47 ms·
It is sad that in 2025 this needs to be repeated: fiction is not real. This statement imply that: * Simulated violence is not violence. * Simulated sex is n
by bji9jhff 1y ago
It is sad that in 2025 this needs to be repeated: fiction is not real.
This statement imply that:
* Simulated violence is not violence.
* Simulated sex is not sex.
* Simulated sorcery is not sorcery
- nkrisc 1y agoAnd yet it is possible to make simulations extreme enough I would not opposed to banning them. There are some things that should not be normalized in society. It shouldn’t be payment processors doing it unilaterally, I’ll grant that. But I’m not (and I’m sure a great many more of a silent majority) wholly opposed to the outcome.
- Hizonner 1y ago> There are some things that should not be normalized in society. That attitude has recently become normalized, and I find it Concerning(TM).
- miningape 1y agoYeah, who gets to decide whats too far? There's a similar issue with free speech - the moment you ban certain speech the door to banning your political opposition opens.
- encom 1y agoFrom what I can tell, only one country in the world has free speech. Actual free speech. USA.
- 1970-01-01 1y agoIts dying fast. The Late Show was just cancelled because it was a massive thorn to the POTUS.
- bdangubic 1y agoI love a good “POTUS” conspiracy as much as the next guy but The Late Show cancelation is a simple money game, the show was bleeeding money. If the show was profitable the chance of it being cancelled are same as me dating Beyonce
- 1970-01-01 1y agoTechnically yes, but the money game was CBS losing a massive lawsuit to POTUS.
- bdangubic 1y agoI would agree with this if this was factual, the money cbs paid via 60 minutes nonsense is same if you were fined a dime for something you did today. so not “massive” but whatever is the exact opposite of massive The show itself was losing viewership cause who the F watches late night TV these days?
- 8note 1y agois said late night TV actually expensive though? they have a payong audience, and the whole thing is an ad for whoever is selling a book or movie release. whats gonna replace that slot that people are gonna watch? a blank screen?
- bdangubic 1y agoif you have a car that is a money pit you and your family keep bleeding money on to make repairs, would you keep making repairs or get another car? all of TV is a simple money game, shows get canceled, new ones spruce up, they get canceled, some are super successful but run their course, others stink from the get-go. what is going to replace the late show? not sure but whatever it does it better make money for cbs or the same faith awaits it
- mulmen 1y agoInteresting, do you have a source for that claim? Mallen Baker [1] says it was gaining viewers. [1]: https://youtu.be/KMLZAE4okWs https://youtu.be/KMLZAE4okWs
- krapp 1y agoI don't know what your definition of "actual" free speech is but there are certainly limits to free speech even in the US[0]. And those are just explicit limits. Try supporting Palestine on a college campus or mentioning women or gay people in any government funded scientific publication, or finding a book portraying pro-LGBT content in a library or a school curriculum that portrays slavery in a way that "makes white people feel victimized" in the South. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- bdangubic 1y agoSupporting Palestine would get you deported to El Salvador (or worse) :)
- josephcsible 1y agoIsn't freedom of speech just "you're allowed to say whatever you want", and not "you're entitled to the use of taxpayer dollars to help distribute your message" or "you're entitled to have the government force children to read your message"?
- 8note 1y agohaving a green card or visa stripped because you said something is not "having the government force children to read your message"
- encom 1y agoThe limits to speech (in USA) depends (roughly) on if it's intended to incite imminent lawless action and is likely to do so. Actual speech is communicating ideas or opinions, even distasteful or unpopular ones. The fact that university morons throw a riot if anyone disagrees with them (many such cases), does not affect your right to do so. Denmark passed a law in 2023 that makes public burning, tearing, stepping on, or defiling holy texts illegal. It's informally called the Quran Law, because everyone knows who doesn't tolerate any criticism of their religion at all. This is one of many limits on speech in Denmark. In my view, speech is either free or it isn't, hence my argument that only USA has free speech.
- bdangubic 1y agoThanks for this mate, REALLY needed this laugh on this fine end-of-grinding-workweek… Fantastic!!
- seanclayton 1y ago> Yeah, who gets to decide whats too far? The ruling ethnic group, of course, as is tradition.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- freddie_mercury 1y ago> There's a similar issue with free speech - the moment you ban certain speech the door to banning your political opposition opens. There is TONS of speech that is banned, even in America. There isn't a single place on the planet that has no limits on speech.
- nkrisc 1y agoThat’s the tricky bit.
- FeepingCreature 1y agoYou should make a petition. Maybe we can exclude pro-exclusion websites from payment processors. This is not okay, and we need to take a strong moral stance here. Some views should not be acceptable in a society.
- Thorrez 1y agoRecently? Hasn't society always topics they thought shouldn't be normalized?
- nkrisc 1y agoRecently? Such a sentiment has existed since the dawn of human society.
- krustyburger 1y agoThe term “silent majority” has a very specific political meaning. But, in what way do you think those opposing “extreme” content being consumed by their fellow citizens are silent? State governments across the country are clamoring to censor all sorts of things, presumably to satisfy their constituents.
- cool_dude85 1y agoFor the people who disagree: would you really be interested in seeing Child Grooming Simulator 25 on steam? I think we can almost all reasonably agree that at least this sort of content should not be sold on there.
- krustyburger 1y agoWon’t somebody please think of the children?
- cool_dude85 1y agoWhen we start saying "no content restrictions besides illegal stuff", your hyperbolic question becomes legitimate in a way that it's not when we're talking about Doom.
- Dracophoenix 1y agoCorrection: Won't somebody please think of the pixels?
- Shekelphile 1y agothere are already hundreds, if not thousands of anime lolicon porn games on steam. the people making a stink about this know this but are pretending that they don't because it would overtly out them as pedophiles.
- Thorrez 1y agoAre you saying the people who are petitioning Steam to remove porn games are playing the porn games themselves and simultaneously pretending porn games don't exist on Steam? That doesn't make sense.
- mango7283 1y agoIt's possible he means people saying steam should not delist anything due to pressure from activists are tacitly condoning sketchy lolicon games.
- lxgr 1y agoPersonally, I won't miss these games either, but it just seems like such a slippery slope to normalize achieving societal/political goals through exerting pressure on infrastructure companies instead of through democratic means. I totally support this type of pressure being exerted on companies involved in editorializing and providing an audience (e.g. I don't think Valve should be required by law to carry any form of content, just like a publisher can't be forced to print any content it doesn't agree with). But infrastructure, due to being both fundamental to doing business and generally living in a society and very often being at least regionally monopolistic in nature, should be open to anybody that's acting within the law. And conversely, if something seems ethically or morally unacceptable to a rule-based society, what ought to change is the law. That's all assuming a functioning democratic and political process, of course, but it generally seems to be possible even in the US, with its strong protections of speech, to limit certain types of speech under obscenity laws, so I don't really get the desire to outsource this inherently political process to private corporations.
- martin-t 1y ago> ethically or morally unacceptable What does that mean? For example if something can be shown to cause actual harm to innocent individuals, i find it morally unacceptable. But some people will tell you anything banned by their favorite fairytale or their upbringing is morally unacceptable.
- lxgr 1y agoThat's a complicated question I'd like to see settled via legislation and in courts interpreting (and sometimes overturning) these laws rather than in a private corporation's compliance and/or PR department.
- martin-t 1y agoIt definitely should not be determined by corporations because they not elected and almost untouchable by the individuals affected. The state is a less bad alternative but bad (unintentionally harmful) and malicious (intentionally harmful) decisions are generally not punished either. When people set rules which affect others, they should also be held accountable. And in general, rules limiting a person's behavior should only exist when that behavior can be _proven_ to be harmful. They should be determined by individuals capable of critical and logical thinking and without anything personal to gain from the rules. They should not be determined by individuals who have antisocial traits or who are indoctrinated into various belief systems which are founded on preferential treatment (such as religion).
- Dilettante_ 1y agoThere is a world of nuance separating "normalizing" and "banning" something though, that's simply a false dichotomy. I'd wager most "normal" people would recoil at the idea of eating excrement and, for all my open-mindedness, it's probably not something I'd actively endorse. But banning it is on a whole other leaf. Things can and should be allowed to exist on the fringe. Otherwise we're moving towards the subject of the T.S. Eliot quote where "everything that is not forbidden will be compulsory, and everything not compulsory will be forbidden."
- BeFlatXIII 1y agoNormalization is a fake argument that sounds fancy, not a real thing.
- mbs159 1y ago> There are some things that should not be normalized in society. Who gets to decide these things and based on what?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- 1970-01-01 1y agoIt's a slippery slope. It's not real but can certainly, by definition, create a situation that mimics reality to the point of assisting someone at committing a real crime that they couldn't possibly commit without the simulation.
- layer8 1y agoShould also ban GTA then. /s
- dandellion 1y agoAnd all Hollywood studios as well.
- mango7283 1y agoYou say this like they haven't already tried.
- voxl 1y agoThe slippery slope is in banning speech. If you want to make the claim that simulated sex leads to crimes we have been over this a thousand times with violence in games. There is no connection, you are without a leg to stand on except your own religious indoctrination.
- 1970-01-01 1y ago[flagged]
- 1970-01-01 1y ago>There is no connection, you are without a leg to stand on except your own religious indoctrination. Flagging my reply is gross (you state that, not me!) and grounds for ban. I'll just leave this 2nd rebuttal here as I take back both my legs to stand on and yours as well :P https://www.pcmag.com/news/take-it-down-act-deepfake-revenge-porn-bill-clears-congress-what-to-know https://www.pcmag.com/news/take-it-down-act-deepfake-revenge...
- cindyllm 1y agoLet's simulate playing detective to reveal the true identities of the dead Let's simulate grave digging Let's simulate blackmailing the dead for an eternity For fun AND for profit
- amelius 1y agoViolence is still considered ok in games, last time I checked. Which is possibly because violence is not as awkward to watch with your family as sex is.
- 8note 1y agoi think peoppe would probably have much better sex in general if it wasnt so taboo, and so people could get outside feedback on how theyre doing
- Dilettante_ 1y agoI could do without Jeff from accounting showing off his latest proud performance with the wife to the coworkers like it's his golf swing.
- SXX 1y agoSomething tells me Jeff from accounting can still freely show photos of him "hunting" with some dead wild animals and few will consider it gross.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- const_cast 1y agoViolence has no religious morality baggage - religions were extremely violent. Sex, however, has all the baggage from all the angles. Even if we aren't religious, it doesn't matter, religion still dictates huge chunks of our lives and our mindsets. It has thousands of years of inertia.
- 0dayz 1y agoAbrahamic religion is prudish about sex none of the pagan or Buddhism is prudish.
- dartharva 1y agoSure, but simulation does give you exposure. And too much exposure (from the simulations going mainstream) begets normalization, something you definitely do NOT want with content like that. We are already suffering enough from pop media making many kinds of abhorrent behavior mainstream.