It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
they are spot on as usual.d_20 said:Here's a discussion by Laymen Gaming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IZYm1c9Jh4
What do you think about this?
Sounds more like you are ignoring facts with feelings again tbh. Repeating them over and over does not make them facts, first you have to define what hate speech even is, because most of the time its just things people disagree with, its BS and you know it, and as far away from rational and educated opinion as you can possibly get.I have already cited actual scholarly research into why allowing hate speech to fester causes violent acts.Perhaps it would be best to avoid the whole Hate Speech BS tbh, its a narrative that does nobody any good and is more about censoring people, in the USA its viewed as being an attack on the first amendment, and with good reason. I think Jordan Peterson covers this one very well already, i would point anyone in his direction as his arguments are very well made.No one made the fucking argument that violent video games beget violence. Holy shit dude, reading comprehension.Either you disagree with that statement in which case i don't need to, or you agree with it, in which case i shouldn't need to, as its just restating my original argument.Dude, quit being stupid. Reread that post.I don't have to try, it has been disproven, repeatedly. Just because you feel something should be true, does not make it true. Facts over feelings, every time.Sorry, @Phry, but I didn't read past your bullshit claiming folks here are merely saying that violent video games beget violence. It shows you do not even begin to grasp the actual arguments laid out by folks like weasel, or you can't reconcile them in your mind so you refuse to lend them any credence. Try harder.
My debate (and weasel's) with Norse has been about hate speech, not merely violent video games. You, like Norse, can't find a good counter argument, so you argue some imaginary bullshit you project onto us instead so you can feel vindicated about your position.
Since I've yet to see anyone cite any sort of research to refute that, we can critically apply the social contract to determine whether the overall net gain is to allow true hate speech to fester or ostracize it as a country.
For those who can't keep up, social contract means giving up freedoms for a security or benefit provided by the governing body of the group. I'll ask: what benefit does society receive from allowing hate speech to fester? I challenge someone to provide any kind of true benefit.
Conversely, it's quite obvious allowing it to fester can lead to terrorism or other violent acts. That's a net loss for society. So, we can work to mitigate this loss while losing pretty much fucking nothing by telling folks that hate speech is not acceptable. That's about as good a deal as you could ever hope for with the social contract (the basis of every governing body ever).
Remember: saying that statistics say African Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crimes is not hate speech. It's an incredibly naive statement to make without looking deeper at the socioeconomic pressures that created what is called "ghettos," and how that influenced the actions of the folks living there, a disproportionate amount of whom are also black (correlation!), but it isn't hate speech. Hate speech is flagrantly threatening or disparaging a group out of unfounded or heavily exaggerated bias, rather than any rational or educated opinion.
Given that there are significantly more people gaming on Win 7 than on Win 10, perhaps they should have taken that into consideration, nothing like entering an already very niche market with a product that doesn't even work on most gaming PC's.Wraithone said:Windows 10 required? No sale. There is no way I'm using Mickysofts most recent abomination. I'll stick to windows 7. Its too bad, as it looks interesting.