>>777 >Censorship's good when it serves my causes. The problem isn't censorship, it's that the left controls it. What censorship would you like to see in games? >>3198 >Underaged characters aren't actually allowed on R34 What the fuck, why even have the site up at that point, it goes against the entire spirit of "rule 34". >>5264 >I'm Christian and I believe women shouldn't dress like harlots What if the character is in fact a harlot? Anyway my Reddit opinion is that DLC is actually a good thing. It lets the devs release the base game for cheap, or even for free, so that poorfags and people trying out the game can do it easily. Then if you like the game you can buy more content as you want it, which also provides replayability. Also the devs can probably fund their entire business model off of whales who will drop $10k on all the DLC just because they can. Good for them, good for me.

>>7383 Yes. I remember watching it because it came up in my recommended, before it really got popular. Then I started looking at what other videos the channel had and I quickly discovered that everyone involved was a tranny. Lost whatever little interest I had in an instant. >>7393 >Anyway my Reddit opinion is that DLC is actually a good thing. DLC is a good thing, for all the reasons you mentioned and more. The thing is, most developers don't actually put out proper DLC. They release content that was finished at launch as DLC, sometimes on release day. There have been cases where there was content on a disc at launch, but it could only be accessed with the purchase of a separate DLC. Oftentimes the DLC is also lacking in content, such as the famous horse armor DLC, which probably took about a few hours to make and barely affects gameplay, even if it was made post-launch. If you rounded up all the DLC ever made for video games, only a fraction of it would actually fit the definition. It's become a marketing term to try and drum up hype for a game and good faith for the company financing it. >>7389 >SSSSS Squad

It's time to take come the Crown of Reddit. Most "loli shota aren't pedo" arguments do not hold up to any serious scrutiny and discussions about them become intentionally intellectually disingenuous. Example: you often see the "muh abused digital 2D children" retort brought up, but that's almost never what's being discussed. People don't say "you're hurting children", they say "you're a pedophile". These are two different things, this is the actual definition of a straw man. > Person 1 asserts proposition X. > Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X. Lolicons consistently switch the argument from being about their attraction to minors, into being a vaguely similar argument about the abusement of minors. This is because the latter argument is much easier to defeat than the former. There's also a general refusal to directly discuss the topic or address anything being said, questions are responded to with questions or allegory. "If you shoot people in games, are you a murderer??" The reason lolicons so frequently act like this because they can't "win" otherwise, they have to be dishonest. If you masturbate to drawings of women, are you attracted to women? Obviously yes. If you masturbate to drawings of buff men, are you attracted to buff men? Yes. If you masturbate to drawings of 'feral' horses getting blown, are you a zoophile? Even if people don't like to use that word, yes. But if you ask this question in relation to children, suddenly the answer becomes esoteric and people respond with misdirection and dishonestly. Imagine saying you're not gay when you jerk it to people of the same sex, that'd be fucking nonsensical, and that's essentially the argument lolicons make. It's all frankly pathetic.

>>7400 So if you kill a character in a video games, then you're a murderer. In fact, playing a racing game like Need For Speed means that you're also guilty of breaking the traffic laws and need to be arrested for evading the in-game cops. In addition, Vin Diesel needs to be arrested for playing as a world renowned street racing criminal who's stolen tens of millions of dollars. Because there cannot be any disconnection allowed between the actions in fictional content and the actions in reality.

>>7393 >DLC I'm more than ok when videogames need internet for updates so developers can fix shit that could BROWN BRICK your console, it's okay to launch a half-assed game as long you keep the promise to give it maintenance so it could rise up from spaghetti code like a phoenix bird and of course sell it under the 5 dollar tag.

>>7401 You just engaged in the precise strawman argument the post you're replying to was complaining about. He didn't say lolicons are child molesters, he said they're pedophiles. You'd think pedophiles, of all people, would be eager to recognize the difference between pedophiles and child molesters. A pedophile isn't someone who abuses children, it's someone who has a sexual attraction to children. Btw, a homosexual isn't someone who sucks cock, it's someone who has a sexual attraction to cock. You can be gay without actually sucking cock. If you like gay porn, you're gay.

>>7404 >He didn't say lolicons are child molesters, he said they're pedophiles. You'd think pedophiles, of all people, would be eager to recognize the difference between pedophiles and child molesters Except there is no difference. In order for pedophilic content to be created, a child must be molested in the process. >Btw, a homosexual isn't someone who sucks cock Yes, it is.

>>7400 >Lolicons consistently switch the argument from being about their attraction to minors, into being a vaguely similar argument about the abusement of minors Antis do the same thing, as people often conflate the terms "pedophile" and "child abuser". The main problem around the loli debate is poorly defined terms. >If you masturbate to drawings of 'feral' horses getting blown, are you a zoophile? Even if people don't like to use that word, yes. Nah man I have some of that hentai, but thinking about doing it with a real animal disgusts me. Sometimes some shit is just hot, despite the context. I can't speak for people who are into the stuff in a big way though. I would certainly have concerns about such people. I also wouldn't leave my kids alone around a lolicon, but then I wouldn't leave my kids alone around a weeb in general. >>7401 >So if you kill a character in a video games, then you're a murderer. Antis will never have a satisfying answer to this. >>7449 >Except there is no difference. In order for pedophilic content to be created, a child must be molested in the process. Oh shit here we go

>>7449 >Except there is no difference. In order for pedophilic content to be created, a child must be molested in the process. Not true. Lolicon can be made without any child being molested. >Yes, it is. No. Sucking cocks means you're gay, but it's not required for you to be gay. Being turned on by cocks makes you gay, even if you don't actually suck them. All those preachers who say "look, we all want to suck dick, but we must resist the urge!" Those guys are gay, even if they actually do "resist the urge." They're just so gay they can't comprehend the idea that other people aren't gay. >>7451 >Antis will never have a satisfying answer to this. Antis might not, but regular people do. Murderer refers to someone who carried out the action of murder. Pedophile doesn't refer to someone who carried out the action of molesting children. That's a child molester. To be a pedophile, you don't have to molest, you just have to have the sexual attraction to a child. Again, you'd think pedophiles would be the first people to want to point out this distinction. I'm not aware of a term that refers to people who would like to kill people, even if they haven't actually killed anyone.

>>7472 >Pedophile doesn't refer to someone who carried out the action of molesting children I made a mistake and didn't address the original argument properly. Normally I take this line when people say that pedophilic content should be banned, not when they accuse lolicons of pedophilia. Now, for the argument that lolicons are pedophiles, I would argue the presence of lolicon makes no difference as to whether a person becomes a pedophile or not, and therefore it's a pointless observation to make, even if it's true. I suspect it's not true, but I can't personally refute it.

>>7473 >Now, for the argument that lolicons are pedophiles, I would argue the presence of lolicon makes no difference as to whether a person becomes a pedophile or not, That second part has nothing to do with the first part. I never said lolicon turns people into pedophiles. That's like saying cocks turn people gay. The point is just that if you're attracted to children, you're a pedophile, even if you don't molest any. If you're attracted to dudes, you're gay, even if you don't fuck any. If you like yaoi, you're gay, regardless of it being drawn. And I don't care what's going on in your own head. I think the difference between pedo and molester is important, because one is only in your own head.

>>7400 >>7404 >>7472 >>7473 >>7479 The technical definition of the word "pedophile" does not matter, because most people use it to refer to child molesters. So when people say "lolicons arent pedos" they actually mean "lolicons arent child molesters". Its like saying "I hate that bear in my basement", people will think you are talking about a huge man, but you mean a actual bear.

>>7400 I find 2D buttholes attractive but find the idea of anal in real life disgusting.

>>7480 Sure, but this goes back to my point that you'd think pedos would be the first people to point out that pedo =/= molester.

>>695 (OP) I hate when everyone is acting like an asshole for no reason and all the time, oh wait, that's pretty much anti-reddit because of the many cocksuckers who have every right to act like retards as long they're spreading marxism at the same time but refuse to swallow when it's their turn to get egged on. Seriously so many interesting questions about rare errors whether be in videogames or coding in general get wasted by some fucktard who can't keep his narcissism to himself and tries way too hard to be the new talking trend for the next few seconds and quickly get replaced by a brand pulling out the new sex toy for all drooling numales.

>>7480 >Pic Unrelated post, but I just want to show another grammar nazi shitpost that got taken seriously.

>>7480 >So when people say "lolicons arent pedos" they actually mean "lolicons arent child molesters". Well then, would you be fine if I said that lolicons are sexually attracted to children, as opposed to pedophiles?

>>7472 >Pedophile doesn't refer to someone who carried out the action of molesting children. Yes, it does. Cheeze pizza can only exist if a child is molested in the process. >>7479 >The point is just that if you're attracted to children, you're a pedophile Is the child real? >If you're attracted to dudes, you're gay Are the dudes real? You fixated on what the fictional material is "depicting" as opposed to the fact that it's fictional material. If you continue down that line of thought, then no person would ever be allowed to consume any media at all whatsoever so long as it depicts an illegal activity taking places because, if you're enjoying nd/or participating the illegal activity taking place in the fictional material, regardless of the circumstance or the stylistic depiction of it, then you're just as guilty as if that activity actually occured in real life. In the realm of art, you can make anything and everything appealing to the eye. However takeaway the artistic depiction of it and place it in reality, and you will watch as people en masse reject it. People can do whatever they want in fiction because it's fake, it's a fantasy, nothing about it is real. In fiction, you can have a man become a woman and people will accept because of a suspension of disbelief. You can fuck animals because they give you "the look". And lolis can be 30 years old, have super elastic bodies, and driving rape vans for the purposes of kidnapping and fudging unsuspecting Anons who refuse to give them the D. The same cannot be said of real life, where we live in a world of rules and actions have consequences.

>>7530 >Yes, it does. Cheeze pizza can only exist if a child is molested in the process. It doesn't need to exist for pedos to exist. If imagining it makes you sexually excited, you're a pedo. Being a pedo is completely in your mind. >Is the child real? Does not matter. And it shouldn't matter to you, either, because pedo isn't the same as molester. >Are the dudes real? <I'm not gay. I just imagine fucking dudes and jerk off to that. But I'm not gay because I only fantasize about fucking dudes and don't actually fuck them! There doesn't need to be any "material" of any kind involved, fictional or otherwise. It's your thoughts that make you a pedo, or gay, or straight. >If you continue down that line of thought, then no person would ever be allowed to consume any media at all whatsoever so long as it depicts an illegal activity taking places because, if you're enjoying nd/or participating the illegal activity taking place in the fictional material, No, because being a pedo isn't the same as being a molester. I didn't say you should be prosecuted for the thoughtcrime of being a pedo. I don't care what goes on in your own head. Also, watching a movie where a kid gets fucked doesn't automatically make you a pedo, since you might not be sexually attracted to the concept. There are plenty of movies that show such a thing without the intent to titillate. But then the intent isn't what matters to what makes you a pedo or not. I don't think Three Men and a Baby was intended to be sexy, and most people didn't get hard over it. But if you do, you're a pedo. And I don't care. I didn't say you shouldn't be allowed to jerk it to Rugrats or Baby's Day Off. But it doesn't matter that that movie isn't intended to be sexy. If you find it sexy, you're a pedo. If you imagine a completely fictional scenario in your head, and never commit it to paper, but it's kids and that makes you sexually aroused, you're a pedo. As for other crimes, I don't know if there is a word for someone who imagines stealing or imagines murdering. I wouldn't prosecute anyone for imagining those things. Very few people would. I think it's silly to prosecute people for any crime. You're the one who falsely says pedo=molester, then you get mad about it. If you just accepted the simple fact that they don't mean the same thing, you wouldn't have a problem. >consequences of reality stop the idea from being exciting IRL Again, doesn't matter. If you were like <"man, I'd love to get fucked in the ass by a huge fucking cock, but I'm afraid of getting anal fissures, and I don't want to get shit on my boyfriend's dick" you'd still be gay. To say that wouldn't make you gay just means you're such a huge fucking faggot that you can't imagine the concept of not being gay. Because most people don't want to do that shit, anon. Lots of people aren't gay. And lots of people aren't pedos. But you are. And I don't give a fuck. But I do give a fuck that you're misusing language this badly, and jumping through ridiculous leaps in logic that end up only making yourself angry.

>>7550 >If imagining it makes you sexually excited, you're a pedo So imaging that you'll grab some broad off the street and fuck her against her will makes you a rapist? >Does not matter Yes, it does >There doesn't need to be any "material" of any kind involved Yes, it does >It's your thoughts that make you a pedo, or gay, or straight. So your thoughts also make you a rapist, a murder, and any other type of criminal that you can think of simply because you thought of the activity? >No, because being a pedo isn't the same as being a molester. Yes, it is. >Also, watching a movie where a kid gets fucked doesn't automatically make you a pedo First, for what othe purpose would you be watching the movie? Second, the context does not matter, all that matters is the content. >There are plenty of movies that show such a thing without the intent to titillate. No, they don't. >I don't think Three Men and a Baby was intended to be sexy Haven't seen that movie, but I have seen enough other films with sex scenes to know that they only exist for the purposes of "entertaining" the audience. If it wasn't for the purposes of entertainment, then they wouldn't need to show it. >I don't know if there is a word for someone who imagines stealing or imagines murdering. A psycopath, and thinking about those activities, despite having no intent to ever perform them IRL, is used as justification for comitting otherwise perfectly sane people to mental institutions. >consequences of reality stop the idea from being exciting IRL That's not what I said at all. Using bestiality as an example, you may want to fuck fictional animals because they can talk and sympathize with you about your troubles, meanwhile real animals tend to have nothing but the barest of desires and unable to communiate with anything more than a basic "Feed me" or "Play with me" dance. That's part of why people consider bestiality to be so immoral, even when you have some animals that will tackle you and demand that you fuck them when they're in heat.

>>7553 >So imaging that you'll grab some broad off the street and fuck her against her will makes you a rapist? Unless, you actually do the act, you are not a rapist, at worst you just have "rape fantasies". To give a different example, there is a thing called "suicidal ideation" or suicidal thoughts which can range from passive "I wish I could just end it all" to more active "I will walk on the train tracks at midnight and wait for a train to kill me. I will leave the door to my house unlocked and have a will written on the table", but that doesn't mean all the people who have suicidal ideation actually commit suicide, in fact only a small percentage of those suffering from suicidal thoughts actually do the deed, however the vast majority of people who actually do commit suicide had suicidal thoughts. The same way not everyone who has a "rape fantasy" actually commits rape, but the vast majority who do commit rape have "rape fantasies", and not all pedophiles are child molesters but the vast majority of child molesters are pedophiles. I won't reply to the rest of your post, because I think you don't understand the simply concept of "thought =/= action" that people can have fantasies without indulging in them and that's ok. I don't care if you fantasize about shooting up a school, or raping a woman, or a boy, or killing yourself, as long as you don't act on those impulses, and if those impulses are that strong, then please either seek professional help or isolate yourself from the rest of society like a hermit.

>>7557 >I won't reply to the rest of your post, because I think you don't understand the simply concept of "thought =/= action" I understand it perfectly. Which is why loli and shota is not pedophilic content.

>>7558 That's not what we were talking about, you were making a point about "imagining that you'll grab some broad off the street and fuck her against her will" and whether that would make someone a rapist or not, not if someone watched American Psycho and that meant he was a rapist or a psychopath. You can watch Pretty Cure or Made in Abyss or Cardcaptor Sakura or play Recettear without being a pedophile, however if you start fapping to it, then I think you are a pedo, because you find depictions of children to be sexually attractive. Same thing with watching Lord of the Rings, you are not gay for liking the movies, but you are gay if you start masturbating when Frodo is tied shirtless in one of the movies, that or you are into S&M. So no, not all loli and shota content is pedophilic, but that wasn't the point, the point is whether you find it sexually attractive or not, and even if you find it sexually attractive doesn't mean you will actually molest children. >what if I read a doujin where a loli is getting fucked raw by a man and it's 20 pages of sex, but I don't have an errection? Why would you be even searching for such content to consume?

>>7559 >That's not what we were talking about Yes, we are. That's what this ENTIRE conversation has been about. >however if you start fapping to it, then I think you are a pedo Like fapping to MLP makes you a zoophile? >Same thing with watching Lord of the Rings The Peter Jackson or WB animated films?

>>7560 >Like fapping to MLP makes you a zoophile? Yes. >The Peter Jackson or WB animated films? I was thinking of the Peter Jackson ones, but the same holds true for Ralph Bakshi adaptation.

>>7560 >>however if you start fapping to it, then I think you are a pedo <Like fapping to MLP makes you a zoophile? >>7561 >Yes. You have brain damage.

>>7572 >A child could record themself having sex or masturbating. Two questions. First, by what means would the child actually record themself inthe first place? Second, WHERE would the child get the idea to do that in the first place?

>>7574 >Two questions. First, by what means would the child actually record themself inthe first place? Second, WHERE would the child get the idea to do that in the first place? You seem a little out of touch, it is very common where I live for children to have smart phones or tablets. You know about YouTube Kids right? Your second question relates to my final sentence. Children can and do have sexual thoughts, or they might simply be curious to see their genitals up close. I recall that I personally took at least one indecent photo of myself as a kid, and that was in the pre-smartphone era.

>>7575 >it is very common where I live for children to have smart phones or tablets So the parents are responsible.

I do not care if a game has >queer characters >non-white characters >girls who aren't pretty >politics I don't agree with >a non-white, non-male protag 90% of gamers did not care about any of this until 2015 when they unironically got radicalized by Pepe memes

<This seems someone what relevant. The image was in response to people sperging about the video, but I feel like this also is relevant to the "2D =/= 3D" discussion.

>>7580 both the music and the subject matter make it sound sound like someone made an ai generated song about hehe small penis and everyones just losing their shit over it

I have a new Reddit opinion: I like it when posts get deleted, free speech is not worth the hassle

>>695 (OP) Traps are gay and if you like it you are gay Futas are gay and if you like it you are gay Crossdressing is gay and if you like it you are gay Art does influence reality and society consciously or subconsciously and it doesnt exist in a vaccum Same goes for forum posts and any other form of communication really Porn is bad for you I have no idea why people like lolis and even then why not just petite flat chested women

>>7582 I WANT A NEUTRAL SPACE Lefties will snap and commit soycide anyway because nobody is falling in line.