More from the ongoing "Christian" vs video games drama
(twitter.com)
Comments (59)
sorted by:
There are plenty of games that don't have fanservice. Why don't censorship happy wokes and "Christians" just play those games and leave the games they don't like alone? And let the free market decide what gamers want .
The game in the screenshot, The First Descendant, isn't even that popular. People tried it out and left in droves because the grind and MTXs are nuts. So hot chicks appear to not be able to carry a game on their own.
You're using the logic of libertarianism and individualism. Both are failed philosophies, that say that any form of collectivism (grouping up) is inherently wrong, or doesn't exist. We do group up, for numerous reasons (survival, marriage, family, community, towns, jobs, hobbies, governments, peoples, nations, militaries, church, etc.), and grouping up is justified and reasonable, using the logic that we, as imperfect, finite, mortal creatures, can achieve more together than we can apart. Your argument also relies upon the suggestion that environmental factors don't affect us, which is false. This is plainly seen in the never ending pursuit of "freedoms" that the left and hedonistic right (under libertarianism) is pursuing, wanting ever more new hedonistic pleasures, pursuits, pathways, bread and circuses, comforts, and they label them as "rights" or "freedoms" to justify their constant need for new dopamine hits in the confines of socially acceptable discourse (i.e. freedom = good).
We have the right to have our own nations, people, and laws. Christians have these same rights, and nothing in the Bible bars them (us) from political life, or action, or collectivism, or making laws. It doesn't look like it right now, given how eroded Western civilization has become against the Christian domination of the White West that was prevalent up to 100 years ago, which we were pushed away from by incremental pushes and acceptance of sin by blatantly evil people, people who are now openly advocating for satanism, and have always been anti-Christian. What's happened since the move of Western civilization away from Christianity?
We're currently living in the "utopia" that libertarians and satanists want. It's just that they forever want more. Drugs are freely available everywhere, and the ability to get and use them is being increasingly advanced. Porn, adultery, prostitution, whoring, scantily clad women, and temptations toward lust are everywhere and freely available to anyone. Sexual degeneracy (like homosexuality, transgenderism, and now pedophilia) is rife and everywhere, and much of it is accepted, even in the mainstream Christian right. Junk food is everywhere and cheap. TV, movies, video games, and mindless entertainment (bread and circuses) are everywhere and freely available to anyone.
What has all this "freedom" resulted in? The degradation of society and its people. The more enticements to sin you surround and subject people to, the more likely they are to sin. It's a direct correlation.
As Christians, the 2nd commandment of Jesus is to love our neighbors as ourselves. Neighbors aren't just the people living right next to us, but our people in our nation (if they weren't being subverted via open borders and mass immigration). If we truly love our neighbors, we wouldn't subject them to an endless parade of enticements to sin. We would try to protect our brethren from harm, because we love them. Similar to why we don't throw drugs at our children and act surprised when they start using drugs, we don't throw porn and coomer bait at our fellow men, because we love them. Porn is used to control people. Just ask the Palestinians what the Israelis did when they gained control of Palestinian TV (free porn broadcast on TV). Scantily clad women (coomer bait) achieves the same thing. It entices men to sexual sin, to lust after women that aren't his wife. Men must have a high sex drive to perpetuate the species. Why then, would we subject men to a mountain of lustful temptations, if we love them?
Lol, "we love men". Right up until we need them to die for Isreal.
I'm not advocating for that. The people in power hate us, and I actively tell any man to not join the military or police, and to deny the lies like "Israel is our greatest ally". Men should not partake in corrupted groups. In this context, they should root out the corruption, or form their own groups and overthrow the corrupted ones.
Libertarianism isn't anti-collectives. Voluntarism, an integral subsection of libertarianism, is EXPLICITLY about the voluntary nature of collaboration (hence the name).
Your nice long leftist meme of a wall text amounts to nothing more than statism. Licking the boot in the hopes that when you're in charge, you'll be a just and holy leader through the needed means of subjugation that will lead them to the promised ends of salvation. Just ignore that it's never happened, isn't happening and will never happen.
The problem with "the greater good" is that every ideologue uses it to justify any immorality they rationalise to "need".
You must not know the inherent tenets of libertarian thought, then. The big L and little l libertarians both espouse the view that societies and nations are amorphous economic zones completely detached from the people that inhabit them, and those people also demonize any White person from ever collectivizing, for any reason whatsoever, up to and including for mutual survival.
Libertarians are nearly identical to all other right wing normies. They hate race realism, hate any criticism of Israel, label increasing numbers of hedonisms as "rights" and "freedoms", disregard the health of their neighbors from the exposure to those hedonisms, advocate for open borders and mass immigration (so long as it's "legal"), and think everything is perfectly fine so long as the GDP and stock market go up. It's little more than economic and governmental mammonism. They'd sell out their neighbors for money, and they're actively doing it right now, just like all other right wing normies.
Long form communication has been around for thousands of years. They're called books, and what I wrote is substantially shorter than a book. Just because you've been brainrotted by short form social media that's intentionally designed to keep you hooked and pursuing a never ending stream of dopamine hits, doesn't make my comment a "leftist meme" or a "wall of text". You're not genuine in that criticism, either. If you agreed with my "wall of text", you'd extoll the virtues of it, but merely because you disagree with what I said, you demonize it, and latch onto any criticism you can, applying it to me unfairly, whereas you don't apply it to those you agree with. You're being a hypocrite. Stop it.
Furthermore, I'm absolutely fine with extremely limited government. I only advocate the idea that government is a natural formation for all groups, regardless of size or intent, that some people must invariably create rules and enforce those rules in order to protect that group, otherwise that group will eventually cease to exist. We can absolutely debate the form and magnitude of government, but not the need and nature of it. If you want a specific view of my ideal form of government, it's that it's incrementally less powerful the more people it controls, the farther away it gets from the average citizen, and the less shared commonality the people have under its jurisdiction. This would mean the United States was the ideal form of government when it was initially created, where local and state governments controlled the most (or could control the most, given the option of the citizenry), and the federal government controlled the least, because it oversaw the most people, was far away on average, and the commonality of the people was much less.
You must not know me very well. Go read through my comments. I repeatedly express the desire to violently revolt and kill the people in charge. Lick their boots? I wish to see their "boots" dangling from trees.
See what I mean. You're ideology makes you incapable of understanding that every group must have collective interests. Every group, regardless of size or intent, forms around common interests, goals, and commonality. Marriage, families, tribes, survival, militaries, militias, cities, castles, jobs, hobbies, states, nations, and peoples, they're all groups with collective interests. At some point, someone must enumerate rules/laws for that group, and enforce those rules, for the "greater good" of that group, otherwise that group will inevitably fail in the future.
What are the basic tenets that a group must have for it to continue to exist? The people must have the right to group up in the first place, which also means they must have the right to group up with whom they choose (regardless for what reasons), they must have the right to control who enters that group, they must have the right to protect the borders of that group (or gatekeep, if it's a group without borders, like a hobby), they must have the right to espouse for their collective interests, and the group must have the ability to protect itself and its constituent members from harm, from conquering or subversive forces from without, or from subversive and destructive forces from within. Without those natural rights, all groups, everywhere, would cease to exist. Coincidentally, this denial of basic natural rights is being explicitly denied to White people in the West, because the people in power hate us and are actively replacing and genociding us.
If you'd like a connection to the culture war, just look at what's happened to many of our hobbies and beloved IPs. They've been infiltrated, subverted, and destroyed because the people that enjoyed those hobbies and IPs didn't properly gatekeep, they didn't espouse for their collective interests, they didn't control their borders, they didn't control who entered,. They let in subversive and destructive people, who have decimated what we love.
If you deny the greater good, the collective, the group, you will destroy that group. This is actively taking place, and you're defending it, because you're actively denying people's natural rights to group up and maintain that group.
You've accepted the lie of individualism, that ignores the collective. I'm not arguing in favor of pure rampant collectivism. That too is destructive. Reality meets in the middle, a healthy balance between individualism and collectivism, where the liberties of the individual aren't trampled, or very little, but the collective health is ensured, so that the individual too, is protected. You may argue the evils of such things using modern analogues, but you'd be forced to admit that the modern examples are all being run by malicious people intentionally destroying the groups they oversee. Believe it or not, groups can be overseen by people that love the people they're responsible for, and act in their interests.
Damn son, that's a whole lot of writing that completely ignores and avoids the key principle of voluntarism being brought up.
Please, do share more about how you wish you could force others to do your bidding so you can achieve your utopia. I'm sure any day you'll bring about true peace and prosperity on earth any day now, so long as they follow your specific brand of statism.
Ah yes, the classic intellectually fallacious and lazy fallback position of "I have no retort, so I'll just criticize the them on anything I can grasp onto". You have no problem with length. You're only criticizing it here because you can't respond or refute, so you try to sling any criticism you can in the hopes that your critic or the audience (which has now left this discussion), will be manipulated into a fallacious argument, away from the pertinent discussion. If you're so monumentally retarded that you view all long form discussion as inherently bad, you've been completely brainrotted by short form dopamine driven social media (engineering), then it casts doubt on all your other positions.
Even though an ad hominem is a logical fallacy, reality shows us that source absolutely matters. It's how people can recognize patterns, determine what's good or bad, and make sweeping judgments upon the groups that are good or bad.
If you think libertarian "volunteerism" is the same as collectivism (grouping up for mutual benefit, goals, and commonality), you're a moron. I explained the differences above, but since you apparently don't like to read, well, that's on you. I won't explain it again. Perhaps if you ever undo the damage that short form content has caused you, you might reconsider your asinine position that anything longer than a 10 second quip is inherently bad.
Government is force. See, this is why I know you're an idiot. You have no clue what government is, how it operates, or why it exists. I attempted to explain above, but again, you can't read. Government operates to enact the will of the governed (or when corrupt, the will of the people in charge). Government comes about precisely because people group up (collectivize), because all groups must (if they wish to survive) enumerate rules for that group, and enforce those rules for the benefit of the group and constituent members. Government, by its very nature, relies upon force (i.e. violence, or the threat of violence). Rules are meaningless if there is no force to back them up. Rules and laws are foundationally and inherently "do this, or else". If rules/laws aren't enforced, there's zero reason to have them in the first place, zero effectuallity of government or the need to keep it around.
If you're arguing that force is inherently bad, it ultimately means you're an anarchist. By this position you've espoused, you've displayed your ignorance to the subject (again), not knowing that what you're advocating for is anarchism, not libertarianism.
Yes, thank you for noticing. My positions and arguments on government are logically sound and consistent, so they work, and my position even allows a wide breadth of possible governmental forms, so long as they follow the basic tenets of what government should be and how it should operate, and remains uncorrupted. When government does become corrupt, it ultimately requires men to retake their own responsibilities, and use their natural right of violence against their oppressors in government, to reform the government, and shape it and man it to enact their will.
It's sad how easy it has been to get you to write paragraphs and paragraphs about how much you really want to engage in violence against people that want to unironically be left alone and engage in voluntary and consensual co-operation. Like it's clear that I'm not reading this because I don't care what you have to say, but you're so hell bent on winning an internet argument that you bite the bait every time. Which funnily enough shows just how poorly you would do at any sort of "governing" since you can't even show enough self control to not respond to obvious bait.
I can type fast. What may take long for you, is quite quick for me. It's a habit I've practiced for many years.
Furthermore, you're signaling your ignorance to why debate is good, even when it's not being conducted properly. Debate (whether good or bad), enables a man to practice his habits in good debate. Debate lets a man practice his arguments and explore his ideas. Debate lets the audience hear different viewpoints. Debate lets a man challenge his ideas against an intractable opponent, to truly determine if he is correct. Ideas, like men, are honed through hardship and challenge. Weak men hold weak ideas, and for the same reasons.
Since you shirk away from any challenge to your views, since you refuse to participate in a thorough examination of your ideas, if you refuse to challenge your own ideas, if you refuse to participate in good debate, you inherently weaken your own position, because all of your ideas are unchallenged, unexplored, unreflected, and weak.
That's not what I've been advocating at all. All groups, regardless of size or context, must be homogeneous. Government should, at whatever level its at, only enforce rules along the lines of agreed homogeneity of the people it rules.
However, this position can only work so long as the government and the people (nation) are healthy and uncorrupted. This isn't the case currently, as the people in power hate us, have been intentionally propagandizing our own people against us, have been importing people who are not like us, and are intentionally diversifying us in philosophy, habits, traditions, language, religion, politics, morality, and race. In every conceivable way, the people in power are taking away our natural homogeneity, and destroying it, to weaken our collective bonds, to weaken us, to make us easier to control. Thus, it becomes necessary for people to enforce their views upon the wider whole, to rebuild the homogeneity that was lost, and fight back against the intentional diversification of their people, and violently fight back against the people doing it (and their supporters). In this, I openly admit and condone the use of violence, because violence isn't inherently wrong. You will, of course, latch onto this as a perceived victory, without acknowledging the reasoning.
I'm sorry you refuse to see this, because you're holding onto one facet of this argument with such a fervent stranglehold that you refuse to see the bigger picture.
You further admit that you're brainrotted, incapable of reading or engaging in any content longer than 15 seconds, and hold inherently weak unchallenged ideas.
Good debate requires all parties be civil, logical, honest, and pursue truth above all else. In this way, even if one side, or both sides, is proven wrong in the debate, in part or whole, they can accept the truth openly and proudly. That's how you "win" a debate, by coming closer to the truth. Only fools think they "win" a debate by the standards you profess. But, to be fair, there are a great many fools in modern society that think that's how debates are won, so at least you're not alone in your foolishness.
And to repeat what I said above, which you will also not read, I intentionally challenge my ideas in long form debate, because I don't want to hold weak ideas, I want to know if I'm right or wrong, I want to explore my ideas, I want to practice my views and arguments. I want my ideas to be strong and practiced. I want to be sure. This takes time and length. It's identical to exercise, which takes a lot of time and dedicated effort. You can't do short form exercise and see massive results. It takes time and effort, which you actively refuse. People's views shape their entire reality, so I must also reason that you're also fat, unfit, unpracticed, and lazy.
On the contrary, my habits would make me worlds better at governing than someone like you, who are an admitted fool. And, weirdly, you tacitly admit that all of your responses have been "bait", meaning that you've been behaving disingenuinously this entire time, thus every word you said must be taken as a lie or manipulation, in one regard or another.
In any case, I don't care if what you said was "bait". All of the above reasons for why debate is needed and meritous, that I outlined above, still work when you engage an opponent in a debate who is "baiting" or being disingenous. Most of the best, long form debates I've ever had have been with people similar to you, practicing bad debate, who prioritize themselves above truth, who cling to their views like an anchor, who would rather die than admit wrong in any form, who are being disingenuous.
This shit right here. Christians are super annoying about stuff like this. They need to go play Civilization 5 or something.
Not sure why you seem to be on a crusade (heh) against Christians, but putting that aside...yeah, this is obnoxious, and reeks.
For one thing, no matter who does it, I hate the 'you need us' whining and bullying tone.
Citation fucking needed. Looks like victimhood nonsense. No, Christians shouldn't be hunted down and excluded. But people with bad takes should be called out. I don't want anyone shoving anything down my throat, and I don't care if your censorship or authoritarianism is rooted in progressivism, Christianity, or what; I've been pretty consistent that I largely want to be left alone.
Same advice applies to puritans offended by "lewd" games that goes for feminists, alphabet advocates, and the like: Don't like it, don't play or buy it. Easy.
I'm not in a crusade against anyone. I think this is an (((op))) designed to derail the cultural switch away from SJWs. Christians are generally not interested in video games until someone (usually boomers) gets them ruled up. So this nonsense especially at this crucial time is very sus.
Christians below 50 grew up with videogames, so tend to be more interested than you think.
I looked at his twitter account. He has made a separate tweet mentioning a couple of possible examples, Melonie Mac and John Trent. Someone replied to Jon elsewhere claiming that Jon is mad about his kickstarter (maybe meant patreon?) getting banned/taken down. Jon also seems to not understand what "canceling" is.
Here's the problem, the 'Christians' (because they're NOT a monolith) came at this like 'is this all you want?' sounding very judgmental when we've had nearly a decade of leftists stripping out attractive women in games and THREE decades of 'think of the children!' with violence in video games.
ALL these games are rated appropriately for adults whether it pertains to violence or sexual content. You don't like it, there's other games out there to cater to you. This seems like a retreading of the old path that led to Christians LOSING cultural relevance to the left.
If it sells, it sells. Once the DEI uglification is sorted out and the reactionary bimbofication runs it's course, we'll probably find an equilibrium. Then gamers can use mods to tailor their games to be as modest or erotic as they wish. Though I doubt there are many mods on nexus right now to put baggy pants on 2B.
I want to see 2B in parachute pants now.
This is a no one with 76 likes on a post, who gives a shit what he says?
It is coomerbait as well, and there is nothing wrong with calling obvious coomerbait as coomerbait. If you like scantily clad women then you don't give a shit that it is designed to entice you because you are getting what you want.
Jon del Arroz's a sci-fi author who sued (and settled) with Worldcon after they banned him for the usual lefty shit. Has written some stuff on Bounding Into Comics on the right side of the culture war. However, I'll quote Larry Correia here:
Not a complete nobody and makes the right people angry, but also seems to pop up whenever there is some drama brewing.
From what you described, imo that is a no one, and probably an even sadder version as a no one that tried to be something and embarrassingly failed even with the tiny group of people he had influence with.
Honestly popularity is not a great measure of a person anyway so I'm not trying to say anything other than, who fucking cares what someone on twitter says, especially when you can tell it is done to drum up drama.
I tend to comment the same thing often because we all get caught up in outrage about various absolutely braindead takes coming from the internet at large, and it just gets tiresome at times.
I'm more excited for the korean grind quest version of Horizon because that could actually be fun.
First Descendent is like someone mushed all of the live service looter shooters together and stuffed the mess into a korean soap opera skin.
It does look pretty though, but gameplay wise it is utterly skill-less with everything being a gear check.
I quit when my progression stalled and realized my next marginal upgrade came from a .5% drop on 15 or so minute setup loop. But when I upgrade my video card I'll probably re-install unless something better comes along to exercise the system.
Win one election and all the social media junkies are looking for new conflicts to fight in instead of building consensus.
Sad when people D&C themselves.
The First Descendant only has fan-service going for it, because it's a typical UE5 game, meaning, plenty of micro-stutters and caching issues and hiccups in the gameplay when you don't need it most. The gunplay is unbearably generic and the story would have been better told as a single-player game.
The highlights is that the men are either impossibly handsome or rugged, and the women are all drop-dead gorgeous to appeal to one kind of male gamer or another. But that's about all it has. The platforming segments are horribly janky (due once again to the micro-stutter and latency, and the fact that the grappling isn't very reliable), and the boss fights are okay but usually just a bullet-sponging slog with some ridiculous AOE attacks.
But as yoisi said, if people don't like it, don't play it. It's the polar opposite of the woke games insofar that the gameplay isn't much of the selling point as the characters are. So they took the early approach that Blizzard did with Overwatch and banked on it.
I doubt The First Descendant will stick around on the market for long unless they do some kind of gameplay overhaul within the next year, because right now Warframe is identical in terms of gameplay loops, but it's the superior game in every single regard when it comes to actual gameplay mechanics, melee combat, traversal, and gunplay.
Shad had a good counter video on both sides (and a Mormon side.)
Pornography in the Bible is deemed what is acceptable in society mixed with what the person looking has in their heart and wedlock. If someone lusts for another in their heart and out of wedlock, it is sin. If someone can admire beauty without wanting to bed the figure, it is fine (within reason, obviously.)
The major issue is the “Christians” pushing their own version as the true belief. That is never true and there is always nuances in society that will counter someone else belief.
I've been a fan of Shad for a long time but that video disgusted me. He was acting exactly like the Pharisees and Sadducees, who constantly tried to legalese their way out of God's commandments. These were the very same people that wrote the Talmud, a book using legalese to "interpret" scripture to mean the exact opposite of what God commands.
Shad was arguing that coomer bait isn't wrong and that lust isn't sinful. His argument rests entirely on the failed philosophies of rampant individualism and libertarianism, ideas which have become so prevalent in the mainstream right, and Christianity, as to warp Christian doctrine in the minds of modern Christians. Shad was also attempting to be a Christian, but appease the world. You can't be the former if you do the latter. He knows much of his audience are gamers and enjoyers of coom bait. He makes a lot of it himself, under the guise "it's for me and my wife". So, he didn't want to come out with a stance that might be controversial in the sinful nature of today's world, which is inherent cowardice and not what God commanded us to act like.
He tried to legalese his way around the fact that Christian doctrine clearly states that lusting after a woman who isn't your wife is the same as adultery (Matthew 5:27–28). He also argued that it's up to each of us to avoid temptation and sin, which is true, but completely negates social pressures and environmental factors. The more you subject people to temptation, the more likely they are to sin. Shad was suggesting otherwise, that it's perfectly fine to drown men in sexual temptation, but then act surprised when more and more men fall victim to lust.
Shad's argument also ignores Jesus' 2nd commandment to us, to love our neighbor as ourselves, Our neighbors aren't just the people living right next to us, but our nation and people. If you truly love someone, you won't subject them to an endless stream of insurmountable temptation. We don't constantly throw drugs at toddlers and kids and then act surprised when they become drug addicts, and we don't do so, because we love them, and protect them because we love them. Similarly, we shouldn't be throwing an endless supply of sexual temptation at men from every aspect of society, and then act surprised that men fall to sin.
If you love someone, you protect them, even from temptations that you know they may fall into. Love isn't just a feeling. Love is an action, and best displayed in action.
That wasn’t what he said at all. He stated that if you see ankles and it tempts you just over the picture, get away from it. If a pretty anime picture is advertising for McDonalds and you shrug when you walk by, it’s fine. He also stated that there is a hard stop for media when it’s created for the sole purpose of lustful acts (porn sites and the like.)
As for social norms, it’s up to us to set the social norms. By removing media we find objectionable, we create an underground of temptation by those who have not learned the downside of sin. By teaching people to avoid said media, the media goes away or is just straight ineffective. It’s not that the media exists is the problem, but men have forgotten about how to avoid the temptation of sin.
Go watch his video again. He was completely separating the temptation of lust from environmental factors, putting all blame on the men who fall to lust. He is only half right. We are responsible for our own actions, but his argument rests on the false premise that we're not part of a collective, a group, and that we have no responsibility for other members of our group. That is an antithetical viewpoint to the "love thy neighbor" commandment of Jesus.
Why do you think so much media is intentionally designed to draw the male gaze? Even people who aren't intentionally designing their art, media, or entertainment to drive men to lust, still know the nature of men, that "sex sells", and it's aimed almost universally at men, to put sexually attractive women in their products, to sell the sex appeal, purely to drive engagement from men. That is intentionally designed lustful temptation.
However, most art, media, and entertainment made nowadays is specifically designed to be destructive. It's designed to tempt men into falling into lust, to weaken and control men, which is the exact same intent and design for why porn is so widely available in the West, or anywhere globohomo wishes to subvert.
I agree with this. If we truly love our neighbors, we'll shape a society, an environment, which is conducive to healthy living, so that our neighbors aren't tempted and fall into sin.
Again, I disagree with this statement. You and Shad are intentionally ignoring the environmental factors at play. Men becoming addicted to porn directly correlates with its widespread availability. Drug use is directly tied to the availability of drugs. Alcohol use is directly tied to the availability of alcohol. Smoking is directly tied to the availability of cigarettes. And, the usage of those things is also tied to how society treats them, if they're pushed or not, accepted or not.
We're in the downward slide from the peak of civilization in the West. This is the period where people eschew the responsibilities, lessons, laws, and traditions of their ancestors, who conquered, built, and maintained civilization. Instead of these burdens, people increasingly shirk them in favor of increasing comforts, pleasure, and hedonism, a never ending pursuit of a new dopamine high that only results in a death spiral for the individual and society. This is abundantly clear everywhere throughout society, at every level. This is the time where we should be the most restrictive of what temptations people are exposed to, in an effort to deny or delay the slide of civilization toward collapse, if that can be achieved at all. This all rests, however, on the premise that our civilization deserves to be saved, and that we love our neighbors.
I know this is a difficult concept to grok in the oversexualized society we Westerners all grew up in, but it is possible to appreciate beauty, purely for the aesthetic value, without lusting for it. Unfortunately, a generation of coomers struggles to look at even classical sculptures without thinking "muh dik", so will trip all over themselves for coomerbait games.
Oh, I absolutely agree. I've posted long form comments for why banning porn is good, and for why porn isn't speech, which explained my position further. Art can show nudity but still be constructive and beautiful. It's the intention behind the art that matters, and how well it's conveyed in the art. Art, media, and entertainment being made now is intentionally being made to be destructive, to be ugly, to drive men to lustful temptation.
I hope we can return to a time where that's not the case, and soon. That will require a correction of a great many things, which can only occur through one path, but I've written about that numerous times. No need to go through it here.
Banish the tourists from my hobby. If you want to ban this shit you don't belong here and I want you gone. You aren't welcome and you never were. This is just a resurgence of the Jack Thompson and his ilk.
Just because the Left came for my games doesn't mean I've forgotten when the Christian Right did the same. They're both outsiders that need to be driven out with fire and sword.
Except for that nagging problem that the Christian right were, well, right.
Degeneracy is a graduated scale, starting with scantily clad characters in video games, progressing in scale to naked men prancing down the street at gay pride parades, and drag queen story hour.
I have lived long enough to see degeneracy advance to permeate our entire culture. I haven't forgotten VP candidate Dan Quayle criticizing the TV show Murphy Brown for showing an out of wedlock birth on TV, and now, 32 years later, out of wedlock births for white mothers is well over 20%.
You may be fine with such depictions of scantily clad women, but you must know that doing so is a step down the path of degeneracy that ultimately leads to pedo.
Tourists? So, how long have you been in this hobby? Since the 360? PS2 maybe?
Since I learned how to navigate DOS to launch Commander Keen, Episode 1: Marooned on Mars. Sorry, it's probably before your time so you wouldn't know it.
Don't question my credentials child, I predate you by a generation at least if those are your benchmarks for legacy.
Hilariously, you have it entirely backwards. I named those two systems because they were the most I expected of you, but I started with the Commodore 64 and Atari 2600, which shared an old black and white TV as a monitor.
Kudos for good taste, though. I always did enjoy Apogee's old games and there was a time Keen was the best platformer around.
Lmao we're not tourists. Get over it homo. Not everything needs to be pornofied just because leftists want to make everything look like shit. We don't need your welcome faggot
You absolutely are. Get the fuck out of my hobby and don't come back. It's not about the sex, it's about the censorship and hostility towards the medium. This attack is as unwelcome today as it was in the 90s and the people supporting it don't belong here.
I can see both sides and agree with the Christians on an abstract moral level but think they're being stupid on a practical level. The argument over the morals of gratuitousness in media is really a separate one from the one we've been fighting with moral authoritarian infiltrators, who are not opposed to gratuitousness in and of itself. They are simply opposed to the idea of being free to enjoy whatever you want to, particularly if you're a white heterosexual male, plus they'd love to destroy whiteness and the concept of traditional masculinity, conceptually. Captured content is often gory and sexual, if that provocativeness helps to undermine traditional values somehow.
Freedom in media has to be the watchword and 'moral media' is meaningless if it's a top down model, imposed by anyone other than me (j/k). Until this conflict has an outcome, any discussion about the moral degenerative effects of lurid content in gaming is pretty pointless, because normal functioning heterosexual archetypes are still being suppressed here. I think there's a discussion to be had about the value, or dearth of value, of games that wallow in lurid trash, but to the extent that the conservatives in this side-discussion are presenting themselves as maybe wanting to ban that content, all over again, then they're setting themselves up as puppets in a psyop. Then again, so are the ones screaming 'reee fucking christcucks' and repeating 'woke right', the gayphrase of the week.
who says you have to be Christian to object to smutty crap? shit like this is why I never picked up Nier Autaomata despite all of the glowing reviews it got from gamers. there comes a point where it becomes way too embarrassing to play.
All that said, I would never try to take the stuff away from people. the most I would do is slap an 18+ label on it.
Nier automata is a genuinely fantastic game with basically zero fanservice of note outside of one DLC costume and if you use the mostly pointless self destruct button you can put the MC in a leotard.
The coomer obsession with one of the protags is just a meme and does not reflect on the game itself. The prior game has more fanservice bait (that's where the dlc comes from) and it wasn't known for that either.
The skirt with no pants combined with ladder climbing was unironically more embarrassing than genshin impact. https://youtu.be/6uIpO9xUC74?si=DhW4GC4_2bpQmPbS
You know you control the camara and you can chose not to look up her skirt right?
Oh no, a clothed ass that you will see for two minutes if you try to look up every time you use a ladder across a hundred hour game.
Stellar blade is pretty cringe because it tries to be coomerbait, nier is just memed on.
You’re a fudgepacker, we get it!
I'm pretty sure the coomer for video games is more likely to be the queer in this situation
So The guy that hates seeing the attractive woman is actually the straight one? Sounds like fudgepacker logic to me.
Maybe the two of you can get a nice little cottage in the country together instead of pulling each other’s puds in public like this?
Why do you have that video bookmarked?
it's a little known thing called internet search
I also really struggle with these as well, because a huge amount (I might argue majority) of the supporters for female beauty in games will really only accept a pixel's width short of actual pornography. So you're stuck with two polar opposites to choose to support, ugly as sin man-women or slutty women who would look at home on OnlyFans.
Nier wasn't bad though. I've played it twice. The vast majority of the time you have to put effort into looking for smut. Even the ladder clip you mention involves intentionally manipulating the camera to look up a skirt. I'd call it acceptable for whatever it's rated as.
If everyone wasn't so disgustingly FAT this would not even be noticeable TBH. Western nations are anti-beauty. They celebrate ugliness, uselessness and disease ignorance, stupidity and apathy as the highest order a human can achieve. Christianity is much of the reason this is the case. Im happy to see beauty, youth and health displayed in a video game. If it is too risque then I won't let my kids play it.
That's a ridiculous statement. Christians have glorified God's creations since their inception. Do you ever see a fat Jesus on the cross? Is David depicted with a beer gut?
You had me up until you blamed the ugliness of modernity on Christianity, which the modern West largely turned its back on back in the 60s and 70s. And disgusting obesity being everywhere only really became a thing in the past ~20 years.
Retarded take. Look at Christian art mongoloid
This game is the issue not the game where you can fuck a bear