NSFW Best Thread Ever [No SJW-related posts allowed]

[RK47]

I never knew wanting to rape pixels is a mark of disrespect to the opposite gender.
I apologize.
Now go back to defending Sawyer.

 

[agentorange]

fuck off. all of you. you are all shit.

 

[FeelTheRads]

It's about time you left, isn't it?

 

[tuluse]

Most of the best selling video games box art is of a solider walking with explosions. Which is pretty non-sexualized.

 

[FeelTheRads]

I don't actually know what sells (neither does Roguey) I'm only repeating to them their arguments: waah women used on cover to sell stop exploiting women plz

But it is kinda obvious that sex sells better than.. nonsex.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

We make a choice, an audience complains, and sometimes -- all too often -- we say, "Sorry, but we're not running for president. We're not sending a message." This is unproductive deflection. This is an absurd, conversation-ending non-argument. It is presented as a wall that no criticism can breach. How is the critic intended to respond?

Someone doesn't like how you portrayed a character. Someone doesn't like how you ended a story. Someone doesn't like how you framed your shots. "We're not running for president. We're not sending a message" as defense is not a response to criticism, it is a hollow rejection of criticism. It does not encourage dialogue, it does not promote introspection, and it does not (typically) ameliorate the audience's displeasure.

Yeah, it's a nicer way of saying "I heard you, but I don't care". Displeased people among a huge contented audience are not important, you don't need to address their criticism unless you feel like it. Which is why Bethesda doesn't come here on the 'dex to entertain us.

Victory, sweet, sweet victory.

Not yet. Maybe if Kerrigan wears pants in SC3.

 

[felipepepe]

Hell, if they remove those zerg heels from her it would be a victory for feminism, good taste and overall common sense.

 

[RK47]

Take off all clothes, show them her hyperweapons.

 

[Krash]

This thread was much better before GD leaked. Just point, laugh, and move on plz. We all know SJWs are nuts, no need for a thirty chapters exposition on why.


And Rogey is a great troll, even if she does believe what she writes.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

This thread has 750 pages, I'm sure the subject will change eventually.

Here, I'll just go to Kotaku and screencap their frontpage.

Gamers are notoriously and justifiably chided for a sense of entitlement

Okay, maybe that wasn't such a good idea after all. Back to feminism.

 

[Machocruz]

I wonder if Michael Bay gets these kinds of questions. Do film critics spend time obsessing about poor portrayals of women in his films, or do they aim to spend as little time with low-brow garbage as they can, mentioning Transformers' transgressions in their review and then moving on, because time is better spent on worthwhile films? Do they waste time trying to elevate pig shit, do they care to see pig shit become progressive, more inclusive? SJWs call people pigs, yet they spend a whole lot of their time wallowing in shit.

But that's what it's like having high standards when you have neither the intelligence nor taste to support them.

 

[Zewp]

He issued an apology so it turns out they do care.

Ever heard the term lip-service? Come the release of their MOBA you and all your Tumblr feminist buddies will be crying giant crocodile tears all over again.

 

[Dexter]

And I can pretty much guarantee you that sexualized will get you more money than nonsexualized. The only extra people you'll get with nonsexualized are your deranged kind who only care about one thing and one thing only in a game: if it offends their sensitive feelings and actively look for reviews which focus on that. Normal people will be more attracted to what's sexualized. And thankfully there are more normal people than your kind.

Sex sells, it always has and it always will, it’s one of the most base instincts of our species right up there with sleeping and eating:
http://m.livescience.com/20773-sexy-advertising-increasing.html
http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/tcom/faculty/ha/sp2003/gp1/Article4.html
http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/10438/article/study-of-box-art-reveals-games-that-feature-non-sexualized-women-on-the-box-don-t-sell-well/

I wonder if Michael Bay gets these kinds of questions. Do film critics spend time obsessing about poor portrayals of women in his films, or do they aim to spend as little time with low-brow garbage as they can, mentioning Transformers' transgressions in their review and then moving on, because time is better spent on worthwhile films?

Most of the old industries (movies, TV, books) have phased out this kind of influence that activist groups or “social critics” are trying to cyclically have on it. They have strong veteran authors with a backbone and big corporate structures that have long since learned how to deal with this kind of “criticism” over the years, they also have learned to deal with it by growing a thick skin against it over time having received it again and again, there are enough crazies targeting said things but they don’t prove very effective, nor does it matter much after a book or movie has been released since they rarely change.

As I’ve said, some of the other mediums have long since grown out of their “morality censorship” phases, which were during the 30s, 40s and 50s with movies.

For instance I watched The Vikings from 1958 recently with Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis, and though it contains a lot of sexual themes they never actually show anything like for instance Game of Thrones or similar movies would do today since they were still under the influence of those tenets at that time.

Authors had clashes with the SJW of their time almost from the beginning of their medium, although back then they would send angry letters or similar that said authors would often just discard in the nearest bin or read and disregard, the Internet has given said people a soapbox and their respective audiences which make them harder to ignore, especially for young impressionable folk that just started their Indie company or made their first game and get assaulted on their Twitters and forums, from the Tumblr crowd and in attack pieces on “game journalism” sites like Kotaku, RPS, The Escapist or Polygon.

Ray Bradbury for instance: http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/451/451.html

Spoiler

About two years ago, a letter arrived from a solemn young Vassar lady telling me how much she enjoyed my experiment in space mythology, The Martian Chronicles.

But, she added, wouldn't it be a good idea, this late in time, to rewrite the book inserting more women's characters and roles?

A few years before that I got a certain amount of mail concerning the same Martian book complaining that the blacks in the book were Uncle Toms and why didn't I "do them over"?

Along about then came a note from a Southern white suggesting that I was prejudiced in favor of the blacks and the entire story should be dropped.

Two weeks ago my mountain of mail delivered forth a pipsqueak mouse of a letter from a well-known publishing house that wanted to reprint my story "The Fog Horn" in a high school reader.

In my story, I had described a lighthouse as having, late at night, an illumination coming from it that was a "God light." Looking up at it from the viewpoint of any sea-creature one would have felt that one was in "the Presence."

The editors had deleted "God-Light" and "in the Presence."

[...]

The point is obvious. There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. Every minority, be it Baptist / Unitarian, Irish / Italian / Octogenarian / Zen Buddhist, Zionist/Seventh-day Adventist, Women's Lib/Republican, Mattachine/FourSquareGospel feel it has the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosene, light the fuse. Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme.

Fire-Captain Beatty, in my novel Fahrenheit 451, described how the books were burned first by the minorities, each ripping a page or a paragraph from the book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the library closed forever.

[...]

For it is a mad world and it will get madder if we allow the minorities, be they dwarf or giant, orangutan or dolphin, nuclear-head or water-conversationalist, pro-computerologist or Neo-Luddite, simpleton or sage, to interfere with aesthetics. The real world is the playing ground for each and every group, to make or unmake laws. But the tip of the nose of my book or stories or poems is where their rights and my territorial imperatives begin, run and rule. If Mormons do not like my plays, let them write their own. If the Irish hate my Dublin stories, let them rent typewriters. If teachers and grammar school editors find my jawbreaker sentences shatter their mushmild teeth, let them eat stale cake dunked in weak tea of their own ungodly manufacture. If the Chicano intellectuals wish to re-cut my "Wonderful Ice Cream Suit" so it shapes "Zoot," may the belt unravel and the pants fall.

George Orwell: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/08/16/the-freedom-of-the-press-george-orwell/

Spoiler

The chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of ... any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face. ... The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.

Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news - things which on their own merits would get the big headlines - being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that "it wouldn't do" to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralized, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is "not done" to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was "not done" to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

The reaction towards it of most English intellectuals will be quite simple: "It oughtn't to have been published." Naturally, those reviewers who understand the art of denigration will not attack it on political grounds but on literary ones. They will say that it is a dull, silly book and a disgraceful waste of paper. This may well be true, but it is obviously not the whole of the story. One does not say that a book "ought not to have been published" merely because it is a bad book. After all, acres of rubbish are printed daily and no one bothers. The English intelligentsia, or most of them, will object to this book because it traduces their Leader and (as they see it) does harm to the cause of progress. If it did the opposite they would have nothing to say against it, even if its literary faults were ten times as glaring as they are.

The issue involved here is quite a simple one: Is every opinion, however unpopular - however foolish, even - entitled to a hearing? Put it in that form and nearly any English intellectual will feel that he ought to say "Yes." But give it a concrete shape, and ask, "How about an attack on Stalin? Is that entitled to a hearing?" and the answer more often than not will be "No." In that case the current orthodoxy happens to be challenged, and so the principle of free speech lapses. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who 'objectively' endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought. These people don't see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you.

To exchange one orthodoxy for another is not necessarily an advance. The enemy is the gramophone mind, whether or not one agrees with the record that is being played at the moment.

It’s also interesting to notice that the “moral outrage brigade” du jour has always been on the losing side of history.

Is anyone looking back smiling at all the critics that were trying to ban slasher flicks or sexploitation movies during the 80s or movies like Lolita? Is anyone looking back licking their lips at the thought of the people that tried to get books censored on religious grounds, thanking them for their foresight? Is anyone singing songs about those that condemned and burned "degenerate art" or those that went around the Vatican with hammer and chisel to emasculate offending statues?

Even more recently, is anyone upset over Tarantino not giving in and stopping or changing the production of movies like Grindhouse, Inglorious Basterds or Django Unchained and hurrahing the critics instead for standing up to him because they were “offended” over a variation of different reasons?

Someone doesn't like how you portrayed a character. Someone doesn't like how you ended a story. Someone doesn't like how you framed your shots. "We're not running for president. We're not sending a message" as defense is not a response to criticism, it is a hollow rejection of criticism. It does not encourage dialogue, it does not promote introspection, and it does not (typically) ameliorate the audience's displeasure.

Just because someone is writing about something or depicting it in a work, doesn’t mean the writer is condoning or glamorizing it, often it can be quite the contrary, I do so wish you would follow your deity J.E. Sawyer’s words of wisdom on this since every now and then he also manages to make rare worthwhile statements : http://spring.me/JESawyer/q/346168929430822639

Anything that has been traumatic for an individual can be a trauma trigger when portrayed in a fictional environment. Fallout’s recurring theme is “War never changes.” Rape is an element of war (often a conscious and intentional tool of war) and is often an element of post-apocalyptic fiction used to show the depravity of humanity in the absence of law (e.g. The Road Warrior features rape directly, albeit viewed through a telescope). F:NV features two major powers engaged in an extremely brutal conflict with myriad small groups (like the Fiends) taking advantage of the chaos. They engage in a full spectrum of cruelty against each other including crucifixion, limb mutilation, torture, booby trapping wounded soldiers (and corpses), mass irradiation, enslavement, and yes, rape.

The best works are those that don’t hit you over the head with the moral cudgel, but present complex situations in complex settings and let everyone’s own value judgment of them jump in. They are not endorsing any one doctrine or action, but presenting them as an element in the story’s content rather than some sort of political message that is sought to be delivered.

Of course you could take the ever more insane RPS/SJW way and try to go on a crusade to try and destroy everything because "offense":

 

[Zewp]

Of course you could take the ever more insane RPS/SJW way and try to go on a crusade to try and destroy everything because "offense":

Roguey has already reached that point. The other day it was bitching because trolls in Shadowrun Returns have lower max intelligence than other races and this is apparently something to get riled up about.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Just because someone is writing about something or depicting it in a work, doesn’t mean the writer is condoning or glamorizing it,

One thing that is scary about the censorship lovers and SJWs is their authoritarian, manipulative mindset. In their minds depicting something is glorifying it and they are obsessed with avoiding various specific thoughtcrimes.
It doesn't mind whenever they are leftists or rightists, they have that obsession with controlling people's thoughts.
To them humour, games, books, etc. are merely tools of social control, not things in themselves.

 

[Black_Willow]

Guise guise guise!
misogony misogony sexism misogony boobs women RPS Sawyer misogony

 

[bert]

the fuck is an SJW

 

[RK47]

If you cared so much about the fate of screen pixels with tits - then you deserve the misery of watching them debauched and humiliated for the sake of sales.
While I derive pleasure from both.

 

[Machocruz]

"Sex sells" is a facile statement. A lot of things sell. Popular actors sell films. Violence sells in all entertainment. Mario sells games. Maybe Blizzard should put some modern military and Legos in their Heroes of the Shitstorm game, because those sell video games too. Sometimes sex doesn't sell. Putting bare tits in a Pixar film will lose a huge chunk of audience that there aren't enough horny teenagers who are into CG cartoons to replace it with. I don't see how the statement has any value aside from explaining why creators of low-brow entertainment put it into their work regardless of context or logic. But that explanation is not necessary, because that's what hacks or those run by hacks do.

As a statement about the market it's simplistic. As a justification for having every female in a game be stacked to the rafters, it highlights the lack of sophistication of the person doing the justifying. They are popamole. They probably enjoy network TV where 22 year old models play forensic experts and detectives where tight T-shirts, but think The Wire is bad because it has too many people they aren't attracted to.

 

[warpig]

the fuck is an SJW

More like this:

Spoiler

 

[Roguey]

lolz a bunch of you don't understand why his need to make an apology was important. Here's a hint

 

[Luzur]

best for all would be no textures at all on any character in game.

just a gray, moving object.

also, you should watch this, Roggy:

 

[Infinitron]

Roguey The problem with SJWs is that they can't seem to decide what they are. Are they elitists, arbiters of good taste who oppose sexualized content in games because it appeals to an uncouth lower class element? (Your use of the term "puerile" suggests this)

Or are they moralists, who wish to purge "offensive" taboo content from the world to protect sensitive minds?

In other words, do you oppose sexualized characters for the same reason elitist upper-middle class Blue State liberals mock NASCAR, or do you really honestly think you're defending the world from something here?

 

[Hirato]

best for all would be no textures at all on any character in game.

just a gray, moving object.

THE FUN CANNOT BE HALTED

 

[catfood]

Roguey The problem with SJWs is that they can't seem to decide what they are. Are they elitists, arbiters of good taste who oppose sexualized content in games because it appeals to an uncouth lower class element? (Your use of the term "puerile" suggests this)

Or are they moralists, who wish to purge "offensive" taboo content from the world to protect sensitive minds?

In other words, do you oppose sexualized characters for the same reason elitist upper-middle class Blue State liberals mock NASCAR, or do you really honestly think you're defending the world from something here?

Why do you keep replying to him? Does it sexually arouse you or something?