itch.io

As I mentioned, this will likely be my last response, then you can have the final word if you wish.

"

But I am not using the scientific method here because we are not conducting a scientific experiment, so no, this is not a hypothesis.

You do not need to do "an experiment", to have a hypothesis. You claim something works a certain way. So you propose there is a mechanism at work. That is a hypothesis. No matter how you would call it.

Are you proposing also, that your hypothetical mechanism is unique to the example at hand? If not, your mechanism should be at work at other situations. It is not evident to me, that this is so. So I recect your hypothetical mechanism. Psychology actually is a science. If that mechanism exists, maybe you can point me to an article explaining the mechanism. And real psychologists would have used scientific methods to study that mechanism, btw.

"

I think you missed the point.  It is not a hypothesis because it is not something that needs further investigation.  It is not really something you can reject based on the gathering of evidence because it follows directly and entirely from the definitions of the words I used.  Did you see the point I made about the pet spider?  By getting the pet spider, they are accepting the presence of a spider.  Meaning that they do not find the presence of the spider unacceptable by the very definitions of the words.  If you entertain yourself with depictions of sexual assault, you are accepting the presence of sexual assault (accepting here means saying "it's acceptable", or appropriate, or not bad enough to utterly reject).  The same logic applies.  And it doesn't matter if it is a depiction of fictional events or not in this case because without the real events in the background, the fictional scene would have no meaning.  The spirit of the act is present in a depiction of sexual assault in a way that it would not be, say, in the presence of a picture of a spider.

"

I do not think this is how people are playing this game, and that you might be being a little intentionally obtuse.

That is the thing. You only imagine how or why people play the game. And you base your reasoning based on that assumption

... 

with kinky fictional taboo things for the deed with their partner.

"

The players of this game are obviously masturbating to it and using it to engage in sexual fantasy.  That's the point of the game.  I guess that is an "assumption", but it is an obviously true one.  Like assuming that if there are dark, stormy clouds above, it will rain.  When people look at porn, they are usually masturbating to it, but they are nearly always at least getting sexual thrills from it.  That's what I meant by obtuse, or yes, playing dumb.  If you truly don't think that this is why people are playing the game, it's hard to move the conversation on from there.

On catharsis theory, my entire point was the the idea of "blowing off steam" by playing a game like this to reduce likelihood of real-life sexual assault is, at best, based in Freudian pseudoscience.   It was in response to a claim about using a game like this to vent these desires.  I claim  nothing more than its basis in pseudoscience, not hard science.  You, meanwhile, in your next paragraph, seem to affirm this pseudoscience when you talk about venting stress.

"But it has an effect of exacerbating those tastes particularly in those who already show tendencies toward violence. Unfounded. Cite proof for that mechanism. Or I can equally unfoundedly claim that it suppresses such tendencies. Playing games can decrease your stress. If you are stressed out, you might resort to violence if provoked. If your stress level is lower, that danger is lower. So playing games can lower violent behaviour. (The other half is, that playing games can also increase your stress. Overall I assume that the net effect is lowering stress, since it is a recreational activity. In other words, we would not do it, if it were not fun.)"

This is a pretty basic principle in criminology.  People who possess multiple factors that lead towards criminality are more likely to engage in criminality.  

But that quote is actually besides the point of my argument at large.  It is not only about a game making you more likely to commit sexual assault, but it is also about a game influencing thoughts of players to make them more accepting of sexual assault in general, even if not committed by them.  You haven't shown any flaws in my case for SA video games doing this, and I have illustrated repeatedly how entertaining yourself with SA makes you more accepting of it, and how being accepting of something makes you more likely to be alright with it happening.  All you've done is say, "this other thing might be true" using logic that I thereafter demonstrated problems with, and handwave that may claim has been debunked in the past without truly engaging with the points I am making.

Additionally, you basically just described that cathartic "blowing off steam" effect I mentioned earlier in your talk about stress, which as I mentioned, is pseudoscientific.

"

 No, they become addicted by using those things.  Have you every heard of an alcoholic who had never had alcohol?  The connection I am making is that playing a pornographic game (porn is addictive) that contains sexual assault can lead people to follow that path that most addictions take (needing more to satisfy), and that that pattern

That is not true. You need a thing that is addictive to begin with. Porn is not. Alcohol is. Trivially you can get addicted obsessed with anything. I want to try another absurdity argument. If porn is addictive, it stands to reason that sex is. So are married couples not actually in love with each other, but addicted to each other?

"

Many would disagree with you on porn being addictive.  But let's not say addicted, let's go with obsessed.  The point still stands.  You don't become obsessed with something you have never had or seen before.  The obsession has to start with some kind of contact.  How can you be obsessed with something you don't know exists?

As for your point on married couples, you are right: comparing porn addiction to marriage is absurd.  Love and addiction are not even close to synonymous, and cannot be interchanged with each other like they are.  I don't think your argument from absurdity demonstrates a logical error in my point.  I also would not say that sex is addictive in the same way that drugs or porn is.

"So not only is your premise is wrong about games being addictve as such, but also your following mechanism of wanting more and more and mostly fallacious is the step you make into the real world. If someone would fall to obsession ("addiction") with playing porn games, they would want more games. Better games. Games that cater to their tastes better. Or play the game a lot. They would not suddenly being addicted to the things depicted in the game. Why should they? Where does this step in logic come from? It does not work that way! If you think so, find actual scientists that wrote about it. It would be hell of a feast for psychologists, if it were true. They would be famous for proving such a thing and all sorts of content restrictions could be made with scientific reasoning! Laws would be named after them."

They should not, maybe we should ask, "Why would they?"  They would because the things in the game would lack all meaning if it were not for the real-life version of those acts.  The point of the game is to approximate or simulate the real world thing.  Doing the real world thing is a more extreme version of doing the thing in a video game (this is the "step in logic").  It follows the exact mechanism I described, and that you mentioned above.  The addiction I am concerned about is not necessarily to the game, but to the thing the game is depicting.

And if I show you some psychologists, what then?  I think you will just reject their claims.  The whole field is fraught with so many variables that we could each just hand-wave away all evidence shown to each other, just like with statistics.

As for the emotional argument, you can complain about it all you want.  But you have not answered it.  I don't think there really is a good answer to it.  It is effective because there is truth underneath the emotions of shame you would feel.  To be entertained by playing a game where you SA a woman is to be entertained by playing a game where you sexually assault someone like a sister, mother, girlfriend, etc.  And that is shameful indeed.  Even if it doesn't affect your life in any other way (which, I believe, it would).

In summary, I think that Itchio was justified in delisting this game because they don't want to be associated with a SA game, and because their platform would be facilitating access to something that would make SA more acceptable in the minds of players, whether committed by them or by someone else.  And, I think that everyone should refrain from playing such games because they can contribute to desires that will have negative effects in their life