i know this is a digression but unless i’m missing a detail, it’s been funny to see so many outlets use the term “evangelical” with reference to collective shout as like shorthand for “sex-negative, anti-choice, transphobe christians”, when all that seems to mean in this particular instance is “catholic”. i know the catholic church is one of the few authoritarian organizations to still give a shit about maintaining a figleaf of soft power, and to still use words like mercy non-perjoratively in press releases. but it’s been a major force in the elevation of “gender” to universal rightwing dogwhistle over the past three decades, and i’m glad when sites like this take the trouble to be specific about where some of this stuff is coming from, bc nothing helps those guys more than getting to present themselves as the nice church by mere contrast to some westboro freakshow.
(not that ‘evangelical’ in theory rules out catholic but as far as i can see it usually invokes specifically usa forms of fundamentalist megachurch)
as you said catholics are not considered evangelicals in the us so I’m curious how they all settled on this terminology. like what do these writers think these things mean.
Collective shout is associated with and funded by both catholic and evangelical groups, the NCOSE on the catholic extreme and Exodus Cry on the evangelical extreme
Not to be controversial but banning violent child porn is completely fine actually.
Though of course the RapeLay controversy was bullshit because that trash was never legal to possess in most places that aren’t Japan or the United States.
Well the problem is that it’s incredibly disingenuous to act like Steam and Itch are child porn clearinghouses and agreeing that they are is just ceding ground to these people because they know you’ll look insane arguing with them
I would prefer all the rape games and disgusting bullshit was wiped off steam entirely but asking the government to do it is sort of like trying to get a spider out of your house with a shotgun. It’s truly amazing how all the dumbest fucking people who organize over this shit are all also aligned with incredibly conservative politics mostly forwarded by, well, pedophiles
This is the reason to not let your opponents frame the language of the argument.
Discoverability has become so bad on digital marketplaces that unwanted sexual content has been a complaint everyone has about the system. But because the firehose has resulted in slightly more sales than curation methods would have discoverability remains a problem that no one is investing actual resources into solving. Because of this, instead of being able to say that their marketplace is delivering appropriate media to the intended audience they bring the hammer down on anything they get an email campaign about.
I’m specifically talking about RapeLay here. You’re free to disagree but I won’t like it.
But also yes obviously religious conservatives aren’t acting in good faith. I’m just not sure why the response should be paedo apologetics though.
Quoth
I hesitate defending the likes of Rapelay as I too find it morally objectionable. This is why this tactic works: it’s hard to sign your name to a statement saying that fictional rape is an artistic endeavor that may not appeal to you, but it’s still art.
I think I need more convincing that the people who think all homosexuals are pedophiles should be involved in the making of these laws about the Internet or media censorship, because in countries like the United States those are going to be the primary people responsible for implementing policy
Thankfully no one here’s arguing for that! I don’t know, in the absolute I’m not pro-censorship but I’m just frustrated by how muddled discussions about formal rights can get. Free speech just … doesn’t matter enough to go to bat for RapeLay.
So perhaps the more defensible examples are things like Operation Pedopriest which is not much more palatable but is at least a defensible depiction of systemic pedophilia on the grounds that it aims to bring awareness to real inustice through satire.
The game itself is really just means to an end but it opens the door for what is acceptable to represent to show that unilaterally banning something because it involves the topic of sexual assault is not so simple. From there we can maybe get to a conversation about dramatic or erotic nonconsensual representation (as difficult as these discussions are to have) but I doubt these groups are interested in that conversation in good faith.
Rapelay or No Mercy are not the entire conversation and groups like this want it to be
Edit: I am also wondering if this should be it’s own thread given the topic is verging on needing a content warning
violent child porn was already very very illegal, if there was any on steam or itch, the uploaders and anyone who bought it would already have been prosecuted
the problem is that now they’re banning all forms of sexual expression, and anything that might vaguely be construed as something possibly related to sexual expression.
I’ve avoided anything to do with the game but some steam popup had an ad for the mgs3 remake and from the screenshot it looks like you change camo through some convenient in game pop up menu thing now? chickenshit game design
The IP holding company that decided they want to own Lollipop Chainsaw, and put out the mediocre recent port of it, have announced Lollipop Chainsaw 2. The announcement has no information as to what will be in the sequel, but they did feel it was important to say:
Maybe spending space on their official press release to state the game won’t have DEI is how they’re shadow announcing that they’re getting Marilyn Manson for this one.
What could this possibly even mean? The most charitable interpretation is that the characters in the game will be chosen based on their merits with no account given to their immutable qualities.
The least charitable (and most likely) interpretation is it won’t have any nonwhite or LGBT characters.
