Anonymous #1 7w

I guess war thunder right now. Not sure, it changes.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Should Collective Shout be able to censor War Thunder if they decide that glorifying violence is bad for kids?

9

Anonymous #1 7w

I think there are moral bounds on both permissiveness and restrictiveness. A long form moral argument can be made to justify why Warthunder is acceptable for reasonably mature children. But such an argument would take long than a yik yak post.

-9

Anonymous #1 7w

What is obviously morally unacceptable for anyone is violent noncon or other sexual crime. And it’s a psychological fact that engaging with such material does affect the brain in negative ways which harm both the person and society.

-4

Anonymous OP 7w

I don’t know much about collective shout, for argument sake I’m going to assume they are exclusively reactionary. They can be wrong in their end goal of restriction and right that our current state is exclusively permissive. Everyone becomes “conservative” once society becomes as open as they believe is correct. Everyone is a “liberal” until that point.

-3

Anonymous OP 7w

If they're wrong about their end goal, you shouldn't support them in the short term just because you agree with their current target. If this was Steam deciding not to host certain content anymore, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But the fact is that it's an external pressure group using payment processors to enforce their own ideology on the biggest PC gaming marketplace. I'm not mad that a bunch of weird incest AI slop games got banned, I'm mad that some assholes with money decided it.

11

Anonymous big_al_the_riddler 7w

I don’t universally agree. If other people like rape and incest simulators I still don’t think they should be available, platformed or monetized. Once again I think there is a limit to what simulated experiences people should have easy access to and violent sexual crime is beyond it. If people want to play that they need help, not a free hand.

-6

Anonymous #1 7w

I see your point there, but I don’t “support” them exactly. I just think the basic content of their argument “this game contains unacceptable content and is therefore unacceptable.” Is not wrong. Steam is an unaccountable body whose only goal is to make money. Good on them, bug that means moral restraint will come from outside.

-2

Anonymous OP 7w

Collective Shout is also an unaccountable body. Again, I also find the content of the removed games (as well as their almost unanimous poor quality and use of AI generated assets) to be extremely distasteful. The problem is that this is a third party creating demands that apply to almost every single PC gamer on earth by leveraging an even more unaccountable body, payment processors. It's an extremely slippery slope.

5

Anonymous OP 7w

Okay, I misunderstood what you were getting at here, I thought you were equating what I said about Kingdom Hearts to games like…that. I have no idea about the background of what you’re talking about here so I’m gonna sit this one out lol

1

Anonymous #1 7w

It is a slippery slope. But you know what’s also a slippery slope? pushing rape porn. Yes the methods could be better, such as legal restrictions, but until then arresting the progress of something like that is objectively correct. Keep in mind, that kind of shit escalates too. We’re on a slippery slope and have reached the point of mass availability of rape simulators is a reality, it will continue to get worse if someone doesn’t do something.

-3

Anonymous big_al_the_riddler 7w

Fair enough.

-1

Anonymous OP 7w

Again, I completely disagree with the content of the games and think Steam should not host them. But at this point, a group with a specific ideological agenda is dictating what content is and is not allowed on Steam because of their own preferences. If this was a far left group saying that games which contain, for example, violence against women should all be delisted from Steam, I think the vast majority of people supporting this would see the other side of the picture.

8

Anonymous #1 7w

I was under the impression collective shout was a far left group. My point is that everyone has an ideological agenda, you can’t escape that. On any given issue you either want things to get more permissive, more restrictive, or stay about the same. All of that is dictated by ideology, as in what you believe is correct. I think we disagree only on the methodology. You don’t think pressuring payment processors to remove a product from a storefront is the right thing to do.

-4

Anonymous #1 7w

My position is that is exactly the same as using sanctions against a rogue state or criminal organization. Or boycotting a business in the civil rights era. You can’t walk up to someone who is willingly platforming rape simulators and tell them “hey, that’s wrong and you should stop.” If they thought it was wrong they would be doing it in the first place. You stop drug crime by arresting drug dealers and making it hard for them to do business, not asking them directly to stop.

-4

Anonymous #4 7w

There are long form arguments about the exact grounds of various moral principles. I say we can pretty rationally draw the line at sexual abuse being obscene and immoral. We can do so by appealing to the internal beliefs of most moral structures, by a crude harm standard, and by even cruder consensus. I personally believe in absolute morality so I will just say God gets to define what’s obscene and immoral.

-11

Anonymous #6 7w

Agree with you overall but it's not true that Mouthwashing was delisted in this purge

3

Anonymous #6 7w

You do recognize you have just posited the existence of a universal moral system and attempted to impose it on me, with as it happens significantly more fervor and emotional than I did. You say that I’m the one morally grandstanding and imposing my beliefs on others. But you’re doing exactly that. Libertarian philosophy requires the imposition of the ideal of non imposition. Similar to the post modern rejection of meta narrative being in and of itself a meta narrative.

-3

Anonymous OP 7w

The mental gymnastics to justify imposing your beliefs on others is really something. I believe in complete autonomy. And the argument that allowing others freedom of decision is somehow a restriction of your own decision is frankly ridiculous. It’s a very very simple concept, leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone. This pertains to literally any aspect of life.

5

Anonymous #1 7w

Are you sure? I saw multiple people speak on it. I could be wrong but that’s why it seemed extremely excessive.

1

Anonymous #6 7w

Complete autonomy being an absolute is a moral claim, just like every other. In order to state that it is an absolute you must impose that belief upon everyone who believes in other absolute moral frameworks. There is no logical distinction between the two. “Do not tell others what to do.” Is a command on the behavior of others, in other words it’s telling them what to do.

-1

Anonymous #7 7w

No. Maybe I should have just used the meme, but I meant this as my game take that had me like that. Which as you can see it does.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Oh lol, yeah I read the post as part of it mb

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Okay, what if they say feminine dominance is sexually immoral? Or homosexuality? Or crossdressing? You want to give a random corporation the power to tell you your morals. If you don’t like a game, don’t play it. You don’t need to be babied. And that’s not even to mention how “sexual immorality” is a very common tool used to explore story and character depth anyway. if you don’t want immorality in your games, go play Barbie Princess Dreams.

6

Anonymous OP 7w

Fuck your god

-1

Anonymous #8 7w

You’re not having a discussion with a reasonable person. I don’t agree with most of the things you just listed, but OP doesn’t understand that it’s possible to not agree and also not infringe. Giving corporations or government the ability to dictate personal morality will only end in chaos.

4

Anonymous #8 7w

Okay. What’s the alternative? Is nothing immoral? Should games be able to depict anything the devs want in whatever detail they want? I don’t think that’s a good idea. CSAM for example is pretty commonly believed to be immoral, is that also a matter of opinion. Despite #6s inability to grasp my arguments I actually do believe in reasonable standards. For instance, all of what you just described are actions between consenting adults. The content of these games were not.

0

Anonymous OP 7w

Drawing the line at “sexual behavior that is displayed in an interactive manner must depict legal acts.” Isn’t an absurd standard, I don’t quite agree but am willing to compromise at that point. But my point wasn’t that collective shout is absolutely correct, it was that they and steam were right about the rape simulators. And no. I don’t want to give a random corporation power over my morals. I just said they were right on this one.

-1

Anonymous #4 7w

You hyper fixated on my personal beliefs without addressing the rest of the arguments I posed. Humanists also tend to think rape is immoral, as do polytheists. Does my belief in God mean I am unable to see that rape is immoral, or are you criticizing my position that rape is immoral? I thought that was generally a point of consensus among most people, but I suppose you must disagree.

0

Anonymous OP 7w

I'm criticizing that you rely on a deity, who may or may not exist with whom most people cannot see or hear, to dictate the lives of others. Many use their faith to justify violence or censorship against those they deem different. So, again, screw your god.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

I grasp your argument just fine, you just can’t grasp that you’re wrong. You’re allowing and advocating for payment processing companies, not even the games distributors, to make moral distinctions on what should and shouldn’t be allowed to purchase based on a phony pretense of your own world view. You’re starting down the slippery slope of what games can then be targeted based on real world legality. GTA has nothing but crime in game so that’s out. Almost every need for speed is gone.

1

Anonymous #6 7w

What about any shooter game? Assuming your head isn’t in a hole (which based on your continuous hard locked trash takes it is) you’d see what’s actually going on under the new child protection laws in the UK. Games which “depict harm to a human or humanoid creature” are banned. You are advocating for the beginning of creative censorship which will end in your own regret.

3

Anonymous #6 7w

don’t even bother with boot lickers, they can’t even comprehend that they’re being robbed blind

1

Anonymous #5 7w

As a conservative leaning libertarian it’s wild to me that OP can have this dense of a take. Like every other conservative I know in person hates overreach like this and now we are supposed to be ok with this massive censorship? Hell no. Like I said to #8, I’m not a fan of the homo or cross dressing stuff from the jump, but when there’s a game with that stuff in it I just simply don’t buy or play it. I don’t advocate for the banning of that content because I don’t agree with it.

1

Anonymous #6 7w

Let’s turn down the temperature a bit. I have a question. Do you believe that there is anything which is truly unacceptable to be put in a video game in graphic and interactive form? I understand the “don’t play it.” Mentality, and trust me I avoid many kinds of media, but I still think there’s a line that shouldn’t be crossed socially. Do you think differently? If so how are we supposed to handle things like CSAM?

1