/v/ - Video Games

>>15920471

Go back to cuckchan.

>>15920484

>Complains about pedophiles

>Suddenly it's about board quality and the shit OP

Mental issues

>>15920490

It's what happens when you the reddit enclave that is nu/pol/ gets out of their containment board.

>>15920506

Yeah, those are Korean gookrunes. Probably from some obscure mobileshit.

>>15920513

>loli is degenerate

I want nu/pol/ to leave.

Well now it looks like she's not wearing underwear, so good job, you made it lewder again.

>>15920523

I genuinely can't tell which is supposed to be the censored one. Possibly the right, but all that does is accentuate the ass_visible_through_thighs

The skirt version looks hotter

>>15920513

You really don't know where you are, do you?

>>15920727

god i miss /hebe/ so much, it kept retards like that away. fuck you jim.

>>15920724

All they do is make me feel disgust that some people are actually idiotic enough to use them.

what game is this?

Pretty sure it's azur lane, no idea why he's talking about the KR/CN censorship though. the english version has the JP art

I can't wait to see how the upcoming PS4 game gets censored. There is no way it will escape being cut.

>>15920751

Maybe if you weren't such an incel you would see that they're funny because they're bad on purpose.

>>15920757

Ebin

>>15920779

>incel

You belong on reddit, cunt. Go back.

>>15920466

who is responsible for this one?

tbh i like pic 2 is better because it caters to my skirt/thigh fetish

>>15920779

I'd probably be laughing with you if it wasn't actually used seriously 90% of the time, and because of

>Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company.

>>15920769

Who? Because OP has told us fuck-all. I'm not clairvoyant, and definitely not when it comes to mobileshit.

>there are people not reporting every post f296aa makes

Board quality is just as much your responsibility as it is the mod's.

Do your part and report a shitposting normalfag.

>>15920501

I'd maybe be on the side of the weebs if they didn't act like burger niggers with regards to non-weeb games. As it stands, they deserve everything they get.

>>15920787

Man imagine being clairvoyant but only when it comes to anime and mobage.

And here I thought it was a retrofit of her. Censorship isn't any good, but at least it's not some big awkward skirt or a bodysuit. I can still see her asscheeks and cute tummy. If anything, the skirt makes it more lewd, like she's not wearing anything underneath. Still, censoring or changing stuff like this shouldn't be taken for granted.

>>15920471

>that image, but unironically

Some of the chillest people I know are into loli.

>>15920858

>This whole charade of moral superiority just seems pointless given where we are.

It only happens because some idiots are either baiting or forget that its just imageboard.

>>15920466

Not too bad honestly, I do prefer the original though. At least it isn't a massive fucking sun beam covering up the entire image. shouldn't happen either way though

>>15920471

>not fapping to lolis

gay

>>15920601

Kind of agree, wish there were both available. an ideal world would consider the option of nudity

>>15920763

>>15920769

Think it's Akashi from Azur Lane, chinks butchered the game last time I heard so it makes sense.

>>15920466

left

>crass piece of shit with no dignity

>right

>moderately crass piece of shit with a little dignity

They're both garbage designs but toning down bland sex appeal made it marginally better.

>>15920858

>oy vey why don't you call yourselves pedos (even though you aren't ones) so that we have an easier time shutting this place down?

>don't you know drawings and reality are the same?

Kill yourself you dumb faggot. I like loli yet absolutely fucking hate kids – they're bratty shits with no manners who think they can do anything because mommy will protect them.

>>15920858

>Going off topic for a second, but I don’t get why you guys have such an aversion to being called pedos.

Because normalcattle associates "pedo" with "child molester" and turn into a (even more) mindless lynchmob.

>…

>>15920858

>I get loli isn’t actually CP, and they are at least ‘’somewhat’’ distinct, but they are still drawings of little prepubescent girls.

To believe that loli = CP you have to also believe that violent video games make people violent and that writing stories about murder means you want to murder people. There's no way around it, it's the exact same logic or lack thereof being applied.

Basically you have to be a fucking retard. The two aren't the same, there's a world of difference between the fantasy of a picture and the reality of actual child porn.

>>15920744

I'll be fucking honest, although I do understand the reasons of why /hebe/ was banned it was on the brink of being illegal and it might have been a pretext to take down the site in the future, so the administration decided to play it safe, but the quality of the entire site was much better before it was taken down. The people going on /hebe/ were still disgusting pedophiles that deserve to be shot but at the very least it kept normalniggers like f296aa out

Although I do not defend censorship I am indifferent to the trivial changes made to the character's attire and it does not infer or affect my gameplay experience of the game.

>>15920858

Okay, let me explain it in very simple terms.

>Fucking real 3D little girls

>Masturbating to real 3D little girls

>Supporting real child porn which hurts real 3D little girls

>Generally doing anything that hurts real people, in this case, little girls

is different from

>Masturbating to little no-nosed anime ayylmaos without hurting anyone and supporting some autisitc artists who make their living by drawing pictures of fictional little no-nosed anime ayylmaos

Do you get the difference?

Hurting others is not okay, fapping to ayy lmaos whithout hurting anyone is okay.

>>15920950

nobody is defended pedophilia you mentally ill tranny fucking faggot. >>>/trash/

>>15920955

Shut up and post lewds without giving any of those fuckers (You)s.

>>15920950

>fake ignorance so he can pretend im being literal

What the fuck are you even talking about you stupid nigger? How could anyone take your retarded post as being anything other than literal?

>muh all censorship is bad

>muh #notallcensorship

>Literally asking to be cucked by censorship laws

>Defending the practices that only exist to fuck you over

>>15920962

I don't actually have loli lewds, I can post women of the more mature variety

>>15920967

Right? Only shows how ineffective the shit is.

>>15920967

I agree, but the context as to why the skirt is there is the problem. If it had been an original design choice, it'd be great. But censorship is still censorship, so fuck it.

>>15920929

All i know is that after /hebe/ got taken down, /pol/ was filled with hundreds of youtube links and webms of underage girls doing sort of lewd innocent things

I can understand loli, but finding actual children attractive is disgusting and kind of a mental illness

And I MEAN children, jailbait does exist

>>15920977

I'm not picky as such.

<<15920965

>literal Fed kike shilling TRSodomite facebook memes promotes bullshit biological deterministic gay rights "born that way" propaganda

wew lad

>>15920984

>No argument

>Just an ad hominem

This is your brain on nu/pol/.

>>15920988

I do agree, the faggots were disgusting, but they also kept normalniggers out.

<<15920993

>obvious bait

please step up your game

<<15921008

>yes goy, censorship is good, now eat this watered down pigshit and pay me all the shekels for it

you need to go back

If you need to kill people to make them agree you can't actually make a point.

>A Smith & Wesson beats four aces.

http://archive.is/WdSZR

>>15921018

Less shit

I find the miniskirt more tasteful

>>15921018

>What exactly is good about censorship of any sort?

Censoring jews from being alive.

>>15921008

>False equivalence.

>Strawman

Censorship is bad because it's an escalating process that interferes in the lives of the citizens, completely rapes art by denying it freedom expression, dissallows the citizens from improving their situation if the government ever goes out of control as it polices criticism, and even the slightest level of censorship is used as a leverage for future censorship to come. It's like a cancerous tumor, it is a sign of the government or corporations interfering in areas of human life it should fucking not and needs to be stopped in it's early stages.

Also the very fact that government institutions, including the army did hurt their own civilians in the past is the sign of the fact that your shitty comparison is bollocks.

>>15920955

ignore the ip change

I acknowledged that they’re different. I’m asking why there’s such a visceral reaction to the pedo accusation when the main attraction of lolis is that they’re prepubescent children.

>>15920926

That always felt like a false equivalency, since porn in general can be far more damaging to what you’re interests are.

>>15920911

Again, I said in the post that they aren’t the same.

>>15921044

If they aren't the same, why the fuck call them the same? That's why asking why oranges are called differently from tangerines if they look similar. Because they are not the same fucking thing. Simple as that. What would be the point of a definition if it includes anything that correlates with a thing, even if it's not the same? I don't see your point honestly.

There are many reasons for why anons want to call loli a different thing than pedoshit, but the most important one is that if it's not the fucking same, then logically it should not be called the same fucking thing.

>>15921054

Its just a common tactic of pedophiles

"hey guise, I'm not a pedophile, see how i hate lolis?"

sort of like how so many male feminists are creepy sexual abusers

I think they go after loli primarily to put the heat off actual CP users, alternatively they might be able to stir up the actual loli crowd by increasing the oppression they face until they crack, and then try to push them into their camp and try to get loli faggots to support actual pedophiles

which will never happen, the faggots who like loli are almost always 2D supremacists and think 3D women are disgusting, regardless of age

>>15920724

this video will explain in great detail why these stupid strawman-esque mspaint images are cancer.

>>15921076

>>15921054

its also a common tactic for Goons from SA (and leftist) to get people to download CP or click a link that will give the person remote access to someones computer so they can plant CP on a victims computer then later blackmail the target. They often did this with moderators on popular forums in order to gain control over a community. You wouldn't believe the number of "SJW moderators" whom are only SJW's because they are being blackmail.

>>15921082

Hey fuck you, I'm against that. He should have had the ability to spout his shit which he did and be proven as a retard which he was and there was no reason to delete his posts.

<<15921082

>I'm against free speech

<HOW DARE YOU CENSOR ME!

stay mad you controlled opposition faggot. Also reported for ban evasion.

>>15921082

I can understand banning him, but deleting his posts is going to far even if they were just bait

th retard deserves to be laughed at

>>15921101

because while all Goon's are Leftist not all Leftist are Goons. So the redundancy was necessary.

>>15921096

Nah anon, that is a fair point, one does not need to fear discussion if his beliefs are right. The nigger was annoying but he had just as much right to voice his opinion as anyone else even if it was a retarded opinion, and we had a right to mock him for being a stupid nigger he was. His bullshitery was in topic, and banning him and deleting his posts is a bit of a hypocrisy.

Unless you believe the "There is no freedom for the enemies of freedom" thing which I'm not that sure of as it seems a bit of a paradox.*

>>15921102

>deleting his posts is going to far

I sorta agree with this on the grounds that "(user was banned for this post)" is often a good lessen to others and helps define the rules clearly. whereas deleting the post nobody gets to laugh at the retardation see how clear or ambitious the moderation is being handled.

>>15921107

>guy breaks rules

>guy calls for censorship

>guy gets censored

>/v/ has rules

no it is not a fair point.

>>15921111

Rules are censorship.

>>15921088

> They often did this with moderators on popular forums in order to gain control over a community.

>You wouldn't believe the number of "SJW moderators" whom are only SJW's because they are being blackmail.

That would make sense why other forums such as gamefaqs turned into sjw-lites.

>>15921082

It was just spam.

<<15921116

>post on vidya board about how censorship is good and pretend to be retarded

>Calls all rules censorship after getting banned

>>>/leftypol/

>>15921109

No I'm not the hypocrite. I support censoring child porn. But Loli is not Child porn you fucking nigger and I'm not dumb enough to openly oppose free speech when I don't have any political leverage and the left is advocating for my views to be censored.

>>15921116

no

>>15921115

While I don't browse reddit I remember a specific case regarding the x moderator of r/gaming posed on soundcloud being black emailed with CP just before gamer gate. It was one of the big stories that lead to the rise of GG.

http://ggwiki.deepfreeze.it/index.php?title=XavierMendel_interview

>>15921127

>over >(10) posts and all of them with sage

>not a spam

Pick one.

>>15921117

True I wish there were other boards that do the same thing that /v/ does, but most of the ones that appear either have stricter rules or are struggling to gain any activity.

>>15921135

>wants quality AND quantity

please stay on /v/. its perfect for people like you.

>>15921115

It happens

I remember several cases in I think Europe where the stuff was hidden until an anonymous tip got them arrested

I'm pretty sure those guys were politicians though, however i wouldn't underestimate how much these cunts are willing to do

>>15921140

>wants quality AND quantity

Yes I do want the early post-exodus /v/ back, what about it?

>>15921143

which exodus were you in? because the only real exodus that doesnt make you a cuck had much lower PPMs, but great quality.

>>15921044

>Again, I said in the post that they aren’t the same

>they aren't the same

>let's call them the same

Maybe your mother should have tried harder after all.

>>15921147

>the only real exodus that doesn't make you a cuck had much lower PPMs

Is this the effect of Mark-controlled propaganda? Remember in the Christmas thread how he tried to convince us that this place isn't dying and that the Active ISPs is actually larger than what it was a few years ago?

The absolute fucking gall of that kike.

>>15921137

>>15921151

Then tell me, how are rules not censorship? A rule can state "no porn" but thats not censorship of people's ability to post porn?

>>15921147

The first Gamergate one

I'm not talking about the fact that the boards that are created now are slow, but that they're too slow to stay alive in the long run and create any competition for /v/

>>15921152

What the fuck are you talking about, I adressed all of your points and you did not adress mine, only spouting "Muh Libertarianism" onto me which I called out, unless mods deleted one of your posts before I could see it. If you think you're so sure of validity of your points, bring them the fuck on you nigger. I'm not afraid to answer them. You spout that I'm claiming my victory, yet you seem to be able to post now, what is stopping you from posting your arguments again? I'm waiting.

>>15921162

anon nobody (worth a damn) here is a free speech absolutist. The one anon was suggesting cartoons where Child porn. Also the point at hand is if you have a edgy fringe political philosophy then advocating Censorship when the neoliberal administration who holds power wants to censor you is foolish.

>>15921162

>A rule can state "no porn" but thats not censorship of people's ability to post porn?

No, because you can go to a different board and post porn there. If everyone just posts what they want, every board will become /b/. Is that what you want?

>>15921172

^ also this

>>15921166

>The first Gamergate one

>they're too slow to stay alive

i dont belive you.

>>15921160

after the first exodus, the ppms were low.

this place exploded, then started to shrink around when mark got rid of waifu threads. though that wasnt the cause, its just the only thing i can think of that syncs up with that time

>>15921044

>That always felt like a false equivalency,

Well it isn't. It's the exact same logic of "fantasy = reality"

I'm not big into loli myself, but I do understand that there are lots of things that I fap to that I would never want to partake in IRL. I like to fap to chicks getting railed by dogs every now and again but I wouldn't want to actually see a girl I care about do it.

You can't have a grey area here. Either you think fantasy = reality or it doesn't.

>>15921162

Rules are not censorship when they police the actions that directly harm other people's freedom, safety and well-being in the case of nations, and rules are not censorship when they exist to delete spam and keep discussion on track as well as not allowing for activities that are illegal by law which goes into the whole limiting other people's freedom and well being and so on. I'm not going to get into the discussion on whether current rules are censorship or not, just wanted to throw my two cents in on the definition.

>>15921178

Remember the Andrew Ryan poster who posted a parody speech about 8chan being a new Rapture on the board when we first came onto 8chan? That was me Maybe you saw that.

>>15921137

>These fucks wont rest until they are on the mod team or /v/ is destroyed.

There isn't any difference between these two things.

Besides the worst thing to happen would be if someone of these became /v/ BO. He would surely shoah'd GG thread and several others. I wouldn't visit this board again, if that happened.

>>15921162

Because you would either end up with next /tv/ or not be able to talk about anything you wanted because some threads would get sage-bombed by butthurt tubospergs without these.

>>15921188

>Besides the worst thing to happen would be if someone of these became /v/ BO. He would surely shoah'd GG thread and several others. I wouldn't visit this board again, if that happened.

Speaking of banned threads when will Mark unban LOL threads for fuck's sake?

>>15921200

Well that goes into "defending other people's freedom bit" doesn't it?

>>15921178

>>15921187

Besides the post-first Gamergate /v/ had a couple posts a day, and the other vidya boards seem to have a couple posts every few days. Or maybe that is me looking with rose tinted glasses at old /v/ and thinking it had more activity than it really had because it was so god damn comfy

>>15921205

>Well that goes into "defending other people's freedom bit" doesn't it?

I'm not sure what you mean? Are you talking about how SJW's suggest protest is just them defending their right to exist in the face of preceded (imaginary) hatred and bigotry?

<<15921213

but I don't support pedophilia and I am not a free speech absolutist. I'm rather conservative and have even taken positions in the past regarding giving the tools for parents to regulate what content their children consume. I'm just pointing out how vapid and stupid (you) are and how in retarded your "pro censorship" tactics are in terms of realpolitik.

>>15921213

>I was suggesting that you have a shit pedophilic fetish and its good that that kind of degeneracy is being censored.

You put forth a laughably uneducated opinion and had the audacity to be abrasive about it. You're a retard and it's good that you were censored. Anyone who promotes censorship deserves what you got and I'm enjoying your incessant bitching about it.

Maybe next time you'll be humble when you open your stupid mouth to say some dumb shit, but I doubt it.

>>15921223

>x is n

>c similar to n

>you are c

>therefor you are similar to x

anon, are you just being just pretending to be incurious? It doesn't matter what label is given to a set of actions or behaviors if that set of things is consistent with the label. You squabbling about meanings of labels is pedantry.

>>15921205

>LOL threads were banned.

I thought that these just got anchored now, after some anons couldn't hold their hateboner for Mark in these. I will blame local dairy for this.

>>15921234

haha you gave me a (you)

looks like victory is mine today

>>15921227

How about an argument instead of d hominem? I know you are claiming lolishit isnt pedophilia, which it. You try to frame it with false equivalence of violence in video games whiles never addressing drawn gay porn which would be the real equivalence because both are sexual attraction based whiles the other is based on action/adrenaline/excitement which in the real world is satisfied by sports and various other outdoor activities, not the act of violence itself.

Lolishit is pedophilia, because pedophilia is defined by the fantasy of sexual act with children. Its not the actual act of child molestation. Frankly its still degenerate by its nature the same way gay porn is and your violent rejection of people telling you that you are disgusting only speak to your delusion of the matter. Its no wonder you are so comparable to furries. Hell furries dont even try to justify it, they just want you to accept it.

>>15921220

>I'm just pointing out how vapid and stupid (you) are and how in retarded your "pro censorship" tactics are in terms of realpolitik.

Yes, because you have even bothered to debunk them. The idea of group interest is completely applicable.

>>15921251

>How about an argument instead of d hominem

You would've gotten that if you'd portrayed yourself as anything other than an overly-abrasive tryhard. I was here at the start of the thread, I saw your weak-shit reaction images and your poorly thought out shitposts. You weren't out to debate anyone, you wanted to piss people off with your dumb-fuck opinions and to disrupt the thread. The only line in your post I read was the one I greentexted btw, you had your chance to be taken seriously. If you want to act like a retard that's how I'll treat you.

I'm happy to say that I reported you and am probably the reason your posts got deleted. Eat a dick mother fucker.

<<15921251

<you have even bothered to debunk them

debunk what in particular? Your trashing vapid boomer "meme" from facebook that only a low iq nigger would find funny? Did you bother watching this video where it explains how your vapid aut-kike memes are trash? >>15921079

>>15921117

>downvoters

>sage as a downvote (cuckchan)

>strawman mspaint comic

>Muh neo/v/ (also cuckchan)

And this just happens to derail another thread talking about censorship…odd.

The fuck did this censorship accomplish? Also, remember to report and filter pro-censorship tards, since they love it so much.

>>15921316

>So you admit im right.

Not unless you said something about being euthanized to prevent you from breeding.

Have fun IP hopping dipshit.

>>15920466

What's the real difference here?

>>15921251

Okay, I'll fucking bite.

>I know you are claiming lolishit isnt pedophilia, which it.

You forgot is, but that is besides the point. It isn't.

>You try to frame it with false equivalence of violence in video games whiles never addressing drawn gay porn which would be the real equivalence because both are sexual attraction based whiles the other is based on action/adrenaline/excitement which in the real world is satisfied by sports and various other outdoor activities, not the act of violence itself.

The act of violence itself is also the appeal you fucking nigger. If that wasn't the case, games would just try to replicate the excitement of those outdoor activities. Which they do, by making games based off of football, paintball and other different outdoor activities, yet the audiences for those games and violent video games are different. That's because people can enjoy macabre, there is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying macabre as long as you don't replicate it in the real life. Hell, horror is a genre that is completely based on that feeling. So obviously a connection can be drawn, yet not quite. You see, there is a difference between realistic violence and unrealistic violence. Although I do not believe there is anything wrong with enjoying realistic violence, you could kind of make an agument that it changes people for the worse gurofags, but in the case of unrealistic violence the feeling is completely different. It is an enjoyment derived from partially from campiness but also the creativity of what not holding onto realism allows for.

Now here's the thing, loli is not supposed to be realistic. It is forbidden, even in Japan to draw realistic drawings of children and draw them off of models. Enjoying loli is like enjoying unrealistic violence in a video game, the very fact that it's unrealistic and not connected for the most part, because there need to be some rules from our world that need to be kept for a drawing to look good, but that can be said about everything to the rules of our world makes it okay. In the same way that a person could be okay with watching a vidya character grind someone's face against a wall in a gory but cartoony fashion, and not enjoy seeing actual gore in real life or realistic recreation of that gore, so a lolifag can enjoy loli, but not feel attracted to litte kids. Therefore it is not false equivalence.

>Lolishit is pedophilia, because pedophilia is defined by the fantasy of sexual act with children.

But it's not the fantasy of an act with children but with unrealistic fantasy characters that play a similar role in a story. That might sound silly, but think back to the "violence" example. The pleasure derived from unrealistic violence is from a different source than from realistic violence, you're not looking at them for the same reason.

>Frankly its still degenerate by its nature the same way gay porn is and your violent rejection of people telling you that you are disgusting only speak to your delusion of the matter

I'm really getting tired of that fucking word, especially when it's missused by faggots like you. You use this word as if it means everything that you don't fucking like and think of as iffy.

>If you don't agree with me that means that I'm right and you're delusional!

>It's not that someone can disagree with me and I might be in the wrong!

>Stop providing arguments against me!

>Its no wonder you are so comparable to furries. Hell furries dont even try to justify it, they just want you to accept it.

You had only one weak arguments and equally weak insults written in a undeserved tone of superiority. If anyone here has the amount of faggotry to compare with furfags it is you.

Your whole argument is based on the idea that people do not enjoy violence in video games for violence itself. If that was the case shit like fatalities in Mortal Kombat wouldn't fucking exist.

>>15921434

Let's compare arguments here, shall we

>fapping to a giant bulging dick isn't gay because it's a fantasy dick

versus

>fapping to loli isn't pedophilia because lolis aren't actual children nor resemble them other than proportions

One sound more ridiculous to you than the other?

>>15921427

>Loli is fucking shit deal with it faggots

You can have your opinion faggot. As long as you're not stupid enough to equate 2D drawings with actual child pornography, no one cares.

>>15921457

I was talking about the dick though, the appeal is the dick is it not?

>>15921470

>deflecting this hard

Who's the retard now

>>15921472

I’m not the one denying that traps are gay you retard

>>15921474

There's a big fucking difference between dicks and lolis, you're just so stupid you equate them.

>>15921476

Being gay is about loving dick and being a pedophile is about loving children. I see no false equivalence.

>>15921483

You're implying loli is real children, when it very clearly isn't. Are you actually trying to assert lolis look remotely similar to real children

>>15921487

and traps don’t look like real men yet many will proclaim they are gay.

>>15921491

Oh my fucking lord, they're not gay because they don't look like men they're gay because they HAVE DICKS

>>15921493

and Lolis are under the age of consent ergo they are pedo.

>>15921338

don't forget

>moderation dissent (cuckchan)

>not sucking mark's circumcised cock (also cuckchan)

>not falling in line with the status quo (definitely cuckchan)

>not worshipping 8chanmania and Uncommon time streams (superbly cuckchan)

>disliking anime (super duper cuckchan)

>disliking a game we like or liking a game we dislike (oh you better believe that's cuckchan)

fuckin cuckchanners cucking things up in their cuckoldry ways! so many cuckchanners in this thread…. fucking cucks need a cucklaser in order to cuckdetected the cucks who cuck all day cucking cuck cucks!

>>15921498

>moderation dissent (cuckchan)

True, although it's mostly people being displeased with the moderation but thinking that alternatives are worse.

>not sucking mark's circumcised cock (also cuckchan)

To be honest, almost everyone is insulting Mark

>not falling in line with the status quo (definitely cuckchan)

Most people are displeased with how the things are but have the approach of "Could be worse"

>not worshipping 8chanmania and Uncommon time streams (superbly cuckchan)

Hey, those are fun though.

>disliking anime (super duper cuckchan)

True but to be honest, it's kind of the fault of the fact that we had a bunch of niggers come into random threads over and over again to shit on anime all the fucking time and insult other anons, derailing threads for no better reason that "MUH WEEBS", so it's no wonder it is like that right now.

>disliking a game we like or liking a game we dislike (oh you better believe that's cuckchan)

Eh, don't really think that's true, you just can't word things like an absolute faggot or act overly excited or the people will think you are trying to sell them shit. If you have good arguments you can talk in positive light about game that is dissliked here and in negative about game that is liked here. But if you're just going to say that you disslike/like something without reason or repeat the same tired arguments that have been answered a thousand times already, you will be shat on for a reason.

>>15921521

Go back to your safe space, faggot.

>>15921569

Not him, but

>I put all of your arguments into an MS Paint drawing so now you can't use them, I win

>>15921603

Nigger, those are arguments which have been floating over a thousand times on this site, have been answered a thousand times and I'm fucking tired of seeing them. I have provided contrarguments to the arguments in the image as well, there is nothing stopping anyone from putting other contrarguments to those contrarguments, or thinking of new arguments entirely. Actually, I would be happy if someone did, it would be interesting to discuss some new arguments, come to some new conclusions, think of new contrarguments, but it is not fun, just repeating the same shit over and over again. So I'm not going to bother repeating it, instead I'm going to put all the most often used arguments into one image, and hope that the niggers are able to think of something more creative next time, so I don't have to repeat myself every fucking time I argue this shit on this site.

>>15921498

>>15921603

>gets called out twice

>becomes 200% mad and can't even give a proper response.

>>15921634

>Thats completely natural. Every group seeks its own interest.

It doesn't matter if it's natural or not you nigger, it matters whether it's good for the populace or not.,

>And thats why certain censorship and limitations (such as the exclusion of kikes and kike ideas).

You didn't even fucking finish the sentence you nigger, but it's besides the point, I know what you've been trying to say and you're still fucking wrong because kikes aren't the only single reason for why governments and other types of structures of powers, I'm going to say governments from now on because that is easier and I'm tired of repeating the same thing over and over again just assume I said governments get corrupt you retard. A government can, and will act in a way that profits it the most and helps it stay in power for as long as possible, corruption is a tool of power, if there is power to be gained from corruption, the government will turn to it because the very existence of the government is based on continous actions that keep the current ruling group in power. If someone is not going to take the most effective way of staying in power which includes corruption, helping powerful individuals and the groups of people who keep the ruling group in power as long as they can keep them there, if they're not going to do that, then someone else is going to do that and become the next ruling group. It doesn't matter if you exclude kike ideas or not, corruption is a natural part of power structures that comes from rivalization between the parties that want to rule and the party that does rule.

>And thats why a strict selective process must be conducted where the current leader tries to enforce and select the proper a heir thus censoring the ideas of those who do not meet his.

You do realize that for the lineage to be succesful they do not necessairly need to improve the quality of life of the people? And besides that is not a foolproof process. Do you even know how lineages of rulers usually work? There is usually a few really great rulers who as I said, are not always good for the populace, just for their nation and lineage in between a shit ton of medicore and bad ones.

>Blatantly false . The same argument applies here. Due to easy corruption said leaderships stray away from the wel-being of citizens and heavy censorship of malicious ideas and individuals must be sustained as the regulating body seeks to fulfill the wel-being of the citizens. A leadership lived by those it leads is much more stable than that which only seeks selfish gain. Thus once such a leadership is a established it is everyone's duty to censor those who seek to oppose it as it is in their own interest.

No it's not, you have an idealistic view of nations as the common good of people, when they are mostly organizations bent of population control. Here is the thing, the quality of the life of the citizens is based on how much a government needs to care for them to gain wealth from their work. If that amount of effort is low, governments will not put more effort in as it's wasting resources that could be used putting to keep itself in power. If it's possible to minimize the ammount of individuals that need to be kept happy for the ruling group to stay in power, the ruling group will do so for the simple reason that it's more profitable to do so, and minimizes the chance that their rivals will sway those individuals to their side and their the place of the ruling group.

>>15921936

>Except censorship has always been clearcut with a very defining line and the problem comes when assholes try to jump that line by either acting out of ignorance or malice of pre-established lines and definitions. This works both ways and both the leaders and the led should strive to keep these definitions in check. Of course the current system is completely fucked because people don't know their own power. A proper leader/lead relationship would very much depend on the lead as they should know the leader's dependence on them. It boils down to a collective agreement to hold up said censorship for its own benefits. What I get from you is that you aren't actually crying about censorship, you are crying about corrupt goberments(or in other words those that don't agree with you and are more powerful than you).

I'm amazed that you don't see the problem here, the very fact that as you've said "assholes try to jump the line", and they succeed shows that your assumption is completely and blatantly wrong and that your "definitions" aren't as clearcut as you make them out to be if they can be influenced in the first place.

>Then they were never conservative. But this is beside the point. They just lied about their interests.

Never claimed otherwise.

>This was isn't true and we had this discussion before. What you describe is a side effect of empathy but in practice this was never the case as these "underdog" groups always get the upper hand by censoring when you challenge their ideas even though they are the supposed minority. While you try to play the fair game with them, they don't. No idea that isnt good would gain mass traction if becomes challenged so these groups resort the in group and outside censorship so they can gain traction without having a valid idea. Not point in history has the "underdog" has gained any traction until those in power supported them. Communist revolutionaries weren't underdogs. Seeking to debate them is pointless as they have no interest in it and will use subversion to gain power no matter how many times they get proven wrong. Thats why the only practical means of dealing with them is to censor them. Plus whenever somebody is contempt they seek to sustain the status quo and those who act against it are considered an enemy.

You still miss the entire point incredibly hard, the "underdog" idea is not about whether or not they actually have power necessary to censor a certain idea, but whether they are against the current status quo and whether they can gain the appeal of the populace. Those groups cannot win without the support of the populace, even if they have some power, and by trying to censor them instead of engaging them outright you're basically shifting the populace's opinion to their side. Maybe we did, I got tired and didn't respond back then, so I'll try to do it now.

>But this just boils down do good and bad ideas. Groups are identified on said ideas. Opposing groups are never a 360 on your ideals.

A group's ideas change when it suits the member of that group, there are people who are honest about their beliefs but in the end, the most succesful people are those who forsake the ideals themsleves for the sake of pragmatism and self-gain. Selfish and manipulative, machiavellian action is the most effective way of gaining and keeping in power, while selfless actions are far less helpful to that end.

>Eventually as in when somebody shoves his greedy ass subversive ideology through the previously mention means into the general populace. Which can be counteracted by censoring said groups.

Or when the group that currently rules the structure of power will start having problems with censoring certain ideas, or becomes corrupt itself. And no it cannot be counteracted, corruption of any group is inevitable as long as there is some gain to be had.

>Art has always been a reflection of reality and so it is palpable to identify where the limit of creative expression fit with the natural order world and where they merely serves as perversion of it. Take post-modern and classic art, one seeks to destroy the beauty of the natural world whiles the other seeks to capture it.

Post-modernism is a CIA psyop, and only survives because the groups in power keep spreading it and trying to censor other forms of art either by literally censoring it or by manipulating the critics and not allowing other kinds of artists into the important institutions. It would not hold up in a non-censorship environment as anything else than maybe a curiousity of experimental art. It is a testiment to why censorship kills art and doesn't help it. If anything, throughout history better art was created exactly because people started breaking conventions and doing new things.

>>15921938

>And allowing leads the instability and eventual takeover of those who will not allow you to criticize it anyway. So you either seize the power yourself, be contempt with what is now or expect to get utterly butt-fucked by something way worse. You can't simply spread your ideas and expect thing to work out because you wanting to play fair doesnt mean the others will play fair. This isn't a game, its a battle for dominance.

No nigger, allowing that gives you the chance to not allow those people in power at all. It is a chance to fuck the current group over if they try anything funny, it makes it unprofitable to stand against the populace. You are the one who is treating this as a game, you are the one thinking that you can stay in power by acting fair and acting nice to the populace and trying to care for your people. You think that if your group gets in, you will have a chance to improve stuff instead of getting removed and replaced by someone else. You think that even if you can keep in power, you can help the people instead of just using them. Thinking that the people might help themselves might be idealistic, but thinking that someone can fix this mess is even more so. If anything, the responsibility lays on the populace, because their rulers aren't going to do shit to help them if it's not profitable for them.

>A well-meaning power will preserve a status quo with which people will be contempt with which they will naturally seek to preserve as that is the most comfortable option for them. This underdog shit is bullshit. Nobody went "muh poor homos" until they gathered and started censoring those who seek to shed light of their disgusting ways.

A well-meaning power stops being a well-meaning power when it becomes profitable for it to do so, and no it's not fucking bullshit. No group has the ability to do something to a society if they don't have either overwhelming military power or the support of a populace.

>And what did I do? Call you out on the fact that censorship is acting in your favor and described with having an interest wanting to be preserved?

Yeah especially when I myself admitted that it's acting in my favor, and if I were responsible for it I would not do the same thing as it's a hypocritical thing to do, you still tried to paint me really hard as a hypocrite and make yourself seem a victim when in truth you have gotten exactly what you've been advocating for this whole time.

>The a problem with the gobernment is that its acts with disconnect and disregard to the well being of citizens and that why citizens should organize to overthrow it because gay shit like democracy is only a pretend game like your ideal of no censorship where everyone can voice their ideals but only those that dont care for the system and abuse it prosper from it.

Nigger, you're saying this yet you're the one trying to take away the only way in which people can organize against a government. If a government who censors things is acting out against it's populace, there is not going to be any rebelion, unless the higher ups want to change things up themselves.

>So you are just gonna though around claims with assumed intentions? Cool story, dude.

>No I didn;t, I specifically mentioned that it proves my point. That censorship isn't inherently bad.

Yeah no you faggot, you were trying to discredit the anons who were discussing you on the basis of something that the mods did. I do not believe you didn't have subversive intentions.

>>15920466

i think the skirt looks better

>>15921970

It looks like shit.

>>15921640

>It merely serves as a release of pent up emotions/stress.

No it fucking doesn't, get it in your fucking head. People enjoy macabre, they enjoy gory descriptions, they enjoy looking at disgusting shit, it was the appeal of writings of people like Edgar Allan Poe. It's the appeal of horror, it's the appeal of gory stuff. The fact that you don't enjoy it personally doesn't mean that people don't. People are captivated by dark and macabre things, fuck, ask any horrorfag if he likes gory things, at least some of them will answer you that they do, and there is nothing bizzare about that.

>Because its not based on the nature of the actions themselves but on the emotional highs you would experience in said situations. Guro specifically focuses not on the emotional highs of finding yourself in such a situation and imagining you would be so cool to deal with it but it focuses and what if you lost, it entirely focuses and the negative repercussions, the suffering involved, not the opportunity to overcome it. Thats why straight up just gore is disgusting and can only serve as morbid curiosity but never as an emotional release.

Yeah, that's why people watch slasher movies don't they? Or why they want to see gorey animations in vidya. Come one nigger, violence is cheap fucking entertainment and we have entire genres of movies and vidya where you get awarded by violence or are supposed to cheer for violent acts to happen based on the thought that it's simple entertainment. Holy shit, people make compilations of violent accidents for people to see, there is a reason why public executions in the past gathered so many people. Humans really fucking like violence.

>As mentioned before it focuses on a specific thing - the sexualization of these fictional individuals. Sexuality specifically requires an object of attraction because sexuality is based based on the seeking of a mate, not like stress or emotional pent up where it is entirely an individual state of being. You can release emotions by yourself but you cant release sexual frustration without a recipient, be it imaginative or not. Thus your sexual recipient is the a fictional character modeled after and underage child, something that is not fit for sexual intercourse and your mind shouldnt register as a viable sexual mate. Its completely equivalent to homosexuality however. As other males are also not applicable for mating yet there is still attraction because of mental disorder.

Frist of all, you are completely wrong about emotions and stress not needing a recipient, if you have bottled emotions and stress that you need to take care of then you need a way of dealing with them by pointing them at something and finding some way to take care of them. You are not able to release stress or emotions just by themselves, you need something to release them on, so no it's not different at all you fucking faggot. Second of all, the recipient is not a real child or a realistic image of a child so it does not change shit you fucking faggot, my previous argument still applies here. If you're saying that a mind shouldn't register it as a viable sexual mate, it shouldn't register a cartoon as a viable sexual mate at all.

>It is by the definition of the word "degenerate". Its the opposite of generate, to generate would be the sexual attraction towards child bearing females, which to our mind " child bearing female" is a collection of signifiers, such as breast, hips, facial structure and the like. A loli aka small child lacks these attributes and your mind should not be registering them as viable mates, but for you or whoever it does, so you are imagining sexual intercourse without the possibility of fulfilling its function, thus you do not generate. You degenerate.

You see, this is what I have a problem with, by your fucking definition anything that can is largelly harmless to society and would be at worst considered slight eccentrism can be considered degeneracy which only leads to nofun faggotry which promotes limitations on art.

>>15922016

Any better arguments that could be made then in your opinion?

>>15922016

Maybe it looks like that because I put two contr-arguments in place of one, when the second question should be an answer to a different argument entirely, that is connected to the previous one.

>>15922016

Maybe pointing out that the enjoyment from violence comes from the same source as actual violence, and therefore there is no argument to be made that likening loli to violence is false equivalence, is enough?

>>15921936

>You didn't even fucking finish the sentence you nigger, but it's besides the point, I know what you've been trying to say and you're still fucking wrong because kikes aren't the only single reason for why governments and other types of structures of powers, I'm going to say governments from now on because that is easier and I'm tired of repeating the same thing over and over again just assume I said governments get corrupt you retard. A government can, and will act in a way that profits it the most and helps it stay in power for as long as possible, corruption is a tool of power, if there is power to be gained from corruption, the government will turn to it because the very existence of the government is based on continous actions that keep the current ruling group in power. If someone is not going to take the most effective way of staying in power which includes corruption, helping powerful individuals and the groups of people who keep the ruling group in power as long as they can keep them there, if they're not going to do that, then someone else is going to do that and become the next ruling group. It doesn't matter if you exclude kike ideas or not, corruption is a natural part of power structures that comes from rivalization between the parties that want to rule and the party that does rule.

And I explained how censorship can help keep a well meaning governance in power and how it would be the most viable option for stability and staying in power of proper measures of censorship/limitations are places. Kikes were only one example but very much so relevant to my point of subversive groups and individuals.

>You do realize that for the lineage to be successful they do not necessarily need to improve the quality of life of the people?

But non benevolent rulers breed unrest anyway. I'm just repeating myself.

>There is usually a few really great rulers who as I said, are not always good for the populace, just for their nation and lineage in between a shit ton of medicore and bad ones.

And thats because former benevolent ruler do a bad job of selectively appoint and heirs because they didn't bother to properly attempt to educate their heirs and then pick out the worthy one. Because those with well-being in mind didnt take enough action to ensure the continue of said well-being.

>No it's not, you have an idealistic view of nations as the common good of people, when they are mostly organizations bent of population control. Here is the thing, the quality of the life of the citizens is based on how much a government needs to care for them to gain wealth from their work. If that amount of effort is low, governments will not put more effort in as it's wasting resources that could be used putting to keep itself in power. If it's possible to minimize the amount of individuals that need to be kept happy for the ruling group to stay in power, the ruling group will do so for the simple reason that it's more profitable to do so, and minimizes the chance that their rivals will sway those individuals to their side and their the place of the ruling group.

And I already said this will eventually breed discontent which is impractical for maintaining stability. You desire to forfeit the stability of a well-meaning governance because it could become non-well-meaning even though at that point it will naturally start breeding the opposition to it no matter the censorship. You are still preaching the idea that we should play an equal game even though the government that never intended to care for your well-being would censor you anyway. You still want to apply your principles that the malicious will only abuse and only accelerates the destabilization of the well-meaning one.

>I'm amazed that you don't see the problem here, the very fact that as you've said "assholes try to jump the line", and they succeed shows that your assumption is completely and blatantly wrong and that your "definitions" aren't as clearcut as you make them out to be if they can be influenced in the first place.

Thats because assholes like you preach for this false equality that will prevent from the well-being side to shut them down.

>You still miss the entire point incredibly hard, the "underdog" idea is not about whether or not they actually have power necessary to censor a certain idea, but whether they are against the current status quo and whether they can gain the appeal of the populace. Those groups cannot win without the support of the populace, even if they have some power, and by trying to censor them instead of engaging them outright you're basically shifting the populace's opinion to their side. Maybe we did, I got tired and didn't respond back then, so I'll try to do it now.

And I said that the contempt populace will natural seek to censor those who wish to disrupt the status quo. A revolutionary cannot gain traction naturally in peaceful times that why they aim to be subversive to gain their way. Which censorship will work to prevent.

>Or when the group that currently rules the structure of power will start having problems with censoring certain ideas, or becomes corrupt itself. And no it cannot be counteracted, corruption of any group is inevitable as long as there is some gain to be had.

Nothing lasts forever. But your ideals only help bring about the collapse with absolutely no added benefit.

>Post-modernism is a CIA psyop, and only survives because the groups in power keep spreading it and trying to censor other forms of art either by literally censoring it or by manipulating the critics and not allowing other kinds of artists into the important institutions.

And they only managed to be in place because post-modernists werent censored hard enough at the time at which point they gained power and are now censoring the non-post modernists. This proves my point.

>It would not hold up in a non-censorship environment as anything else than maybe a curiousity of experimental art.

It would, and thats why precisely they have no interest in existing in the said environment and thus will try underhanded tactics to create a censored environment that would benefit them. Thats why you must censor them first to preserve your interests that have been the current ones. You are still missing the point that those who are malicious dont care to play fair.

>No nigger, allowing that gives you the chance to not allow those people in power at all. It is a chance to fuck the current group over if they try anything funny, it makes it unprofitable to stand against the populace. You are the one who is treating this as a game, you are the one thinking that you can stay in power by acting fair and acting nice to the populace and trying to care for your people. You think that if your group gets in, you will have a chance to improve stuff instead of getting removed and replaced by someone else. You think that even if you can keep in power, you can help the people instead of just using them. Thinking that the people might help themselves might be idealistic, but thinking that someone can fix this mess is even more so. If anything, the responsibility lays on the populace, because their rulers aren't going to do shit to help them if it's not profitable for them.

I already addressed everything here. I'm just going to say that you live in ignorance seeing as how you believe its a matter of debate when of course those groups that know they will never win the debate will natural seek to avoid it. And its not about some idealistic desire for well-being. Its a means of self-preservation against those who seek to harm you. You don't lay down your weapon against an opponent who fully intends to kill you in some deluded belief that he will have the honor of laying down his to try and play some fair game. Because he is using said weapon precisely because it gives an advantage and you laying down yours only gives him a bigger advantage. In a way you are preaching gun control.

>A well-meaning power stops being a well-meaning power when it becomes profitable for it to do so, and no it's not fucking bullshit.

I already addressed the this.

>No group has the ability to do something to a society if they don't have either overwhelming military power or the support of a populace.

If you are the one in power with the intent of well-being it is only in your interest to censor those who desire to disrupt you. I already explained why. If you aren't in power with the goal of honest well-being of others then you cannot achieve power because those in power will only censor you before you get there. If you somehow impose an open debate with no censorship then a third party will come that still practices censorship and will acquire power by avoid honest debate and censoring you.

>Yeah especially when I myself admitted that it's acting in my favor, and if I were responsible for it I would not do the same thing as it's a hypocritical thing to do, you still tried to paint me really hard as a hypocrite and make yourself seem a victim when in truth you have gotten exactly what you've been advocating for this whole time.

Never did I pretend to be a victim and I already said it as a disclaimer yet you still seem to have this desire to discredit me with it as with you putting multiple ad hominem with the attempt of painting as someone ill meaning. Is perception of me playing a victim is entirely your mistake and you continue to push it even though I said that was never my intent.

> Nigger, you're saying this yet you're the one trying to take away the only way in which people can organize against a government. If a government who censors things is acting out against it's populace, there is not going to be any rebellion, unless the higher ups want to change things up themselves.

>take away

Not only do you not have it but open debate isn’t the only way of taking power. In fact it has never been.

AND YOU ARE STILL IGNORING THE GAY HENTAI EQUIVALENCE

oh boy let's discuss censorsh-

>this poor excuse of a OP

nevermind, fuck off. make a proper OP with substance then come back.

>>15923582

Yeh seems I fucked up welp.

http://archive.li/9DPj3

I'll just leave that if anyone is still interested in this whole thing as this explains much better than any post I could had made.

>>15925990

Better late than never.

>>15935593