Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:Why do we need lines and barriers exactly?
Because the majority of people everywhere, including me, don't want to see beheadings, or tortured dogs, or abused bodies, and various other things. They are for our comfort and make us happier, like other social rules, such as prohibition of violence, theft, and on the lower end of the scale lying and cussing and libel and slander. I'm open to arguments that it's closer to lying, where there are clear situations where breaking the taboo is acceptable as an exception but not the rule.
I'd rather these things be open to create, but not forced to not exist just because someone decided to make a Grimdark world.
Out of interest, what do you consider the difference between government-controlled censorship, company-controlled denial to share products or information, and fights fought against products or information lead or started by either individuals or groups of people?
1: That's wrong, the motives are probably for public interest or government interest.
2: That coexists with the third
3: This is where the public goes "I don't like this. Be destroyed" and goes on a crusade against it.
Motives are probably the first thing that comes to mind.
Some people say only the government's action are called censorship, and are worse than the other two. I think censorship is useful as a general term, and I agree government-controlled it is the worst. Companies shouldn't have power to deny people things through a monopoly, but they don't have to support any single product. Individuals and groups have the right to protest and demand things, but those demands shouldn't always be met.
Pretty much my stance.
You say radical, I say pretty average. There's nothing radical about Extra Credits.
Yes, that was a bit jumping the gun.
Tropes vs Games series isn't radical either, and I don't remember Anita saying or doing anything that would paint her as a radical feminist either, but you might be able to dig something up.
Considering she said "You can't be sexist against men", yes I do think that she's getting there.
Considering that many radical groups are boycotting developers who don't support them.
This is what I meant by you taking sides, and being wrong. You oppose feminism and then go on to claim ridiculous things that make me go WHAT. How can I take you seriously when you spout stuff like this? Especially when you don't explain half your statements. What is "Gone Home paradox"? That you don't like it but some people do?
1: I am, again, I don't take any side. I simply oppose the radical or more vocal sect of feminism. Feminism itself is something that is certainly required in parts of the world. But it shouldn't be forced on people.
2: The Gone Home Paradox comes from an argument I had with a member of the LGBT community (Treading very lightly here, because people can be sensitive) where first he/she claimed that more representation was a good thing but also had argued earlier that the LGBT community wants equality and to be treated like normal people.
Again, no offense to the person I argued against, or the LGBT community in general. You're all probably very nice people.
The so called paradox is something that every radical social justice movement in this day and age will come across, it's where you claim to be for equality and justice, yet demand further representation of so called "Unrepresented groups", this is a paradox because it's enacting your doctrine but going against it at the same time.
In social areas, you run into it by wanting equality in gaming for example, yet wanting to be above the trash talk and harassment we all go through at some point.
Meaning, you want social superiority or privilege despite using the banner of social justice or equality.
It's really a fallacy, but isn't.