> So, if hypothetically, I, a trans woman before you jump my throat but presume a cis straight male, wanted to make a game that involves offensive depictions of LGBTQT+ peoples getting raped, dehumanized, treated as sex toys, cultivating a audience around that YOU may fervently loathe, you support that?
I would defend your right to do that with my dying breath. I think you underestimate just how strongly I feel about censorship of fictional media.
The communities I've surrounded myself with over the past few decades have focused on content far more controversial than this game, often involving content I cannot personally stomach and have to look away from every time it's mentioned.
But I stay in those communities because they are good. They have helped prevent the suicides of several of my friends, and I cherish them for that. No matter how horrific the content appears to be, there is always someone who needs the cathartic release of seeing it realized in some form or another of artistic expression.
> Exactly. If you do, you're a degenerate.
That's certainly an interesting choice of words. Is preventing suicide degenerate? If so, I'm proud to be degenerate. If not, then you need to re-evaluate what you consider 'degenerate' to be.
> And what the fuck is with these long rants in the texts to necro comment threads? Just say transphobia and homophobia turns you on and let everyone know what a degenerate you are.
As I said, I think you underestimate just how strongly I feel about censorship of fictional media. You are attacking something that is at least adjacent to media that has saved lives. Your willingness to continue discussing this long after you initially brought it up (I saw how recently you yourself had posted in other threads about this) tells me you're willing to debate this out, or at least pretend to.
So lets debate this out! Most others won't care enough to try to convince you that you're wrong, and most of the ones who do aren't likely to have the time or willpower to do so for as long as you have been posting about this in here. I'm unemployed, have way too much time on my hands, and have an absurdly high tolerance for bullshit.
I'm willing to explain, and re-explain, and re-explain, in different ways and using different contexts and analogies over and over and over again.
Are you?
> Guess what? If we would've censored THOSE evil people than none of this would be happening.
I'm not against all censorship in general. I'm against censorship of fictional content, or more generally, I'm against the destruction or prevention of existence of any noun that, by existing, would lead to more nouns existing than would have existed if that noun had never existed. Fiction does not have any way of preventing the existence of, nor destroying, other nouns.
The only exception is things like propaganda that comes in the form of fiction that claims to resemble the real world, to convince the reader that the real world is like the fiction that the propaganda depicts.
In that specific scenario, it is 'case by case basis', with a primary focus on scrutinizing the claims made outside of the fictional work about the fictional work being analogous to real life. Such claims are always made outside of the fictional work itself, because within the fictional work's own narrative everything is 'real life'. That is, if a character in a book says, "In real life, this is like that," it is understood that the character refers to the fictional reality they reside in as 'real life'.
Thus, it is still always true that the fiction itself cannot be evil, but it IS true that sometimes people read fiction as analogous to real life, and sometimes the author intentionally encourages that via propaganda. And depending on what the propaganda says, and how the fictional world is meant to map onto the real world, and how that affects people's opinions in ways that either lead to more nouns or fewer nouns overall in the Universe... Determines whether the propagandized statements relating to the fictional world could be considered good or evil.
> So no, censorship is a GREAT thing, as long as the LGBTQT+ friendly side is in power, because it's obvious cis people are enemies in general to my existence.
Most cis people would not care if it weren't for lies spread about the LGBTQ+ community 'grooming children' or other such nonsense. I agree that censorship, when properly applied to propaganda to prevent mass harm against a unique group of people, is ultimately good. I have never said anything counter to that.
But labeling all cis people as an enemy is also a form of evil, because the definition of an enemy is a person or group of people who you want to defeat, and said enemy is likely to take that to mean that you want them eliminated from existence.
Continuing to use rhetoric like that will cause cis people - who are the majority, mind you - to want to attack you more.
This is why I consider certain concepts to be my enemy, not specific people or groups (most of the time; there are exceptions). I don't hate conservative 'christian' people spreading hate against the LGBTQ+ community, but instead I hate the concepts and ideas that lead them to spreading that hate to begin with, as well as the hatred itself that they spread.