/v/ - Video Games

>>15854398

Someone email them the list of good sites.

Playism

>DRM-free and proud of it

>helps out indie developers with debugging, localization and whatnot and works with nipponese and english developers alike

>Japan-based and created by them with good relationships

>responsible for publishing some good indie games (Cave Story, One Way Heroics, Kero Blaster, etc.)

http://playism-games.com/

Gamejolt

>has their own client (still in beta though but good enough)

>DRM-free

>A shit-ton of indie and passion project games (but basically no curation)

>No known censorship problems so far and overall good-sounding

>established community

https://gamejolt.com/

And of course MangaGamer and JAST for your lewd shit from nippon:

>localizations are improving over time

>they work with the nips closely and are good overall

>also offer physical products for some of their games

>DRM-free

>Staunchly anti-censorship in the case of MG and JAST offered a place for some of the developers getting censored by Valve right now

https://www.mangagamer.com/

https://jastusa.com/

Fruitbat Factory and NekoNyanSoft

>helps publish and localize indie nippon VNs

>offers some physical copies

>good localizations as far as is known

>no real problems found

https://fruitbatfactory.com/

https://nekonyansoft.com/

GoG

>Staunchly anti-DRM

>offers some major titles that Steam used to have as exclusive; might be a viable competitor at some point in the future

>acted as a refuge for numerous VNs and small devs during the waifupocalypse

>lots of support for old games

>high-quality curation overall, and is improving over time

<not as trustworthy as the other alternatives because of Sean's firing and the way they handle social media

<curation is opaque as all hell and good games get lost in it at times

They're less recommended now than the others, but still better than using (((Steam))) if you have to.

Itch.io

>DRM-free

>choose what you pay to the developers (can be up to 100% afaik, ensuring that their actions as a middleman can be limited unless that changes)

>lots of support for indie developers

>no known instances of censorship; unknown if curated at all but presumed not to be

<Lead people in charge of it are known to be pro-censorship, making them not entirely trustworthy, one should be wary and cautious when using them

J-list

>Sells general good from Japan, from food to manga to figs to vidya

>sells adult goods from Japan, little worries about them censoring

>works with publishers like JAST to sell games

>Very pro-Japan; is an importer

https://www.jlist.com/

Right-Stuf Anime

>Recommended by operationrainfall and other generally good sources

>is an independent distributor and publisher of video and whatnot

>offers vidya options and other shit as well

>no real problems found

https://www.rightstufanime.com

Play-Asia

>Staunchly anti-censorship; even going so far as to mock Sony's censorship policies on their social media platforms

>anti-SJW and pro-GG

>imports everything from adult goods and vidya to other assorted things, overall solid and they're improving all the time with a wide selection

>excellent customer service

>also recommended by oprainfall, nichegamer and numerous other pro-GG and good neutral places; sometimes works with them for giveaways and whatnot

https://www.play-asia.com/

TheIndieBox

>Helps indie developers make physical copies of their games

>DRM-free for all of them

>reasonable prices for the standard and limited editions

>decent (but smallish) selection

>no significant problems found

https://theindiebox.com/

I hate censorship as much as anyone who has an ounce of pride left, but I'm not going to stir outrage and campaign for a crossdresser porn VN.

>>15854423

>GoG

Meh.

>>15854445

It doesn't matter what was censored, what matters is that it happened at all.

>>15854445

>it's ok to censor things I don't like

This is how they win.

>>15854559

It's the cuckchan refugees who support this.

>>15854464

Censoring things I don't like is fine. It's censoring things I don't like using reasoning that could apply to something I do like that's a problem.

If Valve's reason for censoring this was "miss me with that gay shit" I wouldn't care. The "exploitation of minors" bullshit is something that has already been used against other games that aren't for faggots.

>>15854445

First they came for the socialists.

>>15854819

>using a jewish meme

>>15863678

>da joos

Opinion discarded, fuck off back to /leftypol/

>>15863678

>It's the entire reason your rights are (at least theoretically) inviolable though.

Firstly, they are proven not to be, secondly that's the second amendment you fag.

>>15854819

Maybe censorship isn't that bad afterall.

>>15863678

>literally da jooos

Sure is reddit in here.

>>15863809

I like this anon. He’s Intelligent, Nihilistic and with a Wicked Sense of Humor, just like me.

>>15854788

>Censoring things I don't like is fine. It's censoring things I don't like using reasoning that could apply to something I do like that's a problem.

>X is fine as long as it doesn't happen to me

If you're not okay with having the shit you like being censored, you shouldn't be okay with anything at all being censored, regardless if it can be used against you or not.

Are you defending free speech and freedom or are you merely defending what's yours and what you like? Because the first is a virtuous goal to strive for, the second is just you caring about your own hide and nothing else, which is especially stupid because why would you expect them to stop at the things you don't like?

>>15863747

See this shit? This is the optimisc idea that "as soon as we remove the scapegoats, all problems will be solved" and the only reason some of you faggots are okay with censorship. You know that it's wrong and bad, but hopefully it won't target anything you like. As if having missiles rain down on your town is okay, as long as they miss your house and those you care about.

Once they remove whatever the fuck you deem degenerate, they'll go after any kind of porn. After they remove that, they'll go after any kind of violence. After they remove that, they'll go after any kind of historical accurate videogame so they can tell their own history. After they have done that, they'll remove any sort of freedom or choice and turn every narrative into propaganda. It will never fucking stop until videogames are just another way to narrate the prefered ideology of whoever is in charge.

And you'll go right along with it, because you're dumb enough to believe they'll stop at removing degeneracy, when the fuckwits that push forward this shit are some of the biggest degenerates on the face of the earth.

>>15863915

>I live in a street with other 10 guys

>5 of them have been robbed so far

>this is okay because it hasn't happened to me yet

>this is okay because the thieves will stop at 6, I'm sure of it

>see guy getting mugged on the streets

>mugging is okay because I'm not the one being mugged

>the act of mugging is morally valid, it's only when it happens to me that it becomes bad

>go to bar, someone puts music on the jukebox

>someone else complains and stops the music

>this is okay because I didn't liked that music either

>try to put a song I like

>someone else complains they don't like it

>fuck off, buttercup, I have the right to put whatever music I want

There's many small things I've noticed in the userbase of this board that point to a complete inability to understand long term consequences or to have the slightest inkling of empathy and understand actions in relation to everyone in general instead of just you yourself.

You faggots deserve everything going your way, after working so hard to create them.

>>15863962

>this is okay because the thieves will stop at 6, I'm sure of it

>They try to rob me

>I shoot them

>The end

If they're getting rid of something I don't like then why stop them at that point instead of later? They're just doing my dirty work for me.

>>15864012

>You're either X or Y no inbetween

<actually advocating for double standards

You're either in favor of censorship or you are against it. Any in-between position requires defining an Arbiter that will decide what to ban and what to keep. And good luck coming up with a decent Arbiter, when we can't even come up with a decent form of government to represent it's population.

Being in favor or against the content being censored is an entirely different question with different answers to it. Conflating that with being pro\against censorship or even believing that just because you ban it, it goes away, that's an actual simplistic mentality.

>>15864016

>they try to rob me

>I reach for my gun

>woops, no guns because I agreed to be disarmed just so my furry neighbor was disarmed as well

>>15864030

>you're only against censorship because it targets the things you like

Don't conflate me with the spinless hypocrites that do this shit. Someone can be against censorship without supporting what's being censored.

I don't give a rat's ass about crossdressing, but you're gonna claim otherwise because that's the only way this makes sense in your head. You don't understand the idea of being against the removal of something unless there's self interest involved, but that's your own fucking problem to sort out.

Dragfags want to make a videogame about dressing with frilly skirts and I don't see a single damn reason why they shouldn't be allowed to, considering nobody is forced to buy it and you're not gonna get less cross dressers if it was banned anyway.

>>15864109

I don't view censorship as in a principle sense, I view it as a weapon and I have no problem with said weapon unless it is pointing at me. And if I had the option I wouldn't be against using said weapon against the foe. If it points at me or something of my interest then I will deal with it but as long as it continues to work in my favor I have no problem with it.

But your furry neighbor still has his metaphorical gun, he either didn't care to use it or got shot without noticing. Your job is to merely look out for a guns pointing at you and make sure you yourself have a big enough gun(aka the ability to boycott and generate outrage or any other tactic to fight back of censorship or what interests you). If others get their shit kicked in its their problem, you look after yourself.

>>15864133

>I don't view censorship as in a principle sense, I view it as a weapon

Then you have already lost the argument, as censorship is a matter of principal and not a weapon since it's used for far more than silencing oposition.

You're also foolish enough to be okay with censorship against the right targets, despite the fact that those wielding it currently are not your "allies".

You're no different than Antifa arguing for "no guns for anyone" while ignoring that the cops they hate will be the only ones armed afterwards.

>I have no problem with said weapon unless it is pointing at me.

The reason the Nazis did not use gas weapons during WW2 was not because they had higher moral standards but because they knew very well the second they throw a single grenade that smells funny, it's gonna rain deadly horrors on their side afterwards since they'll justify the Allies using them as well.

Japanese got away with gassing the rest of the chinks because they knew the other side had 0 chances of retaliation with the same kind of weapons and that's why they did it anyway.

So I'll say it again. Those that are censoring shit are not your allies and you have no way to know if this "weapon" is gonna be used against you or not. In fact, it's even more likely to be used against you than against degenerates anyway, considering who backs them.

Are you still okay with this "weapon" being used, just because it's currently aimed at the right target?

>If it points at me or something of my interest then I will deal with it

This what I mean with "unable to grasp long term consequences".

Currently, censorship is still seen as a big no-no. You can easily find support against it and people willing to fight it or provide alternatives.

Why in fuck's name would you be willing to let the status quo change, to give censorship an oportunity to be seen as normal and expected?

You think you can deal with it when it comes after you because you gauging it as it currently is. In the future, it will be more settled in, with more mechanisms that can be used against you and you'll find less support to fight it.

You don't fight censorship when it targets you, you fight it when it shows up to prevent it from gaining ground and taking root.

>your furry neighbor still has his metaphorical gun

He didn't and neither do you, because when it came time to ban guns, he was dumb enough to vote yes because he thinks it will make things safer and you were dumb enough to vote yes because that way your neighbor doesn't get to have a gun either.

>Your job is to merely look out for a guns pointing at you and make sure you yourself have a big enough gun(aka the ability to boycott and generate outrage or any other tactic to fight back of censorship or what interests you).

Except you won''t have that ability. Censorship, if unchecked, escalates and normalizes. Oposition to it does not grow at the same rate at all.

Try to tell a random chinese to fight against censorship in his country, where it's well established and part of the regular life, see how well they can fight against it.

All you're doing is let the true oponent gain in power with every conquest it makes. Every game they manage to ban is a precedent to use in the future. Every topic they can forbid is an argument, everyone that does this becomes an expert. When it comes time for you to defend your shit, it's going to be much worse than it currently is and you never saw it coming because you turned a blind eye while it wasn't targeting you.

>>15854445

Damn, you're stupid, nigger. It doesn't matter what's censored. It's a practice that shouldn't be tolerated.

>>15863962

Hey fuck you don't lump me in with those faggots. All form of censorship is cancer and I will oppose it wholeheartedly no matter who it happens to.

>>15864156

TL;DR:

>my neighbor set fire to his lawn, I don't care, it's not my lawn

>the fire spread to his house. I don't care, I'll put out the fire it reaches my house

>my neighbor is asking for help. Don't care, it's not my family on fire.

>the fire rises and now there's a raging inferno next doors. Don't care, not my property

>the fire spreads and is now consuming my house

>fuck, I can't put out such a large fire!

>why isn't my neighbor helping?

>why didn't I put it out when it was just a few flames on the lawn?

<Oh right… Because fire is a weapon and it's okay when it burns someone I don't like

>>15864163

It seemed like you were okay with censorship from your post, didn't realize you were just meme. Apologies, friend. :^)

>>15864173

I'm not the anon, you were just referring to the "user base of the board as a whole"

>>15864030

>Face the fact that the only reason you care is because they censored your faggy VNs.

>you only care because it's something you like

>you'd be happy about devs and fans suffering even if what they're doing in no way harms you

>you're just as rotten as I am

You're projecting your attitude, you Marxist cunt.

> Call me when they actually censor a game I should give a damn about

Why don't you go back to reddit or /leftypol/?

>Because if it was actually a real game people would actually care

Lots of people do care about the censorship. That's why Sony and Valve are forced to make statements. That's why they haven't done this before. Also, lots of leftists love to censor un-feminst, non-leftist games. Like you say, it makes you happy.

>dev who actually cares about making good games and not virtue-signal wouldnt self-censor

What a stupid, dishonest argument. These are small devs that are being targetted. They don't have that many platforms to begin with. They have to make do with the options that are avialable for distribution, especially when the demands for censorship came this late in the development.

>the games are trash

Irrelevant and wrong. The censorship of non-leftist content is a terrible practice, and must not be tolerated, no matter what game they go after. You seem like a cunty idiot, so I take your dislike as an indorsement.

>>15864109

>You're either in favor of censorship or you are against it.

You shitsucking retard, your brain operates in binary, anything more complex than that and it fails miserably. Are you a non-white/non-asian? Perhaps mixed? That would explain the inability to comprehend more than two options, nuance, etc.

>or even believing that just because you ban it, it goes away, that's an actual simplistic mentality.

It won't go away but it gives a 100% legal way to fuck over people I don't like.

>woops, no guns because I agreed to be disarmed just so my furry neighbor was disarmed as well

Actually I still have my guns because only the furries were disarmed.

>>15864213

The problem is the people doing the disarming are not your friends and they will go after you too. Do you think the people behind the Steam and Sony censorship are doing this in your self-interest? It's not you fucking over the people you don't like.

>>15864173

>Call the fire department

>They get to my house in time

>I laugh at the faggots who don't have a house anymore because I hate them

>>15864222

They're doing it in the interest of money, because they think having it on their platform will make them look bad and therefore lose money. Not defending it but it's not conspiratorial.

We are not arguing about how things really or currently are, but rather the idea behind it.

Censorship is unnacceptable, period. There might be some argument to be made regarding children, but the solution would be to remove children from the premises, or create an area they are not allowed in, not outright ban whatever is decided unsuitable for them, and that's the furthest one can go in terms of exceptions.

If you can extract meaning from those examples, you're either being dense on purpose or you're one of the usefull idiots that wants safety in exchange for freedom.

Remenber that when they start banning any and all kinds of nazi imagery from everywhere, when they start going after even mods and doxx their creators, that nobody will defend you then because you didn't defend them now. And we're not even that far from such a future since that kind of mods already causes a lot of shit flinging.

>>15864213

You did not refute jackshit of what I said.

If you want a middle ground for censorship, you need someone to decide what goes and what says. Who's gonna have that duty/right and how is he chosen? We already have enough issues as it is picking someone to represent us in government and now you want to repeat the exact same problem with censorship? Just how dumb are you?

>It won't go away but it gives a 100% legal way to fuck over people I don't like.

So you don't actually care about free speech or censorship, all you care about is fucking over those you don't like. Gotcha fam.

There's this funny group of people rampaging across America demanding that nobody has the right to have guns. They don't give one fuck about their own safety, all they want is to legally screw everyone that wants to have guns.

There's also this funny group of people that are promoting more and more laws to benefit women not because they care about society as whole but strictly because they want to fuck over white men.

You're just as morally justified as they are.

>Actually I still have my guns because only the furries were disarmed.

You mean you have an illegal weapon in your possession, which means the furry can call the cops on you and you're gonna suck it from Bubba in jail or give up your gun like a good goy.

Did you seriously think there was gonna be a rule for everyone else but not you when it wasn't even you who made the rules?

>>15864225

You imbeciles are being obtuse on purpose.

When are you gonna call the fire department? When the fire starts on your neighbors lot or when it reaches yours? Because by the time a fire truck has reached your house, a large chunk of it might have burned already.

>>15864227

It's to appeal to the chinese market, the newest section of the world devs and big companies are going to pander to. Accepting censorship isn't just morally wrong, it's also bowing down to the chinks.

>>15864222

>The problem is the people doing the disarming are not your friends and they will go after you too.

Slippery slope. Regardless I will fight them when they come after the stuff I like instead of saving shit I don't like because of the POSSIBILITY that they MAY come after things I like someday.

Since this thread is chock full of terrible lazy analogies:

>Two nations completely and totally unrelated to your nation go to war

>You hate one of them

>Holy fuck we better waste billions of dollars and countless lives joining up in this war to protect the nation we hate because their enemy MAY invade us someday possibly!

>>15864213

>You shitsucking retard, your brain operates in binary, anything more complex than that and it fails miserably. Are you a non-white/non-asian? Perhaps mixed? That would explain the inability to comprehend more than two options, nuance, etc

The issue is binary and it is made to look differently through manipulative rhetoric and you're retarded for not noticing that. Censorship is a slippery slope and a process that always escalates for more control and because it has to constantly censor more thing to even be effective at all so there can be no middle ground and you're a dumb nigger if you think otherwise.

>>15864243

They're already going after vidya as a whole so it's not a possibility, it's a fact they've already invaded. They've already won in lots of areas.

>>15864243

>Since this thread is chock full of terrible lazy analogies

>Let me add another one

Heh

>>15864243

>this thread is chock full of terrible lazy analogies

Because they show things you don't want to consider, even your own analogy does, ironically enough.

Wanna know how the english conquered the welsh? Village by village. Because every single welsh village was happy to see the neighbor one they hated get fucked by the english and they did jack shit to stop them until the english were at their door step.

There's comic of an english guy saying this that I've been looking for a while, if someone knows it.

I might be mixing welsh with scotsman or some other guys since I can't tell sheep shaggers apart from each other.

>>15864247

>he is too stupid to set up anti-fire measures

No I'm not. It's called making sure that nothing is censored at all ever. It covers you perfectly well, all you gotta do is stop sperging out when there's something you don't like out there that's doing nothing to you unless you choose to get triggered by it.

>Woah I don't want to be censored so I'm gonna advocate against censorship instead of directly censoring those who seek to censor me.

“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” - Nuclear Man

But I will say one thing, anyone who supports censorship in any way doesn't belong here. This site gained a giant part of it's user base from people who were hit by censorship on 4chan and the sentiment was always anti-censorship . The reason why you are tolerated is because it would be hypocritical to not let you talk if we're against censorship but it shows that you're a fucking newfag rapefugee and should lurk more or fuck off.

>>15863878

>jews are just a scapegoat

Ok retard.

>>15864287

See, you're doing exactly what that guy said, making this seem like an hard topic with manipulative rhetoric.

Animal abuse and everything else you list is what's illegal. Distributing illegal material is also illegal by consequence of that and nothing else.

Videos of kiddy porn or necrophilia aren't censored because "muh public decency" or "muh degeneracy", they are censored because they are illegal to produce in the first place!

None of those examples has anything to do with censorship, you disengineous twat.

The day that cross dressing, homosexuality or whatever the fuck is considered degeneracy is made illegal, you'll have a point. But until then, you can't advocate for their censorship at all.

>>15864287

>Analogies aren't worth shit in an argument

Only when they don't prove your point.

Because you'll happily use animal torture or necrophilia as an analogy for a VN about cross dressing as if it's a good argument because you believe it proves you're right.

I'm ok with censorship as long as it gets people back to fucking normal

>>15864289

>“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”

>If you don't fight back your win.

Jesus fuck I hate this cuckold "intellectual" quotes. If he took your eye you better make sure you get both of his eyes so he cant take your other eye.

>>15864305

It won't, only non-kosher stuff will be censored with the token kosher stuff mixed in to give you a false hope that you have any power.

>>15864297

Not defending that retard but equating censoring a drawn titty is not equivalent to preventing literal exploitation and murder of children

>>15864287

>It's not fucking binary you just feel a desperate need to lump people into one of two camps. Amerimutt perhaps? Red team blue team? How about videos of animal abuse, where they are tortured raped and decapitated? Underage children as well. Necrophilia? Should those be allowed to be distributed for money? Would you be fighting tooth and nail to protect the right of someone to create an instructional video game on how to kidnap, drup up and rape children and animals because big old mean Valve decided to censor them? Do you support these things?

The sharing of those things should be allowed not the creation of them. If we are allowed to share such things we can also look for evidence in them and catch the propagators of such acts easier. If you think this wouldn't actually improve the situation through the sheer reason of autists which too much free time taking care of investigating those things then you are completely forgetting the ISIS camp and the bike lock cuck. I would support those just for this reason, it would not change much and in the long run would actually help to fight crime.

>>15864297

>if you're in favor of freedom, it means you're in favor of going on a killing spree

>if you're in favor of gun ownership, it means you're in favor of school shootings

You're a goddamn stupid twat that thinks he can subvert the discussion and conflate together different topics and concepts to cobble up a sorry excuse for an argument, but I already answered this here: >>15864304

>>15864302

They are. They are clearly at fault for a lot of shit and the world would be better off if many of them were dropped in the middle of the ocean, but believing that simply removing jews is enough to solve every problem is just wishfull thinking.

You'll still have to do with all the dumb white people that do dumb shit, that have no culture or value anything besides consumerism. It's because of them that you got jews in power anyway, they and their lack of knowledge are the real problem, jews are just the symptom and a scapegoat for those that want easy (final) solutions.

>>15864305

It won't since plenty of absolutely terrible shit will not be censored. See if anything with CalArts will even be hit by this, even if it has trans-demi-queer characters.

They are not going after degeneracy, they are going after competition that was doing a better job than them.

>>15864307

I'm talking with Americans, I'm now sure of it. No other population misses the meaning of metaphors this much.

If you're worried about retaliation more than your own well being, you're gonna end up in a scorched earth situation. Specifically for this, you'll advocate for more and more censorship of the things you don't like and you'll be fine when them censor shit themselves as long as you get your way as well. In the end, nobody is allowed to say or do jack shit because everything is censored, but it's perfectly okay since at least they can't do what you don't want them to do!

>>15864313

>Implying that wanting no censorship is the same as legalizing acts used to produce such videos.

Try again faggot, by selling puppy snuff you're just giving evidence on yourself commiting animal abuse, which is right enough to lock you up.

>>15864313

>Toys R us won't sell something that's illegal

>It's because they want to censor snuff porn, not because it's illegal

>I have the right to sell illegal stuff otherwise it's censorship

Absolutely nobody is making this argument. It's the dumbest strawman you've made so far and the saddest thing is, you're dumb enough to think it's a solid argument.

>>15864325

Except it's not the logical extreme, you fucking retard.

>>15864325

How about instead of being a hyperbolic retard, you make an actual argument.

>>15864332

I already did. Address the other anon.

>>15864329

Then what is it?

>>15864325

How about you read the last posts, where it's explained how dumb this "argument" is?

You're not allowed to distribute those things because they are intrinsically illegal. The distribution is illegal as a consequence of that, not simply on it's own.

You're conflating general faggotry that's not illegal with actually illegal acts and trying to argue that the distribution of both is on the same ground when it isn't.

>>15864322

>If you're worried about retaliation more than your own well being, you're gonna end up in a scorched earth situation.

American love to suck off their muh liberty don't even put me close to that degenerate den. And what I said is exactly for the sake of self-preservation because what the fuck says he won't come for your other eye?

>>15864340

>Please don't make me address something

>>15864337

Except legality is a form of censorship.

>>15864335

>Then what is it?

The logical extreme is that everyone is allowed to make and share publicly anything that's not illegal by itself.

Only exception is distribution of some content to kids because of their undeveloped minds but that's the only exception that makes distribution illegal in that specific circumstance.

As long as it's not illegal, there's no reason it should be censored.

>>15864347

>legality is a form of censorship

I'm done. End of discussion. /thread Whatever, faggot. If you think you're being "censored" from robbing or killing other people, you should pretty much censor your own life.

If you're gonna be disingenuous like that, there's no helping it.

>>15864304

>Animal abuse and everything else you list is what's illegal. Distributing illegal material is also illegal by consequence of that and nothing else.

>Videos of kiddy porn or necrophilia aren't censored because "muh public decency" or "muh degeneracy", they are censored because they are illegal to produce in the first place!

So if whatever was being censored was illegal you would be 100% fine with it. I thought this was a binary issue "you're either with us or against us" nonsense. Make up your fucking mind.

>The day that cross dressing, homosexuality or whatever the fuck is considered degeneracy is made illegal, you'll have a point.

So a country who has banned homosexuality is justified in its censorship of homosexuals.

>Videos of kiddy porn or necrophilia aren't censored because "muh public decency" or "muh degeneracy", they are censored because they are illegal to produce in the first place!

So kiddy porn and necrophilia aren't degenerate? They weren't banned for being degenerate in the first place?

>Only when they don't prove your point.

Which is why I posted a legitimately shitty one on purpose to show how absurd using analogies to prove a point is.

>Because you'll happily use animal torture or necrophilia as an analogy for a VN about cross dressing

Yes degenerate sex acts compared to other degenerate sex acts is reasonable. Not fires, not sandwhiches, not robbery or war.

>if it's a good argument because you believe it proves you're right.

Because it does.

If you do not support censorship in any form then you support the distribution and sale of child rape and necrozoophilia on Steam. Remember you only support censorship or you don't, there is no in between according to your logic. Valve is an oppressor for not allowing my how to video game about drugging up puppies and skull fucking them while in a fursuit.

>>15864347

>He thinks that limiting the ability to do something in the real life is the same as not allowing the sharing information about it in whatever format.

Are you autistic?

>>15864362

Then that law is wrong and we're arguing about a specific law, not about censorship as a whole

>>15864350

Censorship is entire for idea of prevent the actions relating to said idea. Censorship and law go hand in hand together and they are inseparable. Censoring something is effectively outlawing it from you as a practice. The same was criticism of jew is censored and then outlawed.

>>15864362

That's not what's being adgued against you nigger that falls under censorship but fucking puppies on vid is illegal because it's illegal to fuck puppies in the real world, because it's directly harmful to an innocent animal. It isn't banned because the lawmakers believe the very information to be harmful but because the act itself is harmful. I have given arguments for why I believe that the information of this act should also be legal in my previous posts

>>15863962

It's not the community or the culture we've cultivated, it's shills/goons, especially ones using arguments (including/especially fallacies) to cast doubt and D&C, though technically the userbase includes them, too. Sure, some spergs just like to watch the world burn, but they've existed forever, shitting up whatever place puts up with them, so you can't act like that's unique to us.

>>15864373

And SJW censor tits because they believe it is harmful to be attracted to women.

>>15864350

>The logical extreme is that everyone is allowed to make and share publicly anything that's not illegal by itself.

So if Steam censored Grand Theft Auto due to the murder and robbery then that would be justified to you?

>Only exception is distribution of some content to kids because of their undeveloped minds

So censorship in the interest of protecting children is justified. I thought this was a binary issue why don't you make up your fucking mind.

>>15864373

>I have given arguments for why I believe that the information of this act should also be legal in my previous posts

So you support videos of and instructional videos for drugging and raping puppies.

>>15864352

>if whatever was being censored was illegal you would be 100% fine with it.

Obviously, yes. Why is this a surprise to you?

>I thought this was a binary issue

It still is. You're trying to mix up the legality behind the content with the legality of it's distribution because you know very well you don't have an argument otherwise.

Whether things are censored or not is a binary issue, you either accept that everything legal is allowed or you're gonna argue for double standards that you can't enforce in the long run.

But if you want to argue regarding the legality of degeneracy, that's an entirely different topic that has nothing to do with censorship or freedom of speech.

>So a country who has banned homosexuality is justified in its censorship of homosexuals.

Why did you said "justified"? You're using trap words like this and you probably don't even notice it yourself.

It's fairly normal for them to make it illegal to ban the distribution of gay shit if being gay is illegal. But is it justified? Depends if you think that gay shit being illegal is justified.

It's you again muddling the topics.

>So kiddy porn and necrophilia aren't degenerate?

Did I said that? Did anyone say that? Or did you want anyone at all to say that so you can have an argument?

>They weren't banned for being degenerate in the first place?

No, they were banned because kiddy porn has a victim when it's made (the kid) while necrophilia is defiling corpses and an health hazard. Degeneracy isn't the ultimate moral standard, there's far worse things to worry about besides how triggered you are.

>degenerate sex acts compared to other degenerate sex acts is reasonable

Did you seriously put pedophilia and necrophilia on the same grounds as cross-dressing? Because that's how you end up looking like a fucking retard.

Tell me who's harmed when a faggot decides to put on a skirt, besides your own feelings.

>If you do not support censorship in any form then you support the distribution and sale of child rape and necrozoophilia on Steam.

You're just gonna keep mixing illegal content with legal one and claiming we're still talking about censorship, aren't you?

>>15864377

This is not a direct way of "harmful" they literally believe that the information is harmful here. It's different from an act of killing someone being directly harmful to that person you nigger. Information being harmful and blocked is censorship, the act being directly harmful and outlawed is lawmaking. I don't know what you don't fucking understand. Watching a video of something is different than going out and doing it.

>>15864381

I don't support the creation and existence of them you nigger. Way to straw man my entire argument without even reading my posts.

>>15864395

Soon the very existence of men will be considered rape

>>15864395

>They believe it's directly harmful.

They are fucking wrong, end of discussion.

>>15864362

>>15864370

Like this guy said: >>15864367 at that point we are arguing "should loli be illegal?", not "should it be censored?". If it's legal, it should not be censored, if it's illegal, it's obviously gonna be censored.

But the censorship itself does not have a reason to be on it's own, it's only an enforcement of a previous law that someone might not even agree with.

Now tell me, are we arguing about the legality of cross-dressing or are we arguing about the censorship of a VN that features that?

>>15864376

>So if Steam censored Grand Theft Auto due to the murder and robbery then that would be justified to you?

No, because fictitious depictions of illegal acts are not illegal due to the fact that they aren't real. Did you seriously think this was a smart argument to make?

>So censorship in the interest of protecting children is justified. I thought this was a binary issue why don't you make up your fucking mind.

What's not binary about "You're either in favor of censorship or against it"?

Limiting distribution away from kids is not censorship, the material is still available for adults and therefore it's not censored. Will you please stop mixing concepts together and pretend you're smarter than you actually are?

>So you support videos of and instructional videos for drugging and raping puppies.

You're dumb and you can't read.

That guy is not in favor of the videos themselves but rather in favor of their distribution so there's a breadcrumb to find the author and prosecute him.

I wouldn't go so far since there's still a video being made and this hinges on the ability to find the author to stop him, something I'm not sure is reliable enough to warrant the risk.

>>15864386

It doesn't matter if it's really harmful or not. If you're going to argue that censorship is okay if someone thinks it's censoring something they consider to be harmful, you're opening a can of worms.

The same justification can be used to justify anything depending on who's the one that decides what he thinks is harmful and currently, it's SJWs, which is why you don't put that gun in the hands of nobody no matter the circumstances.

>>15864414

Doesn't matter. Nobody in this thread in favor of censorship has stated they defend it because it censors what's objectively bad, only that it censors what they consider to be bad and because it fucks people they don't like.

The same rational can be used by SJWs to censor what they consider to be bad and fuck over people they don't like.

They already barely conform to the rules everyone else abides by, why would you want to make their job even easier by making their wet dreams actually legal?

>>15864383

>Obviously, yes.

So you admit you do support censorship in some form and that it is not a binary topic.

>It still is.

You just admitted it isn't.

>Why did you said "justified"?

Because your logic is that censorship is 100% a-okay if the thing being censored is illegal, thus justified.

>Did I said that?

You said people only censor such things because they are illegal, as if no one would go out of their way to censor it out of disgust, simply following the law.

>No, they were banned because kiddy porn has a victim when it's made (the kid) while necrophilia is defiling corpses and an health hazard.

aka it's immoral and thus degenerate.

>Did you seriously put pedophilia and necrophilia on the same grounds as cross-dressing?

Yes as they are both degenerate sex acts. You may as well get triggered by referring to both Mario and Sonic as Platformers because one is faster than the other.

>Tell me who's harmed when a faggot decides to put on a skirt, besides your own feelings.

Anyone have that video of mentally unwell halfchan R9Kers being manipulated and blackmailed into dressing in girls clothes?

>You're just gonna keep mixing illegal content with legal one and claiming we're still talking about censorship, aren't you?

But if it was made illegal you would support its censorship.

>>15864388

In your eyes if Valve bans the sale of instructional games of child rape and animal torture then they are horrible pro censorship bigots who must be punished.

>>15864417

Then people can respond that Steam is just one avenue of distribution. They're not cesoring it because the dev is free to publish the game on any other storefront that will take them or attempt to directly distribute the game themselves.

>>15864427

Are you responding to the right guy? Dis you read my posts right? I'm arguing against Censorship not for it.

>>15864436

I know, you're still wrong.

>>15864459

By acting like a leftie?

>>15864459

Censorship isn't based on right or left. Its based on authority and liberty.

>>15864417

>No, because fictitious depictions of illegal acts are not illegal due to the fact that they aren't real.

So if Valve banned the sale of a game that instructed you on how to kidnad, drug up, rape and disembowel puppies they would be pro-censorship bigots and you would fight to force Valve to sell it on their store?

>What's not binary about "You're either in favor of censorship or against it"?

Because with this logic people who want child rape and zoophilia snuff banned are just as bad as those who want to cover up all anime tiddies. It's not binary.

>Limiting distribution away from kids is not censorship

censorship

/ˈsensərSHip/

noun

noun: censorship

1.

the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

>That guy is not in favor of the videos themselves but rather in favor of their distribution

So you people straight up admit you are in favor of the distribution and sale of child pornography and animal torture. Remember, anything less is being pro censorship and you're just as bad as the SJWs.

>>15864434

You are just repeating the same argument over and over again and it's not even really an argument. Let me tell you something you fucking faggot, DOOM was considered to develop skills that could help to conduct a mass shooting and trained The way of thinking necessary for a soldier which is why The US military developed it's own version of the game for this very purpose. By your retarded logic Then we should ban The fucking game. Hey you even have Columbine to argument that! You are literary using the same argument against violent vidya.

>>15864479

Sort of this, Steam is fucking trash anyway and I hope it burns.

>>15864483

>By your retarded logic Then we should ban The fucking game.

So you support the distribution and sale of a game that instructs you on how to kidnad, drug up, rape and disembowel puppies and if Valve banned it they would be pro-censorship bigots and you would fight to force Valve to sell it on their store?

Damn this place sure is full of steam shills too

>>15864432

> i guess FICTIOUS representations of FICTIOUS terrorists attacks which just so happen to closely resemble real life buildings are fine because they are fiction huh?

Are they fiction? Then yes, it's okay. No seriously, did you think this was a good argument? Plenty of Hollywood movies show plenty of violence and terrorism and yet nobody would consider it illegal because they understand it's just fiction. Why can't you do the same with videogames and anime, when it's even easier to tell that it's fiction?

>>15864434

>So you admit you do support censorship in some form and that it is not a binary topic.

No, I do not. You're mixing up censorship with the legality of something.

>Because your logic is that censorship is 100% a-okay if the thing being censored is illegal

I didn't say it's "a-okay", you're blundering this discussion because you're failing to separate several things here. I can understand why something that's illegal wouldn't be distributed, even if I disagree with the reason it's illegal.

I understand why loli isn't distributed in Canada and obviously nobody should try it unless they want jail time, but I wholeheartedly disagree with loli being illegal in the first place.

>You said people only censor such things because they are illegal

>only

I said the primary reason it's not distributed (distributed, not censored) it's because it's illegal, not because it's the only reason. On the very same sentence you already mixed up the concept of something being illegal with being censored as well as "primary reason" with "only reason", in this desperate attempt at putting words in someone else's mouth to have a point you can finally refute.

Stop doing this, it just makes you look even dumber than what you already are.

>Anyone have that video of mentally unwell halfchan R9Kers being manipulated and blackmailed into dressing in girls clothes?

You just keep on doing it! What's wrong in that case is someone being manipulated and blackmailed, not the cross dressing. If someone started to cross dress out of his own volition, what would be the harm in that? It's pretty fucking gay, but then so is having an infatuation with the state of Ohio or tiles, so fucking what?

>But if it was made illegal you would support its censorship.

I gotta hand it to you, I've never seen someone do this shit so well, must be a natural talent somehow. Must be all that /pol/ education where every word loses all the value it ever had to mean one thing and exactly one thing only.

What do you mean "support"? Accept and praise that it's finally being censored? Obviously not. If it was a truly hideous act, I'd support it being illegal, not censored. Censorship is irrelevant since if it's illegal, it doesn't need to be censored, and if it's not illegal, it's not okay to censor it anyway.

I do not need to "support" censorship when it's something illegal because that's not censorship, that's something being illegal.

And at that point, I'd support or be against it's legality depending on how I view the topic itself, not the censorship of it, which is always wrong no matter what.

>>15864506

Is it okay for Doritos to force me to sell their product?

>>15864510

Following your example, you're the one who was selling doritos, and now all of a sudden you decide it was not okay to sell them to anyone anymore because some fat kid ate the spicy doritos and started crying, despite the fact that is labelled as "extremely spicy" and not suitable for many kids

>>15864436

I understood all that, it's not a complex stance to take. It's still a wrong one since you're creating the means of your own destruction and you're okay with it just because you're not the current target, that's all.

>>15864441

Oh sorry, I forgot to turn ID Color on, it's easy to lose track of conversations this way.

>>15864459

Oh, that's what this is all about? You're being contrarian because you think everyone against censorship is a leftie?

Goddamn son, do I have several last years of happenings to tell you about.

>>15864473

>So if Valve banned the [example of illegal shit]

Stop doing this, you've already done it enough times to realize this doesn't even start to resemble an argument.

Is it illegal? It's distribution is illegal, not censorship. Is it legal? It's distribution is legal and it should not be censored. End of the argument.

>I'll just quote the dictionary because fuck context

If the content is still available to adults, is it really censored?

>So you people straight up admit you are in favor of the distribution and sale of child pornography and animal torture

In the very post you're quoting, I state right in the next line that that's going too far. If you're not gonna bother to read before you type, I'll stop feeding your retardation.

>>15864496

Can you use anything else than strawmans and ad hominems?

>>15864506

>private companies need to do what corporate says

>posts image of corporate stomping on snek

You silly nog.

>>15864491

Steam stopped being good long ago. Anons should have moved on years ago. >>15854423 Here's a list of alternatives that don't feed Gabyn.

>>15864479

>Stores exercising their freedom to determine what is and is not sold in their stores is apparently a form of censorship.

Except that's not what's happening. Steam isn't telling devs "we don't want you here", they accept the costs for putting the game up for sale and then remove it or they demand that devs self-censor before they accept it on their platforms.

Besides, you're doing the classical mistake of mixing platforms with publishers. If Steam wants to curate their content, they become responsible for everything they sell and are liable for a whole bunch of shit. Which admitadly, it would be hilarious to see the results, but we know very well it's not gonna happen. If they aren't liable as an editor, then they should not have the rights of one.

>>15864496

So you support the ban of any videogame that features guns, violence, blood or gore of any kind at all?

There goes Doom, Quake, Blood, and many others…

So you support the ban of any videogame that shows Nazis regardless of context or how they are portrayed?

There goes every single game about the great wars…

So you support the ban of any videogame that shows war and strife?

There goes Age of Empires and pretty much every single RTS ever.

Hope you like Tetris and Pong motherfucker, cause that's what you're gonna play.

And then you faggots wonder why the fuck does /v/ hate you and shuns your retarded view on politics.

>>15864518

Oy vey, you have to read it! Stop censoring me! :^)

>>15864555

>I've got you to admit that you support censorship

You did not, but I guess it was real in your head because "illegal = censorship" to you.

>I've got you to admit that you would support the censorship of anything so long as it was made illegal.

You did not and I explicitaly said so.

>I've got you to admit you support the censorship of media so long as it's in the interests of protecting the children.

You did not, you're conflating age restrictions with censorship on purpose just so you have an argument. An underage being incapable of legally buying Maxim doesn't mean Maxim is censored.

>I've got you to admit that you support the distribution and sale of instructional underage child rape simulator games

You did not. But Rapelay was a pretty fun game. :^)

>You believe that Valve is unjustified in its "censorship" of such games and are a bunch of bigots

Because those games aren't illegal, at least outside of Canada. And since Steam can do regional availability, there's no reason to censor the games.

>I've exposed you as both a hypocrite and horrendously fucked up degenerate.

You've done nothing but intentional misinterpret everything said to you, mixing terms and concepts together in one of the most pathetic attempts at cobbling an argument together.

You're incapable of understanding the difference between censorship and legality, between censorship and age restrictions and between fiction and reality.

All of those things will have whatever value suits you currently in any discussion you have, you've done nothing but prove yourself to be an hyprocite.

You are so stupid right now.

>>15864555

>I'll just spam the definition of Censorship without even bothering to read it or considered the context of the argument I'm trying to refute.

Nothing in that definition talks about the legal status of what's being censored.

>Congratulations you support censorship.

>you either admit you want to distribute child porn or you're pro censorship

Fuck outta here with your kafka traps, nobody is as dumb as you to fall for them.

>>15864561

>they accept the costs for putting the game up for sale and then remove it

So if I sell Doritos once I must sell Doritos forever. Got it.

>or they demand that devs self-censor before they accept it on their platforms.

They have guidelines on what is and is not acceptable in their store that devs need to abide by and they are 100% within their rights to do so. Valve is not obligated to sell any game that wants to be on their storefront, there is nothing stopping the devs from releasing uncensored versions of their games, Valve is just one of several different digital game sellers out there, the devs are even free to release it on their own website. If you consider what Valve is doing is censorship then you also consider the right of stores to pick and choose what they sell is also censorship. Should Valve be forced to sell video games against their will?

>So you support the ban of any videogame that features guns, violence, blood or gore of any kind at all?

>There goes Doom, Quake, Blood, and many others…

>So you support the ban of any videogame that shows Nazis regardless of context or how they are portrayed?

>There goes every single game about the great wars…

>So you support the ban of any videogame that shows war and strife?

>There goes Age of Empires and pretty much every single RTS ever.

>Hope you like Tetris and Pong motherfucker, cause that's what you're gonna play.

Congratulations on making one of my points for me. Pro-censorship and anti-censorship are not binary. There are varying degrees and wildly different opinions and exceptions to the rule. People who want to censor child pornography and zoophilia are not the same as neon haired cunts that hate anything attractive.

>>15864612

Refer to his earlier posts for his arguments. The entire thread is people telling him censorship is fine "as long as it doesn't happen to me lol!" It's never fine. Don't assume the government won't use it against you when you enable it.

>>15864638

Those are illegal. That's an entire different argument you fucking retard.

>>15864608

>So if I sell Doritos once I must sell Doritos forever. Got it.

Did Doritos gave you 100$ to sell on your store, did you accept them, and now you refuse to sell it anyway?

>They have guidelines on what is and is not acceptable in their store

That they'll selectively enforce or make up on the spot or not even care to begin with.

Hatred springs to mind, the many VNs that are removed and then re-instated too.

Or the many times devs go out of their way to self-censor and provide adult patches but the game is still removed.

Or when the devs clearly state the age of the characters as being over 18 and the game is still being removed because "under age characters".

Steam having guidelines to follow isn't the issue as long as they stick to them, but they've shown they don't at all.

>Congratulations on making one of my points for me. Pro-censorship and anti-censorship are not binary.

What are you talking about? None of those things should be censored since none of them is illegal. Nothing that's legal should be censored, that's been my point from the start and it's pretty much binary.

>>15864612

>you've made zero arguments

Every single one of your posts have been nothing but "So you're saying that", no arguments of your own at all. Go home, Cathy Newman, you're drunk.

>he figured out I'm being a shitty person using bad "arguments" to try and win an internet fight

>let's call it bait, that will do it

Your next post will be "I was only pretending to be retarded".

>>15864654

>what are ids

lmao, not even gger's are this stupid.

>>15864638

This thread is nothing but "Censorship is okay when it happens to people I don't like! Take a look at all these illegal things as arguments to support my retarded point of view."

It has been repeated several times already and you refuse to read.

I'm sure you're just "trying to troll lefties", like it was said previously, but if you have to look retarded to do it, the only one that was trolled was you.

>>15864662

>what are ids

A proxy/VPN counter :^)

You can switch IP all you like, you're still gonna be recognized. Damn newfags never had to do this shit when there was no IDs, now they think they are master spies when they stand out this much.

>>15864688

>it's just you desperately moving the goalposts in a pathetic and failed attempt to not look like a complete hypocrite.

You've been moving the goalposts the entire thread and you call him a hypocrite?

>>15864688

Both of you faggots are failing to see that you disagree on where censorship and legality begin and end. Using your example if he supported homosexuality, he would be against it's illegality while it was illegal. Once it was legal, he would be against it's censorship should any attempts be made. Holy fuck your an obtuse fucking faggot.

>>15864688

>So you support the distribution and sale of

how many times have you already posted this, how many times have I already replied in a very simple way and how many more times do we have to do this dance before this sinks into your brain?

Is it illegal? I do not support it's distribution.

Is it legal? I don't automatically support it, it just shouldn't be censored.

You only need more arguments to be made either because you're aping the legality of something with it's availability, but that's your own strawman to deal with.

>>15864702

I know full well that that's the issue here, that legality and censorship are different concepts and that the other faggot is mixing the two together because that's the only way he has an "argument". I'm calling him out on his bullshit since he's the one being an hypocrite.

But thanks for the argument, at least not everyone here is retarded. I guess /v/ is still /v/ after all.

>>15864555

I won't answer, fallacious manipularive questions are not necessary to answer just like a cometely fallacious argument doesn't need to be disputed if proven to be completely falacious.

>>15865356

The last time I remember good discussion on /pol/ was before the LARPagans exodused and the (((ironic))) Kek worshipers constantly exused their repeating digits upon divine intervention for a deity that's been dead since before the days of Rome. I can't remember much more from /pol/ as the years go on, /v/ has it's entirely own drama

>>15864287

>It's not fucking binary.

Any non-binary opinion in regards to censorship is simply hypocrisy and double standards.

>>15864106

>removing anime tiddies is bad, but so is preventing drag queens from grooming kids in preschools

this is your mind on lolbertarianism.

>>15864163

This, we need vending machines with heroin, and free, unrestricted distribution of actual child pornography (as long as children involved consented)

>>15864328

Hustler magazine used this argument in their lawsuit to repel decency laws, because preventing kikes from peddling porn was infringing on 2A.

Speaking of free speech, we should also consider the following protected speech

>Extortion (as long as violence isn't used, only described)

>All matter of phone scams

>fraud

>false bomb threats

>stolen valor

>>15864417

>What's not binary about "You're either in favor of censorship or against it"?

>>15865771

>censor things that are objectively bad like trannyshit or faggotry

>don't censor objectively good things like beauty which can be quantified for any artistic medium.

wow, so much hypocrisy and double standards.

I'm glad captain lolberg is here to be an enlightened individualist™ and fights for the privilege of his enemies to march through the institutions and actually attack things that he enjoys.

>>15865903

You're so retarded that nobody wants to reply to you. Hopefully, this reply will be the last one you get.

>>15865918

Nowhere near as retarded as /liberty/ posters, who surprise surprise have been overran by leftypol, because BO and vols were retards.

>>15865257

And you suppport the narrative of violent video games and banning of Doom because of it's "negative influence" on people. Thanks for admitting that.

>>15865934

Seeing /liberty/ get filled with unironic /leftykikes/ was actually hilarious to watch.

>>15865987

Based. moving floppy dongs into anuses is peak weimar culture.

So is dream daddy, daddy dating sim.

>>15864555

>calls it beautiful and sweetheart and it instantly calms down

Thats is very cute to be frank, familia.

>>15864133

>If it points at me or something of my interest then I will deal with it

No, you won't, because it will take your power and support to forge the blade and, by the time it is held to your neck, you will have already given away everything you could have used to fight back. Because they promised they were on "your side".

>>15865979

This would mean something if you weren't the kind of person who calls everybody who disagrees with your authoritarian bullshit a /leftykike/.

>>15866080

And spiders.

>>15866213

>morality is subjective.

Is that an objective fact?

>tranny shit and LGBTQQIBRAAP+ cannot be categorized as bad.

https://shop.tophat.studio

http://archive.is/cXzDX

Good luck on them building their own payment processor.

>>15876133

They probably won't have too much of a problem on that front just yet, but it will definitely be a problem later on. Seriously someone needs to make some kind of alternative because this shit is getting ridiculous.

>>15863678

Mark Twain was a cuckold anon. All those quotable persons are leftists thanks to those who write the history and the curriculum erasing everyone else from the picture.

>>15854423

>gamejolt looks interesting

>check it out

>an entire category for fnaf games

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

But it seems like a good site.

>exploitation of minors

Good.

>>15868010

he said the thinking man not the shrieking in terror man

>>15854398

>see thread

<hurr censorship is bad and you should be ashamed for supporting the censorship of my favorite boy x boy penis rubbing bun-poking visual novel epic saga you sexist hypocrite pig :^)

lmao

>>15854470

lmao

I stopped buying games from Steam 3 years ago.

>>15864169

>>Big devs leaving in droves

Which?

>>15877241

That quote is dead on the money. I have a very dim view of those who are pro-censorship since it tells me they don't consider themselves worthy of deciding for themselves what to believe or how to counter alternate opinions. It also says they have no idea of the long term consequences that always happen where the censoring gets ever expanded and eventually starts attacking what people care about. Like me and my silly anime games that harm nobody.

https://archive.is/WdSZR

https://invidio.us/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM

>>15863678

>using 'da jooos'

Back to reddit, nigger.

>>15864510

>sells Doritos

>Doritos now wrongthink

>refuses to sell Doritos anymore

>still expects me to be happy about it

Listen here faggot, I don't call for you to be eviscerated (unless you're a kike) or cry to the zog to force you sell Doritos. I just don't like your shit company anymore and spread the fucking word about why your shit company is cancer. If you think that is wrong then fuck you and die in shit. I KEEL YOU!