| ▲ | kelseyfrog 7 days ago |
| Presumably, the belief of Collective Shout is that there is a causal link between acting out incest, rape, and sexual violence in games and acting on those behaviors in real life. What would you do if you harbored that belief? |
|
| ▲ | creer 7 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The issue is not with Collective Shout, who are rightly free to argue whatever they want. The issue is with payment processor - who fall all over themselves and invoke all sorts of random claims, to use their extreme power to ban content. |
| |
| ▲ | bfg_9k 6 days ago | parent [-] | | They're Australian. So no.. not really. There's no freedom of speech in Australia. |
|
|
| ▲ | codedokode 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why they don't go after alcohol? I am not an expert, but I guess most such crimes happen due to alcohol usage. |
|
| ▲ | tremon 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| We have seen time and time again that a lot of such reprehensible behaviour comes from a puritanical stance on sex. So it's likely that they already act out those behaviours in real life. They just want to hide behind "those games made me do it" when they eventually get caught. |
|
| ▲ | evilduck 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Empirically prove it. |
| |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Making sure I get this straight. You're saying that if you shared that believe, you would go out in search of evidence to prove it? I hate to break the news, but if we read the literature published by members of Collective Shout, they have in fact done this. The evidence they have supports their claims. Let's be clear, the evidence they have is independent of the veracity of the claims, but they have done with you suggested. However, it had the effect of confirming their beliefs. I hate to ask the question again, but if you believed the same thing and felt like you empirically proved it, how would you behave? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 days ago | parent [-] | | > if we read the literature published by members of Collective Shout, they have in fact done this Granted, I've skimmed, but I'm genuinely not seeing it [1]. The closest is this study [2], which counted how many times thirty-eight women "who self-identified as having experienced unwanted or non-consensual sexual experiences in relationships" and were "recruited via social media," when "given the opportunity to reflect on their experiences of [intimate partner sexual violence], with prompting to speculate about their partner’s motivations or any underlying causes for the violence" mentioned pornography. That's...that's not a study. [1] https://www.collectiveshout.org/research [2] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10778012209713... | | |
| ▲ | Negitivefrags 7 days ago | parent [-] | | You kind of missed the point. It doesn't matter if what they did is or isn't real science. They believe it is, and so as far as they are concerned, it's proven. So then what? Since they really believe what they said, how can you blame them for their actions? You might argue that since they are wrong, their beliefs should be changed. Well sure, maybe they should. You could commission a study to confirm that, then try to persaude people. Perhaps form a collective to persuade others of that belief. Oh wait.... | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > they have in fact done this. The evidence they have supports their claims >> It doesn't matter if what they did is or isn't real science. They believe it is, and so as far as they are concerned, it's proven There is a massive gap between someone having done something and their (wrongly) believing they've done it. | | | |
| ▲ | rpdillon 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You asked a question about what I would do if I had a belief that somebody was harming society. Historically, my observation is that some of the most evil things ever perpetrated by humans were done in the name of trying to make society better. So I'm pretty hesitant to enforce my views on other people or even attempt to. If they were acting in good faith, this would be sort of like a Black Lives Matter type of approach that is trying to raise public awareness around an issue. But they're not acting in good faith in trying to get society to see their point of view. Instead, they are trying to go after the fulcrums of society and enforce their view using backroom deals. It's a transparent power play, and it's not in good faith: real good faith actors look at both sides of the issue, both the values and the harm, and they try to develop a balanced response. This is not what's happening here. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | throwawayoldie 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You say that, but history shows that people are much more likely to move based on what _feels_ true to them. |
|
