Gersen: Affected how ? What makes you sure that there aren't billions of men affected by sport games or walking simulator ? let's ban those too just in case.
No, that would be stupid and clearly nobody is asking to ban things "just in case". If there are billions of men affected by those games then they should definitely speak up though.
Gersen: If it's not the same then
why do you mention it ?
What has the fact that some woman (or men) victim of real abuse are not always believed has to do with peoples arguing about video game censorship on a video game forum ?
I thought it was quite obvious I was mentioning it as an example of why it might seem like nobody is affected when in fact they are and are just not talking about it.
Gersen: Being "concerned" is one thing, wanting an outright ban is another altogether. And again it's a forum, as in a
discussion forum, for whatever you post there are going to be peoples agreeing with you and other who don't. Nothing wrong with that, if peoples are not ready for that then either they stop reading the thread or don't post in the first place.
Once again, it was an example of how people might be affected by something but feel unable to open up about it. Once again you're essentially be quiet and go away.
Gersen: Also you are the only one pulling the gender card
I'm not "pulling the gender card". Gender is relevant here as an example of why people could see porn in games as more problematic than violence.
JuWalk: "FrodoBaggins only made three posts" - In this thread, maybe, but it's a story that's been going on for quite some time now. And FrodoBaggins has been taking an active part in this witch hunt for a long time too. She doesn't care about those people who want to play these games. She doesn't care about those people who want to sell these games. But for some reason, everyone should care about what she wants. Despite the fact that the first two groups do not impose their desires on others, but she is trying.
Not seeing an example here of why FrodoBaggins should care about any of those people. If we're bringing other threads into it then you tried to accuse me *multiple times* of being unable to tell the difference between reality and fiction.
JuWalk: "What makes you so sure that there aren't millions of women out there affected by porn games?" - What makes you sure otherwise? In both cases, we are dealing with assumptions. So why should one person's assumptions weigh more than another's? Why, on the basis of assumptions, should something be subject to a total ban? I repeat: There is no evidence of the harm of these games,
You assumed something.
I pointed out why your assumption might be wrong.
You assumed I assumed the opposite to you them went on to explain why assumptions are bad.
I repeat: At no point have I argued for a total ban on anything. Presumably there was no evidence that asbestos was harmful when they first used it, that doesn't mean it wasn't.
JuWalk: "...when faced with this" - And with all these words she encountered just like that, out of the blue? Or were they caused precisely by her post? It is rather strange to demand that something be taken away from people without good reason, and then be surprised that they reacted negatively to it.
That's exactly my point. If anyone else feels the same way, they could read that (without having made any demands) and may well keep quiet and you can go on assuming that all of the other girls are absolutely calm about it.
JuWalk: And what's wrong with the question "How is it that sex is a much more terrible and forbidden crime than theft, murder, cannibalism and genocide?"? After all, she demands the removal of games in which one fictional character seduces another, while not seeing problems in games in which much more terrible things happen.
Nothing at all wrong with the question. I was just trying to provide an answer since it keeps getting asked. How do you know she has no problem with other games anyway? More assumptions perhaps?
JuWalk: "Don't play this and that! Here's a list of games I've approved, you can play them. Everything else is forbidden." - that's exactly what she says. "I don't approve of these games, so no one should play them." Or is the call to remove an entire genre from the store based on personal desires not "only play genres that I approve of"?
That's not exactly what she's saying and it's not what I think should happen so there's no point in continually directing this at me. I'm saying that we should be open to the posibility that things can cause more harm to others than we realise, there's a certain level of harm where banning might be the best option and we should be more willing to converse in a less aggressive, insulting way with each other even if we disagree.
JuWalk: "learn to distinguish between games and reality." - and what else should I say if a person really has problems with this?
You're doing it again. You don't need to say anything because it's not happening. If FrodoBaggins really does think this then I apologise to you but, as I said earlier, you do have a track record of accusing people of this when they have said no such thing.
JuWalk: And she deserved to be accused of lying. People oppose the removal of games not because they think the objectification of real women is a good thing, as she claims.
There's a difference between lying and being wrong. I'm not saying she's right about that but I also don't think it's helpful to jump straight to "lie".
JuWalk: The rest of the attempts to make her a victim are also ridiculous. Does anyone force these games on her? No. But she comes and demands that they be taken away from
everyone. What reaction did she expect? Do you think that fans of shooters, strategies or quests will be gentle with those who demand to remove all games of these genres?
No I don't but I damn well think they should be if that person is saying something is causing them harm! Just to be clear: I'm not saying that you are victimising her (although the reaction has been rather more hostile than I think is necessary), I'm trying to point out why people might feel too woried to be open about this kind of thing.
JuWalk: "Make your mind up." It's amazing that this needs to be explained. There are games (and not only) in which the male characters are in the same position that the female characters are in the games FrodoBaggins has ganged up on. I don't see any problems or objectification in them. But, drawing a parallel, it can be argued that since in these games women are "objectified", then men are "objectified" in those games. That's all.
Saying "women aren't objectified but men are objectified too" kind of does warrant an explanation.
JuWalk: "Porn tends to feature women as only there for the pleasure of men" - and I want to remind you once again that there are porn games aimed specifically at the female audience, in which the genders reverse roles. So no one is discriminated against in this case) Yes, these games haven’t been added to GoG yet, but I already wrote about the supply and demand connection
That's why I said "tends to". It's still the majority of it and that's why I think it's an issue.
JuWalk: P.S.: Fortunately, we still live in a free society. People have the right not to play or watch what they don't like. And they also have the right to play and watch what they like.
Attempts to forcibly impose your hobbies on others or to forbid others what seems bad to you personally are equally inappropriate P.S. At no point have I disagreed with this so you can stop telling me now.