As long as you allow a bunch of malcontents to oppress you, supposedly in the name of your own "freedoms" and "rights" nonetheless, then you are all as worthy of such treatment as it gets.

A greedy, never to be sated warmonger, will scrap everything out of your hands, given the chance, it was never about equality and same rights; not resisting equals to submission and the subliminal propaganda of sophist reversion narrative, deludes people... Especially, the "cultivation of guilt"!

Games are only the beginning. Only real fascists, dare put hands on art (videogames are a form of art) and even they, did so sparingly.

Beware; you sleep with democracy and you wake up with tyranny. "For your own good"; don't you ever forget that!

I agree. If they have a rule about it then it should be applied to everyone equally and not select groups. That's only fair. Nazi bad guys from WW2 have become such a common trope in video games that they basically don't treat them as humans. Which is likely why Apple allows that example to slide, it's still not a good justification though.
There's a big difference between companies policing policies on their platforms and government squashing all available channels of communication for a medium. Comparing what Apple did to the seeds of fascism is laughably hyperbolic. Corporate entities aren't democratic institutions and have no duty to allow freedom of expression on their platforms.

What you are essentially asking for is for the government to squash Apple's right to freedom of speech, as their ability to control the messaging on their wholly owned platform is equivalent to freedom of speech for Apple as an individual, which is how they are recognized under the law.

That's exactly what is called "dehumanisation". And that's exactly the point of my (and other people) complaint - social activists today continuously ban jokes and memes for supposedly "dehumanizing" effect, but at the same time allow other examples "to slide".

Yes, Nazis were bad guys, who commited a lot of atrocities, but so were Taliban. However, former is a "common trope" enemy, and the latter is fiercely protected by social activists.

Oh really? So when a person, who expresses dissident opinion is refused paying services used to support this person's channel of communication, how it's different? Because this person can find another platform to express own views? And if that another platform is taken down too by refusing paying (or hositng) services to it? How is it different from "squashing all avaliable channels of communication"?

The difference is that there is no burden on the company providing the service to provide you access to the service. If that service were to become so large that they were able to maintain a monopoly on people's ability to communicate ideas in an effective way than they could potentially be considered a kind of utility rather than a service, and then you would have an argument for saying they are truly stifling free speech.

But again, the arguments that they have a duty to provide a platform to everything is just false and ignores the fact that would infringe on the companies right of freedom of speech. This is the problem with rights arguments, someone utilizing their rights often infringes on the rights of someone else in some fashion, or could be perceived to infringe on their rights in some fashion. Then the impact of the infringement needs to be weighed to see whose rights are more important to protect.

It's interesting that you take the discussion in the direction of hosting services refusing to host websites, obviously referring to companies not allowing sites like the Daily Stormer to be hosted on their services. This is a great example to prove my point. The Daily Stormer wants freedom of speech, but they were using that freedom to slander individuals and groups and promote violence. Their right of free speech, directly conflicted with the right of individual security for others and the hosting company made the right call not allowing them to be hosted there for that reason.

People making arguments like yours love to pretend rights and freedoms are absolute until people they disagree with exercise their rights, then they don't think they're so absolute anymore. But the fact of the matter is, there is no such thing as an absolute right.

You seem to be against censorship. Where were you when GOG added visual novels to their store censored -- right here before your eyes? In one case (Shining Song Starnova), they even requested additional censorship of the all ages version. Why don't you create threads about that -- you know, right here where it happens?

That isn't censorship.
Smut is evil and must be eradicated.
It is much better, more wholesome, and safer that our children be exposed to mindless violence than animated breasts.






Man, I almost managed to type that without laughing. XD

It might have something to do with the fact that visual novels are a niche product that aren't on his radar at all. That would be the fair assumption.



So, you mean PayPal, Mastercard and Visa are not together monopolized the payment service space? That most people have easily accessible other means of making donations to media platforms?

NO! The argument is not about duty. It's about companies claims vs reality. If Apple claims that it's guidlines are about decency and human rights, but in reality it's protection only spreads on muslims, this company is a liar. And should be exposed as a liar.

And when Antifa promotes violence and slander individuals? Why their right of free speech (that obviously conflicts with right of individual security for people, who are accused beind nazi, often falsely) is supported?

I'm gonna go take a nap.

I'll just leave this here.
Feel free to pass it around the other fifty threads where it applies. :P

I don't know why one would want to play such a game, the war in Afghanistan will likely be lost and the Taliban will be back in power once the Americans leave...pretty depressing, doesn't make for a fun game imo.
I'm against censorship and removal of this game though, the reasons given are unconvincing.

I don't know where I was - I haven't seen news about VN censorship. And personally, I think GOG policy of adding games to the store sucks anyway.

Paypal, Mastercard, and Visa don't have a monopoly on payment processing. There are hundreds more. But that again, missed the point of what I said. It's fine for a company or government to infringe on the rights of an individual or group if it's warranted. I'm not saying it's warranted per say in this case for Apple, beyond the fact that Apple is exercising their own right of free speech by disallowing said content. Are you arguing that the publisher of the games right of free speech should take precedent over Apple's?

I don't support people calling for violence no matter who the people are. But I think you'll find that the boogy-man you refer to antifa gets banned from platforms when they call for violence too. And I assume it would be at the same rate as neo-nazi groups.

I find this antifa alt-left stuff to be funny. It's like neo-nazi's couldn't think of a viable foil so they just used the exact opposite of what they were being called to create an imaginary threat. There's a reason why people have heard about alt-right neo-nazi groups going back decades and no one had heard of the alt-left antifa until a couple years ago. It's because the threat of the alt-right was real and the alt-left is a made up foil so neo-nazis can play the victim card.

The sad thing is that some fools have taken up that mantle and used it to promote violence, thus kind of validating a dumb argument from the neo-nazis.

I think that there is no point in arguing further.

FYI, I've seen several videos on youtube where antifa folks advocate violence and specifically tell that it's Ok if sometimes they "make a mistake in identifying a nazi". I could find them, but as I've said I don't see the point in arguing further, since you started simply ignore my words:

I'm ignoring your words? You deliberately truncate what I say to change the context of it and then respond to the thing you made up by truncating my comment and you accuse me of ignoring your words? You've done that multiple times.

I've responded to everything you said in a fair and accurate way. I even defended you when other people mocked you for not calling out GoG not censoring visual novels. I've been nothing but fair to you. Just because I'm presenting logical arguments that you can't refute it doesn't mean I'm picking on you.

FYI. The existence of antifa videos on youtube calling for violence doesn't prove anything regarding your point. I could just as easily go on youtube and find neo-nazi videos doing the same thing. Video's don't get removed until they are flagged some how. It doesn't prove a removal bias on the part of youtube.