I have to say, this is the only thing Valve could do, they are a platform provider and should not have to dictate to what people should and should not play and what game creators should and should not make.
If its 18+ it should be clearly marked as such and only certain ways can be used to purchase the game. Parents will have to take responsibility of what their kids play, simple as that. If parents dont give a hoot then why should others have to for them.
No, you got my argument completely wrong. Not surprising; you're merely trying to frame my argument as something easier to counter.
The example given, complete with scholarly reaearch included
I stopped reading right there.
I already know whatever you cite next is politically slanted all the while ignoring key points in my argument, that violent crime statistics by race, does not support your claim. Your boogeyman just isn't there.
I stated my opinion. I will continue to stand by it.
Valve made their decision without you.
Have more faith in people and the free market.
Your position shows your ignorance of how African Americans were actively demonized by the government, placing then into the very socioeconomic situations that breed crime. O won't waste time giving you actual facts, Cabinet member quotes, or studies that support it, because you're one of those "the facts only matter when they're my facts" kind of people.
Funny how games suddenly become about politics, well not funny really, games have become a political punchbag over the last few years. No, Video games do not encourage violent behaviour, this has been proven numerous times already, but apparently feelings have more validity than facts these days. We get the usual rhetoric from 'concerned individuals' over what should be allowed and what should not, with numerous straw man arguments that really say more about the person using them than anything else. We have age ratings on games, but apparently that is not enough for some people, they want to have a say on what you are allowed to buy, that Valve are not willing to be a party to this is in all honesty a smart move, the more these authoritarians attempt to put restrictions on what we can and cannot do, the more we should all push back against it, because it is an attack on our individual freedoms no matter how they try to spin it, the free market works, people will ultimately vote with their wallets on whether something is worth it or not, just look at Disneys recent fiasco with Solo, a direct consequence of The Last Jedi which has them losing over $80 million likely over $100 million when all is done and dusted. Consumers will always vote with their wallets, likewise if a game is good it will sell, if it isn't then the developer will likely either make a loss or so little profit that they have no choice but to improve their games. All Valve are doing is providing a platform for developers to sell their games, that Valve also has a pretty good returns policy now is also a huge positive factor, and although there is usually only a 2 hour window, the recent debacle of Bless Online has shown that Valve are willing to extend that window for refunds if necessary. Really though, have to wonder what kind of crazy you have to be that you would think that giving all developers a chance to sell their games is a bad thing? Can you imagine what would happen if Kickstarter only gave some games a chance and not others due to personal bias rather than allowing consumers to choose for themselves?
Sorry, @Phry, but I didn't read past your bullshit claiming folks here are merely saying that violent video games beget violence. It shows you do not even begin to grasp the actual arguments laid out by folks like weasel, or you can't reconcile them in your mind so you refuse to lend them any credence. Try harder.
Sorry, @Phry, but I didn't read past your bullshit claiming folks here are merely saying that violent video games beget violence. It shows you do not even begin to grasp the actual arguments laid out by folks like weasel, or you can't reconcile them in your mind so you refuse to lend them any credence. Try harder.
I don't have to try, it has been disproven, repeatedly. Just because you feel something should be true, does not make it true. Facts over feelings, every time.
Sorry, @Phry, but I didn't read past your bullshit claiming folks here are merely saying that violent video games beget violence. It shows you do not even begin to grasp the actual arguments laid out by folks like weasel, or you can't reconcile them in your mind so you refuse to lend them any credence. Try harder.
I don't have to try, it has been disproven, repeatedly. Just because you feel something should be true, does not make it true. Facts over feelings, every time.
Sorry, @Phry, but I didn't read past your bullshit claiming folks here are merely saying that violent video games beget violence. It shows you do not even begin to grasp the actual arguments laid out by folks like weasel, or you can't reconcile them in your mind so you refuse to lend them any credence. Try harder.
I don't have to try, it has been disproven, repeatedly. Just because you feel something should be true, does not make it true. Facts over feelings, every time.
Dude, quit being stupid. Reread that post.
Either you disagree with that statement in which case i don't need to, or you agree with it, in which case i shouldn't need to, as its just restating my original argument.
Sorry, @Phry, but I didn't read past your bullshit claiming folks here are merely saying that violent video games beget violence. It shows you do not even begin to grasp the actual arguments laid out by folks like weasel, or you can't reconcile them in your mind so you refuse to lend them any credence. Try harder.
I don't have to try, it has been disproven, repeatedly. Just because you feel something should be true, does not make it true. Facts over feelings, every time.
Dude, quit being stupid. Reread that post.
Either you disagree with that statement in which case i don't need to, or you agree with it, in which case i shouldn't need to, as its just restating my original argument.
No one made the fucking argument that violent video games beget violence. Holy shit dude, reading comprehension.
My debate (and weasel's) with Norse has been about hate speech, not merely violent video games. You, like Norse, can't find a good counter argument, so you argue some imaginary bullshit you project onto us instead so you can feel vindicated about your position.
I am so very proud of Valve for taking this stance. It's time that we taught people to control their own environments before attempting to dictate the environment of others. It's so refreshing in this era of social authoritarianism that is strangling geekdom.
Sorry, @Phry, but I didn't read past your bullshit claiming folks here are merely saying that violent video games beget violence. It shows you do not even begin to grasp the actual arguments laid out by folks like weasel, or you can't reconcile them in your mind so you refuse to lend them any credence. Try harder.
I don't have to try, it has been disproven, repeatedly. Just because you feel something should be true, does not make it true. Facts over feelings, every time.
Dude, quit being stupid. Reread that post.
Either you disagree with that statement in which case i don't need to, or you agree with it, in which case i shouldn't need to, as its just restating my original argument.
No one made the fucking argument that violent video games beget violence. Holy shit dude, reading comprehension.
My debate (and weasel's) with Norse has been about hate speech, not merely violent video games. You, like Norse, can't find a good counter argument, so you argue some imaginary bullshit you project onto us instead so you can feel vindicated about your position.
Perhaps it would be best to avoid the whole Hate Speech BS tbh, its a narrative that does nobody any good and is more about censoring people, in the USA its viewed as being an attack on the first amendment, and with good reason. I think Jordan Peterson covers this one very well already, i would point anyone in his direction as his arguments are very well made.
Sorry, @Phry, but I didn't read past your bullshit claiming folks here are merely saying that violent video games beget violence. It shows you do not even begin to grasp the actual arguments laid out by folks like weasel, or you can't reconcile them in your mind so you refuse to lend them any credence. Try harder.
I don't have to try, it has been disproven, repeatedly. Just because you feel something should be true, does not make it true. Facts over feelings, every time.
Dude, quit being stupid. Reread that post.
Either you disagree with that statement in which case i don't need to, or you agree with it, in which case i shouldn't need to, as its just restating my original argument.
No one made the fucking argument that violent video games beget violence. Holy shit dude, reading comprehension.
My debate (and weasel's) with Norse has been about hate speech, not merely violent video games. You, like Norse, can't find a good counter argument, so you argue some imaginary bullshit you project onto us instead so you can feel vindicated about your position.
I'm pretty sure that you argued for four to five pages, exactly that.
Basically all of us White people have a dormant NAZI inside of us that could be triggered at any moment by a meme, video game, or a shitpost. Because of this, White people need to be monitored and controlled.
What I'd like to know is, do you consider yourself under this same racist blanket? If not, will you explain how you exempted yourself.
Sorry, @Phry, but I didn't read past your bullshit claiming folks here are merely saying that violent video games beget violence. It shows you do not even begin to grasp the actual arguments laid out by folks like weasel, or you can't reconcile them in your mind so you refuse to lend them any credence. Try harder.
I don't have to try, it has been disproven, repeatedly. Just because you feel something should be true, does not make it true. Facts over feelings, every time.
Dude, quit being stupid. Reread that post.
Either you disagree with that statement in which case i don't need to, or you agree with it, in which case i shouldn't need to, as its just restating my original argument.
No one made the fucking argument that violent video games beget violence. Holy shit dude, reading comprehension.
My debate (and weasel's) with Norse has been about hate speech, not merely violent video games. You, like Norse, can't find a good counter argument, so you argue some imaginary bullshit you project onto us instead so you can feel vindicated about your position.
Perhaps it would be best to avoid the whole Hate Speech BS tbh, its a narrative that does nobody any good and is more about censoring people, in the USA its viewed as being an attack on the first amendment, and with good reason. I think Jordan Peterson covers this one very well already, i would point anyone in his direction as his arguments are very well made.
I have already cited actual scholarly research into why allowing hate speech to fester causes violent acts.
Since I've yet to see anyone cite any sort of research to refute that, we can critically apply the social contract to determine whether the overall net gain is to allow true hate speech to fester or ostracize it as a country.
For those who can't keep up, social contract means giving up freedoms for a security or benefit provided by the governing body of the group. I'll ask: what benefit does society receive from allowing hate speech to fester? I challenge someone to provide any kind of true benefit.
Conversely, it's quite obvious allowing it to fester can lead to terrorism or other violent acts. That's a net loss for society. So, we can work to mitigate this loss while losing pretty much fucking nothing by telling folks that hate speech is not acceptable. That's about as good a deal as you could ever hope for with the social contract (the basis of every governing body ever).
Remember: saying that statistics say African Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crimes is not hate speech. It's an incredibly naive statement to make without looking deeper at the socioeconomic pressures that created what is called "ghettos," and how that influenced the actions of the folks living there, a disproportionate amount of whom are also black (correlation!), but it isn't hate speech. Hate speech is flagrantly threatening or disparaging a group out of unfounded or heavily exaggerated bias, rather than any rational or educated opinion.
Sorry, @Phry, but I didn't read past your bullshit claiming folks here are merely saying that violent video games beget violence. It shows you do not even begin to grasp the actual arguments laid out by folks like weasel, or you can't reconcile them in your mind so you refuse to lend them any credence. Try harder.
I don't have to try, it has been disproven, repeatedly. Just because you feel something should be true, does not make it true. Facts over feelings, every time.
Dude, quit being stupid. Reread that post.
Either you disagree with that statement in which case i don't need to, or you agree with it, in which case i shouldn't need to, as its just restating my original argument.
No one made the fucking argument that violent video games beget violence. Holy shit dude, reading comprehension.
My debate (and weasel's) with Norse has been about hate speech, not merely violent video games. You, like Norse, can't find a good counter argument, so you argue some imaginary bullshit you project onto us instead so you can feel vindicated about your position.
Perhaps it would be best to avoid the whole Hate Speech BS tbh, its a narrative that does nobody any good and is more about censoring people, in the USA its viewed as being an attack on the first amendment, and with good reason. I think Jordan Peterson covers this one very well already, i would point anyone in his direction as his arguments are very well made.
I have already cited actual scholarly research into why allowing hate speech to fester causes violent acts.
Since I've yet to see anyone cite any sort of research to refute that, we can critically apply the social contract to determine whether the overall net gain is to allow true hate speech to fester or ostracize it as a country.
For those who can't keep up, social contract means giving up freedoms for a security or benefit provided by the governing body of the group. I'll ask: what benefit does society receive from allowing hate speech to fester? I challenge someone to provide any kind of true benefit.
Conversely, it's quite obvious allowing it to fester can lead to terrorism or other violent acts. That's a net loss for society. So, we can work to mitigate this loss while losing pretty much fucking nothing by telling folks that hate speech is not acceptable. That's about as good a deal as you could ever hope for with the social contract (the basis of every governing body ever).
Remember: saying that statistics say African Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crimes is not hate speech. It's an incredibly naive statement to make without looking deeper at the socioeconomic pressures that created what is called "ghettos," and how that influenced the actions of the folks living there, a disproportionate amount of whom are also black (correlation!), but it isn't hate speech. Hate speech is flagrantly threatening or disparaging a group out of unfounded or heavily exaggerated bias, rather than any rational or educated opinion.
Sounds more like you are ignoring facts with feelings again tbh. Repeating them over and over does not make them facts, first you have to define what hate speech even is, because most of the time its just things people disagree with, its BS and you know it, and as far away from rational and educated opinion as you can possibly get.
Sorry, @Phry, but I didn't read past your bullshit claiming folks here are merely saying that violent video games beget violence. It shows you do not even begin to grasp the actual arguments laid out by folks like weasel, or you can't reconcile them in your mind so you refuse to lend them any credence. Try harder.
I don't have to try, it has been disproven, repeatedly. Just because you feel something should be true, does not make it true. Facts over feelings, every time.
Dude, quit being stupid. Reread that post.
Either you disagree with that statement in which case i don't need to, or you agree with it, in which case i shouldn't need to, as its just restating my original argument.
No one made the fucking argument that violent video games beget violence. Holy shit dude, reading comprehension.
My debate (and weasel's) with Norse has been about hate speech, not merely violent video games. You, like Norse, can't find a good counter argument, so you argue some imaginary bullshit you project onto us instead so you can feel vindicated about your position.
Perhaps it would be best to avoid the whole Hate Speech BS tbh, its a narrative that does nobody any good and is more about censoring people, in the USA its viewed as being an attack on the first amendment, and with good reason. I think Jordan Peterson covers this one very well already, i would point anyone in his direction as his arguments are very well made.
I have already cited actual scholarly research into why allowing hate speech to fester causes violent acts.
Since I've yet to see anyone cite any sort of research to refute that, we can critically apply the social contract to determine whether the overall net gain is to allow true hate speech to fester or ostracize it as a country.
For those who can't keep up, social contract means giving up freedoms for a security or benefit provided by the governing body of the group. I'll ask: what benefit does society receive from allowing hate speech to fester? I challenge someone to provide any kind of true benefit.
Conversely, it's quite obvious allowing it to fester can lead to terrorism or other violent acts. That's a net loss for society. So, we can work to mitigate this loss while losing pretty much fucking nothing by telling folks that hate speech is not acceptable. That's about as good a deal as you could ever hope for with the social contract (the basis of every governing body ever).
Remember: saying that statistics say African Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crimes is not hate speech. It's an incredibly naive statement to make without looking deeper at the socioeconomic pressures that created what is called "ghettos," and how that influenced the actions of the folks living there, a disproportionate amount of whom are also black (correlation!), but it isn't hate speech. Hate speech is flagrantly threatening or disparaging a group out of unfounded or heavily exaggerated bias, rather than any rational or educated opinion.
Sounds more like you are ignoring facts with feelings again tbh. Repeating them over and over does not make them facts, first you have to define what hate speech even is, because most of the time its just things people disagree with, its BS and you know it, and as far away from rational and educated opinion as you can possibly get.
Sorry, @Phry, but I didn't read past your bullshit claiming folks here are merely saying that violent video games beget violence. It shows you do not even begin to grasp the actual arguments laid out by folks like weasel, or you can't reconcile them in your mind so you refuse to lend them any credence. Try harder.
I don't have to try, it has been disproven, repeatedly. Just because you feel something should be true, does not make it true. Facts over feelings, every time.
Dude, quit being stupid. Reread that post.
Either you disagree with that statement in which case i don't need to, or you agree with it, in which case i shouldn't need to, as its just restating my original argument.
No one made the fucking argument that violent video games beget violence. Holy shit dude, reading comprehension.
My debate (and weasel's) with Norse has been about hate speech, not merely violent video games. You, like Norse, can't find a good counter argument, so you argue some imaginary bullshit you project onto us instead so you can feel vindicated about your position.
Perhaps it would be best to avoid the whole Hate Speech BS tbh, its a narrative that does nobody any good and is more about censoring people, in the USA its viewed as being an attack on the first amendment, and with good reason. I think Jordan Peterson covers this one very well already, i would point anyone in his direction as his arguments are very well made.
I have already cited actual scholarly research into why allowing hate speech to fester causes violent acts.
Since I've yet to see anyone cite any sort of research to refute that, we can critically apply the social contract to determine whether the overall net gain is to allow true hate speech to fester or ostracize it as a country.
For those who can't keep up, social contract means giving up freedoms for a security or benefit provided by the governing body of the group. I'll ask: what benefit does society receive from allowing hate speech to fester? I challenge someone to provide any kind of true benefit.
Conversely, it's quite obvious allowing it to fester can lead to terrorism or other violent acts. That's a net loss for society. So, we can work to mitigate this loss while losing pretty much fucking nothing by telling folks that hate speech is not acceptable. That's about as good a deal as you could ever hope for with the social contract (the basis of every governing body ever).
Remember: saying that statistics say African Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crimes is not hate speech. It's an incredibly naive statement to make without looking deeper at the socioeconomic pressures that created what is called "ghettos," and how that influenced the actions of the folks living there, a disproportionate amount of whom are also black (correlation!), but it isn't hate speech. Hate speech is flagrantly threatening or disparaging a group out of unfounded or heavily exaggerated bias, rather than any rational or educated opinion.
Sounds more like you are ignoring facts with feelings again tbh. Repeating them over and over does not make them facts, first you have to define what hate speech even is, because most of the time its just things people disagree with, its BS and you know it, and as far away from rational and educated opinion as you can possibly get.
Sorry, @Phry, but I didn't read past your bullshit claiming folks here are merely saying that violent video games beget violence. It shows you do not even begin to grasp the actual arguments laid out by folks like weasel, or you can't reconcile them in your mind so you refuse to lend them any credence. Try harder.
I don't have to try, it has been disproven, repeatedly. Just because you feel something should be true, does not make it true. Facts over feelings, every time.
Dude, quit being stupid. Reread that post.
Either you disagree with that statement in which case i don't need to, or you agree with it, in which case i shouldn't need to, as its just restating my original argument.
No one made the fucking argument that violent video games beget violence. Holy shit dude, reading comprehension.
My debate (and weasel's) with Norse has been about hate speech, not merely violent video games. You, like Norse, can't find a good counter argument, so you argue some imaginary bullshit you project onto us instead so you can feel vindicated about your position.
Perhaps it would be best to avoid the whole Hate Speech BS tbh, its a narrative that does nobody any good and is more about censoring people, in the USA its viewed as being an attack on the first amendment, and with good reason. I think Jordan Peterson covers this one very well already, i would point anyone in his direction as his arguments are very well made.
Yet completely irrelevant, freedom of speech with freedom from consequence does not exist. Not in a box, not with a fox, not on steam, not on twitter. You want to talk about attacks on the first amendment you should start at the top with those trying to persecute journalists for telling the truth and constantly trying to change libel laws.
Everyone wants to hide behind the first amendment until they realize there are limits to what they can get away with, even worse when societal norms don't back their views and they become the ones persecuted.
It has nothing to do with violence in video games LOL it has nothing to do with thought control, it simply has to do with groups that mean to do harm having the ability to do harm.
In the end, many people will believe what they want regardless of the facts, which is why we're here today, "alternative facts" I.E. lying is the new norm, and the conspiracy theories pushed by those despised on the fringe of society honestly don't know any better.
Those are the same people that are the most impressionable too. It's sad that they think they are the free thinkers.
Sorry, @Phry, but I didn't read past your bullshit claiming folks here are merely saying that violent video games beget violence. It shows you do not even begin to grasp the actual arguments laid out by folks like weasel, or you can't reconcile them in your mind so you refuse to lend them any credence. Try harder.
I don't have to try, it has been disproven, repeatedly. Just because you feel something should be true, does not make it true. Facts over feelings, every time.
Dude, quit being stupid. Reread that post.
Either you disagree with that statement in which case i don't need to, or you agree with it, in which case i shouldn't need to, as its just restating my original argument.
No one made the fucking argument that violent video games beget violence. Holy shit dude, reading comprehension.
My debate (and weasel's) with Norse has been about hate speech, not merely violent video games. You, like Norse, can't find a good counter argument, so you argue some imaginary bullshit you project onto us instead so you can feel vindicated about your position.
Perhaps it would be best to avoid the whole Hate Speech BS tbh, its a narrative that does nobody any good and is more about censoring people, in the USA its viewed as being an attack on the first amendment, and with good reason. I think Jordan Peterson covers this one very well already, i would point anyone in his direction as his arguments are very well made.
I have already cited actual scholarly research into why allowing hate speech to fester causes violent acts.
Since I've yet to see anyone cite any sort of research to refute that, we can critically apply the social contract to determine whether the overall net gain is to allow true hate speech to fester or ostracize it as a country.
For those who can't keep up, social contract means giving up freedoms for a security or benefit provided by the governing body of the group. I'll ask: what benefit does society receive from allowing hate speech to fester? I challenge someone to provide any kind of true benefit.
Conversely, it's quite obvious allowing it to fester can lead to terrorism or other violent acts. That's a net loss for society. So, we can work to mitigate this loss while losing pretty much fucking nothing by telling folks that hate speech is not acceptable. That's about as good a deal as you could ever hope for with the social contract (the basis of every governing body ever).
Remember: saying that statistics say African Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crimes is not hate speech. It's an incredibly naive statement to make without looking deeper at the socioeconomic pressures that created what is called "ghettos," and how that influenced the actions of the folks living there, a disproportionate amount of whom are also black (correlation!), but it isn't hate speech. Hate speech is flagrantly threatening or disparaging a group out of unfounded or heavily exaggerated bias, rather than any rational or educated opinion.
Sounds more like you are ignoring facts with feelings again tbh. Repeating them over and over does not make them facts, first you have to define what hate speech even is, because most of the time its just things people disagree with, its BS and you know it, and as far away from rational and educated opinion as you can possibly get.
But he cited scholarly researchers....
And you cited a news outlet that was, quite frankly, about 80% misrepresented bullshit.
But that's okay, I love getting to dominate folks in a debate so easily sometimes. Gotta love a freebie!
Christ, can you guys start snipping these multi quote posts down so we don't have to scroll for an hour to reach the bottom of a thread lol
I feel your pain, but the format means in mobile site you have to hold down delete for like two and a half minutes solid to clear it out. At least, on my phone.
Sorry, @Phry, but I didn't read past your bullshit claiming folks here are merely saying that violent video games beget violence. It shows you do not even begin to grasp the actual arguments laid out by folks like weasel, or you can't reconcile them in your mind so you refuse to lend them any credence. Try harder.
I don't have to try, it has been disproven, repeatedly. Just because you feel something should be true, does not make it true. Facts over feelings, every time.
Dude, quit being stupid. Reread that post.
Either you disagree with that statement in which case i don't need to, or you agree with it, in which case i shouldn't need to, as its just restating my original argument.
No one made the fucking argument that violent video games beget violence. Holy shit dude, reading comprehension.
My debate (and weasel's) with Norse has been about hate speech, not merely violent video games. You, like Norse, can't find a good counter argument, so you argue some imaginary bullshit you project onto us instead so you can feel vindicated about your position.
Perhaps it would be best to avoid the whole Hate Speech BS tbh, its a narrative that does nobody any good and is more about censoring people, in the USA its viewed as being an attack on the first amendment, and with good reason. I think Jordan Peterson covers this one very well already, i would point anyone in his direction as his arguments are very well made.
Yet completely irrelevant, freedom of speech with freedom from consequence does not exist. Not in a box, not with a fox, not on steam, not on twitter. You want to talk about attacks on the first amendment you should start at the top with those trying to persecute journalists for telling the truth and constantly trying to change libel laws.
Everyone wants to hide behind the first amendment until they realize there are limits to what they can get away with, even worse when societal norms don't back their views and they become the ones persecuted.
It has nothing to do with violence in video games LOL it has nothing to do with thought control, it simply has to do with groups that mean to do harm having the ability to do harm.
In the end, many people will believe what they want regardless of the facts, which is why we're here today, "alternative facts" I.E. lying is the new norm, and the conspiracy theories pushed by those despised on the fringe of society honestly don't know any better.
Those are the same people that are the most impressionable too. It's sad that they think they are the free thinkers.
I think you would do well to watch a few of Jordan Petersons youtube videos, or better yet, pick up his book 12 rules for life, when it comes to 'scholars' he's probably one of the most knowledgeable ones out there.
Christ, can you guys start snipping these multi quote posts down so we don't have to scroll for an hour to reach the bottom of a thread lol
I feel your pain, but the format means in mobile site you have to hold down delete for like two and a half minutes solid to clear it out. At least, on my phone.
lol, fair enuff. I haven't used these 'new' forums here too much. Worth an ask!
Christ, can you guys start snipping these multi quote posts down so we don't have to scroll for an hour to reach the bottom of a thread lol
I feel your pain, but the format means in mobile site you have to hold down delete for like two and a half minutes solid to clear it out. At least, on my phone.
lol, fair enuff. I haven't used these 'new' forums here too much. Worth an ask!
its great that they can be viewed from a mobile phone, but honestly.. im getting older and my eyesight isn't up to reading from the things, i even upgraded my kindle fire to the 10hd one so i had a bigger screen to read from
Christ, can you guys start snipping these multi quote posts down so we don't have to scroll for an hour to reach the bottom of a thread lol
I feel your pain, but the format means in mobile site you have to hold down delete for like two and a half minutes solid to clear it out. At least, on my phone.
lol, fair enuff. I haven't used these 'new' forums here too much. Worth an ask!
Mine does collapse those quote pyramids most of the time. Not sure how or when it determines a need to collapse them, though.
Comments
If its 18+ it should be clearly marked as such and only certain ways can be used to purchase the game. Parents will have to take responsibility of what their kids play, simple as that. If parents dont give a hoot then why should others have to for them.
No, Video games do not encourage violent behaviour, this has been proven numerous times already, but apparently feelings have more validity than facts these days.
We get the usual rhetoric from 'concerned individuals' over what should be allowed and what should not, with numerous straw man arguments that really say more about the person using them than anything else.
We have age ratings on games, but apparently that is not enough for some people, they want to have a say on what you are allowed to buy, that Valve are not willing to be a party to this is in all honesty a smart move, the more these authoritarians attempt to put restrictions on what we can and cannot do, the more we should all push back against it, because it is an attack on our individual freedoms no matter how they try to spin it, the free market works, people will ultimately vote with their wallets on whether something is worth it or not, just look at Disneys recent fiasco with Solo, a direct consequence of The Last Jedi which has them losing over $80 million likely over $100 million when all is done and dusted. Consumers will always vote with their wallets, likewise if a game is good it will sell, if it isn't then the developer will likely either make a loss or so little profit that they have no choice but to improve their games.
All Valve are doing is providing a platform for developers to sell their games, that Valve also has a pretty good returns policy now is also a huge positive factor, and although there is usually only a 2 hour window, the recent debacle of Bless Online has shown that Valve are willing to extend that window for refunds if necessary.
Really though, have to wonder what kind of crazy you have to be that you would think that giving all developers a chance to sell their games is a bad thing?
Can you imagine what would happen if Kickstarter only gave some games a chance and not others due to personal bias rather than allowing consumers to choose for themselves?
My debate (and weasel's) with Norse has been about hate speech, not merely violent video games. You, like Norse, can't find a good counter argument, so you argue some imaginary bullshit you project onto us instead so you can feel vindicated about your position.
Between robust tools for folks to control their own environment and a no quibble 2hr refund, how is this a 'bad direction'
Basically all of us White people have a dormant NAZI inside of us that could be triggered at any moment by a meme, video game, or a shitpost. Because of this, White people need to be monitored and controlled.
What I'd like to know is, do you consider yourself under this same racist blanket? If not, will you explain how you exempted yourself.
Since I've yet to see anyone cite any sort of research to refute that, we can critically apply the social contract to determine whether the overall net gain is to allow true hate speech to fester or ostracize it as a country.
For those who can't keep up, social contract means giving up freedoms for a security or benefit provided by the governing body of the group. I'll ask: what benefit does society receive from allowing hate speech to fester? I challenge someone to provide any kind of true benefit.
Conversely, it's quite obvious allowing it to fester can lead to terrorism or other violent acts. That's a net loss for society. So, we can work to mitigate this loss while losing pretty much fucking nothing by telling folks that hate speech is not acceptable. That's about as good a deal as you could ever hope for with the social contract (the basis of every governing body ever).
Remember: saying that statistics say African Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crimes is not hate speech. It's an incredibly naive statement to make without looking deeper at the socioeconomic pressures that created what is called "ghettos," and how that influenced the actions of the folks living there, a disproportionate amount of whom are also black (correlation!), but it isn't hate speech. Hate speech is flagrantly threatening or disparaging a group out of unfounded or heavily exaggerated bias, rather than any rational or educated opinion.
Everyone wants to hide behind the first amendment until they realize there are limits to what they can get away with, even worse when societal norms don't back their views and they become the ones persecuted.
It has nothing to do with violence in video games LOL it has nothing to do with thought control, it simply has to do with groups that mean to do harm having the ability to do harm.
In the end, many people will believe what they want regardless of the facts, which is why we're here today, "alternative facts" I.E. lying is the new norm, and the conspiracy theories pushed by those despised on the fringe of society honestly don't know any better.
Those are the same people that are the most impressionable too. It's sad that they think they are the free thinkers.
But that's okay, I love getting to dominate folks in a debate so easily sometimes. Gotta love a freebie!