just writing up a critique on their own website and then a request for comment.

Here's the clip I watched. The last 15% of the scenario turns into creep/psychological trickery mode. Prior to that the scenario wasn't bad (except for lying at the beginning in order to start the conversation, pretending to have a female friend that is interested in fashion and you needed a recommendation - not a horrible lie but stupid nonetheless, establishing dishonesty as a workable strategy right away). I haven't watched any others (and am not planning on it) but I'd bet they follow a general 85 normal/15 lyingcreep ratio.

I think the icebreaker is just fine. It's more hypothetical than actually asking for advice. There are tons of way he could have approached it, but if Richard is a proven PUA, then he knows that it works. I don't remember if there were other options that were sortof good. A let's play wouldn't do multiple playthroughs, and there are multiple good answers for some questions.

If I remember the last 15%, it's about the boyfriend, right? I think I answered this already in a previous post. It's actually good about what he does because he asks if it is okay for her to be talking to other men. Yes, it's psychological by testing her independence from her boyfriend, but if she does have a problem and wants to be faithful to her boyfriend, then she would tell Richard and Richard would drop the conversation. In the end, you just got her number. Some people think that's too much, but I say to them, is it not okay for a woman in a relationship to have male friends? I think it's perfectly fine, so she can do whatever she wants. Richard just brought up the idea to empower her independence.

 

[Arkage]

It's actually good about what he does because he asks if it is okay for her to be talking to other men. Yes, it's psychological by testing her independence from her boyfriend, but if she does have a problem and wants to be faithful to her boyfriend, then she would tell Richard and Richard would drop the conversation. In the end, you just got her number. Some people think that's too much, but I say to them, is it not okay for a woman in a relationship to have male friends? I think it's perfectly fine, so she can do whatever she wants. Richard just brought up the idea to empower her independence.

Sorry, but you don't test the psychological independence of your opposite-sex friends by questioning the power structure of their relationships with their significant other. This shit is fucked, especially if used on someone you don't even know in order to commit some sort of psychological power grab over them. Go play your freshman psychological manipulation games on someone else.

 

[llien]

It is important that people become conscious, see porn for what it really is, look past the facade.

It is notable that a number of pornstars are actually on the other side of #metoo.

One of the things that surprised me (I'm an immigrant) in Germany was that:
1) legal prostitution with all the bells and whistles (taxes, rent)
2) porn-star celebrities on TV prime time, there seems to be no shaming attached to the profession

I'm not sure whether the point that you are making is that porn is bad in principle or that people in porn industry are mistreated.

 

[Dunki]

Sorry, but you don't test the psychological independence of your opposite-sex friends by questioning the power structure of their relationships with their significant other. This shit is fucked, especially if used on someone you don't even know in order to commit some sort of psychological power grab over them. Go play your freshman psychological manipulation games on someone else.

While I agree that this is the only questionable one since the option to leave is also a failure. but that is really the only thing I would criticize. As for the powergrab and questioning ower structure about people youdo not even now? This is basically happening in almost every political debate on the internet these days.

Also the rest is totally fine.

 

[WaterAstro]

Sorry, but you don't test the psychological independence of your opposite-sex friends by questioning the power structure of their relationships with their significant other. This shit is fucked, especially if used on someone you don't even know in order to commit some sort of psychological power grab over them. Go play your freshman psychological manipulation games on someone else.

So you think it's not okay for women to have male friends? I hope you don't have that kind of thinking for your future relationships because it's really insecure to think like that.

I don't even see it as testing her independence. That's just what it is. I know that I would always be asking that very same question out of courtesy.

 

[A.Romero]

So you think it's not okay for women to have male friends? I hope you don't have that kind of thinking for your future relationships because it's really insecure to think like that.

I don't even see it as testing her independence. That's just what it is. I know that I would always be asking that very same question out of courtesy.

I don't find the game's content questionable at all. Actually I think it's stupid and a very condescending to think that these tactics (that sound beyond stupid to me) would work in women in general.

That said, let's not fool ourselves. I'm all for independence and all that stuff but this game is supposed to be about picking up girls, the guy is clearly flirting with them in every scene. If the girl agrees to share their phone number it would be knowing that the guy is not looking for just friends. I don't personally care even if my SO does it but to argue that the intention here is to build friendship it's naive at best.

I have played 2 scenes so far and I got kind of bored. It's not bad, I like interactive movie games but I don't enjoy visual novels so I feel like that Larry David gif.

Still, I believe it should not be banned. I feel people that think that this stuff works on women just because they are women show a clear ignorance of how people think and behave (doesn't matter if they believe it's right or wrong... It's neither, it's just stupid).

 

[Hotel Security]

I really don't like the pseudo-censorship by the PC Police out there.

Rather than just say "I don't like this so I won't buy it." people say "I don't like this so I'll complain and hope that no one else will get to play it." You basically have people who don't like a product ruining things for others who might like the product. Why can't they just not purchase it and move on with their lives? And it's sad that these game companies give in to this shit...just because some folks whine on social media doesn't mean they have to listen to them.

This reminds me of all those old ladies who would listen to Howard Stern just so they could find offensive things so they could report him to the FCC. They couldn't just "not listen" to him...they had to go on a crusade to stop him.

I never thought we'd see MORE censorship nowadays than we used to have 20 years ago but it feels that's where we're headed. All these liberals around yet everyone's somehow acting more conservative. It doesn't make sense. Just goes to show that everything is cyclical, even the 1950's.

 

[A.Romero]

I really don't like the pseudo-censorship by the PC Police out there.

Rather than just say "I don't like this so I won't buy it." people say "I don't like this so I'll complain and hope that no one else will get to play it." You basically have people who don't like a product ruining things for others who might like the product. Why can't they just not purchase it and move on with their lives? And it's sad that these game companies give in to this shit...just because some folks whine on social media doesn't mean they have to listen to them.

This reminds me of all those old ladies who would listen to Howard Stern just so they could find offensive things so they could report him to the FCC. They couldn't just "not listen" to him...they had to go on a crusade to stop him.

I never thought we'd see MORE censorship nowadays than we used to have 20 years ago but it feels that's where we're headed. All these liberals around yet everyone's somehow acting more conservative. It doesn't make sense. Just goes to show that everything is cyclical, even the 1950's.

This is the main point of the issue and I feel some people are having a hard time understanding why this is dangerous (and stupid).

I can't believe people find stuff like this or lack of diversity in games more offensive that mass murder and extreme violence, not that any of it should be banned.

I hope society understands it before the damage is so big that it takes a lot of time and effort to come back.

 

[WaterAstro]

I don't find the game's content questionable at all. Actually I think it's stupid and a very condescending to think that these tactics (that sound beyond stupid to me) would work in women in general.

That said, let's not fool ourselves. I'm all for independence and all that stuff but this game is supposed to be about picking up girls, the guy is clearly flirting with them in every scene. If the girl agrees to share their phone number it would be knowing that the guy is not looking for just friends. I don't personally care even if my SO does it but to argue that the intention here is to build friendship it's naive at best.

I have played 2 scenes so far and I got kind of bored. It's not bad, I like interactive movie games but I don't enjoy visual novels so I feel like that Larry David gif.

Still, I believe it should not be banned. I feel people that think that this stuff works on women just because they are women show a clear ignorance of how people think and behave (doesn't matter if they believe it's right or wrong... It's neither, it's just stupid).

Well, it sounds like you haven't played that much. The game generally teaches to approach women and converse in an honest and respectful manner. There are some things that have a PUA shady feeling, but nothing crosses the line imo.

I definitely wouldn't engage women in the exact same way as the game does because I have my personality and style, but I think for someone who is introvert and insecure, this is something that might help them get out. The advice is sound enough that it's not going to get them in trouble.

 

[Kenpachii]

Media gets banned / restricted all the time from storefronts and everywhere else. And for a good reason.

What you find or don't find isn't important to anybody else but yourself. If you dislike something you either start something to collect votes and make change, or you simple move on to a platform that does offer your needs.

Endless bickering is pointless.

Sony choice was to not release it as in there vision it's bad taste, and that's the end of it.

 

[ar0s]

Did you read the thread Ken? Sony made the "choice" as they were afraid of a massive co-ordinated press campaign.

 

[KonradLaw]

Not interested in the game itself, but I'm happy Steam doesn't buckle under mob pressure. First with Hatred and now with this.

 

[Electric-Wizard]

It is notable that a number of pornstars are actually on the other side of #metoo.

One of the things that surprised me (I'm an immigrant) in Germany was that:
1) legal prostitution with all the bells and whistles (taxes, rent)
2) porn-star celebrities on TV prime time, there seems to be no shaming attached to the profession

I'm not sure whether the point that you are making is that porn is bad in principle or that people in porn industry are mistreated.

I wouldn't say bad in principle, but bad in that it carries negative consequences by depicting sex in a way that is unrealistic and degrading to women. Which then becomes the norm people (teens) mirror themselves against (unconsciously or not). But I dunno, maybe it is inevitable it ends up this way when you try to sell sex as a product detached from personal relationship and intimacy, and are driven primarily by revenue.

I'm also saying that it's an industry that abuses its workers. I'm no expert, but that was my impression from a few video reports I've seen on the subject (Louis Theroux has tackled it too). Frankly, it doesn't surprise me. Porn is in the horny business. It's fake, acting. By facade I mean that in a way similarly to, say, the food industry: once you find out how it's made, you may lose your appetite.

Look, there's a need for stuff to get off on. That's not going to change. I just think we need to reflect on the image porn sends forth and what kind of practices it supports in its current state. It easier to look away and not care, but it carries real life consequences. Like I said before, I don't believe in outlawing, but I do believe in public debate and regulation.

 

[Electric-Wizard]

Media gets banned / restricted all the time from storefronts and everywhere else. And for a good reason.

What you find or don't find isn't important to anybody else but yourself. If you dislike something you either start something to collect votes and make change, or you simple move on to a platform that does offer your needs.

Endless bickering is pointless.

Sony choice was to not release it as in there vision it's bad taste, and that's the end of it.

It's not just about personal choice though, but also what kind of a society you want to live in, which things should be allowed and which shouldn't. You may find yourself living under an overly oppressive regime or on the other hand that things, which in your opinion cross a line, are allowed to follow course without intervention (this line can be violence, hate, sex, race, religion and so on). The debate of course is on where that line should be drawn.

But yes things get blown up and people invested in ideological debates over a minor thing, like is the case here. Your post is sobering.