> @ted_bunny "In the past" is inevitabilist framing. I don't think it'll ever be normal or ok to let kids play mass murder simulators. Just because our culture

> @ted_bunny "In the past" is inevitabilist framing. I don't think it'll ever be normal or ok to let kids play mass murder simulators. Just because our culture has decided to accept it doesn't mean the matter is settled. If there was any actual evidence to support the assumption that "mass murder simulators" have a negative long-term effect on humans, this wouldn't be nonsense. (I do know that it does have a slight short-term effect on violent tendencies.) EDIT: I noticed that comment was removed but I didn't want to delete my reply to it!) Similarly, if there was evidence to support that people engaging in "forbidden" sexual content in a fictional context, somehow influenced real human behavior in that space (does "cheating wife" porn encourage more actual cheating, or "incest porn" encourage more incest?), this group's righteous campaign might actually have substance instead of being devoid of it. Otherwise you're basically just doing baseless thought-policing based on Argumentum ad Nauseam fallacies. "I don't like the fictional content you're engaging with... Just because!" People really have some major difficulty for some reason discussing these things rationally. For example, take a brother and sister, raised separately, who meet by chance and end up feeling intense GSA (genetic sexual attraction). It just so happens that the sister is infertile. They want to have a relationship. Who is actually harmed by that, again? Anyway. Also related, my previous comment on this story which was posted yesterday, pointing out the hypocrisy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44614427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44614427