politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Valve allows this?
Valve allows a lot of games I’d question like the Kyle riddenhouse game or whatever that loser is that went across state borders to shoot people.
It wouldn't be worth it. Better to humiliate him and release the contents of his poorly hidden porn folders.
It’s more complicated than that. Probably best he dies of normal causes so no insane conspiracy’s pop up. Even then that’s too good for him.
oh no. let his idiot followers think it was a conspiracy. the more riled up they get, the more likely they'll do something stupid that ends with them in prison or dead. no, let's stir the pot.
I don’t think my sanity can tolerate more insane shit. Living in the US sucks.
i think the next time they grab up torches and pitchforks, the military will intervene. that's probably our best hope since most of the good citizens of the left are cowards. the sooner we get it over with, the sooner this country can go forward.
Interesting assumption that the military would not be divided.
That would quite possibly also entail them killing random innocent people or indoctrinating more. No thanks.
....and take a shit ton of innocent people with them.
That's not how things work, though. Sure, some of them would wind up in prison. So? A negligible impact.
Do you think January 6 was organic? If so, you haven't been following the investigations. It was an attempted coup, and the more people the extremist right can get riled up and ready to commit violence where directed, the more likely the next attempt is to succeed.
That's how you create a martyr, galvanize a movement, and create mass condemnation against whatever cause you stand for.
This is simply false. His followers are cowards. They will do nothing. .
Who said they weren't?
If some fool killed Jones, his followers would say his name for generations, talking about how he was killed by the deep state for telling the truth. They would spread his words further and more than they do now. People who don't think much about him, or people who think he's probably full of shit but like to listen to him for fun, and entertain his ideas a little, would suddenly take him more seriously, becoming followers as well. People who would argue against his lies now, will feel uncomfortable speaking out. For at least a while, anyone who tried to debunk his views would suddenly be painted as disrespecting the dead, at best, and viewed with suspicion. What it's possible to talk about would shift right, extremism and conspiracy theories becoming more acceptable, facts and reason becoming less so. In the midst of it all, some new spokesperson for the lunatic fringe would rise up and replace him seamlessly.
And maybe they are cowards, but cowards are motivated by fear, and people motivated by fear often lash out violently.
"No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban."
2nd strike. Extending ban from 1 to 3 days.
3 or 4? 1 person is with a $300 Walmart hunting rifle could pull it t off.
People don’t realize how much one dedicated person and a decent rifle can do, especially when no one is expecting it and the assassin doesn’t care about their future or anything but their objective
Hell do it dc sniper style, park a car and modify the trunk.
No one would see anything but an empty car parked down the block from his house or office.
Not sure this is a valve problem. The courts are simply going to have to seize his assets.
This is an absolutely a valve problem.
I mean, it’s just a game. The shitty part isn’t on Steam’s side; It’s on Alex hiding funds and refusing to pay for the lawsuits he lost.
Valve will allow anything if they can profit from it.
War is profitable. So I hear.
I mean... Half the games on steam are about war
Valve is a soulless corporation that only cares about money. Why wouldn't they?
Yeah true
To the best of my knowledge Valve allows basically everything that's not outright illegal. They aren't nearly as much of a "good" corporation as they're often framed as. They'll happily provide a platform for and take their 30% from anyone, including racists, misogynists, homophobes, etc.
Or maybe they don't see it's their place to gatekeep the store based on their own morals. If you start - where do you draw the line? Some examples like such games may be obvious, but there will be a lot more that are less so.
If people disagree with the message - nobody forces them to buy it after all and you can block any game from even showing up for you in the store, in my opinion it's plenty enough from the valve's part. I'd rather be the judge myself as to what I want and what I don't want to see and play, rather than any corporation.
I find the "where do you stop" argument to be riddled with holes. Laws are essentially written to explicitly outline boundries and moderation policies are basically just internal laws. Like Canadian law has very specific laws regarding what constitutes hate speech, here is what that looks like.
First you outline protected grounds. In Canada this is race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted. (note: pardons are only available via democratic votes or through appeals in Canada)
There's a stage where you determine what context stuff is in. Like whether it is being performed publicly or privately but marketing a video game is definitely publicly so in tgis context we can skip to it's last part where you explicitly define hate speech. Hate speech is rhetoric that :
Describes group members as animals, subhuman or genetically inferior
Suggests group members are behind a conspiracy to gain control by plotting to destroy western civilization
Denying, minimizing or celebrating past persecution or tragedies that happened to group members
Labelling group members as child abusers, pedophiles or criminals who prey on children Blaming group members for problems like crime and disease
Calling group members liars, cheats, criminals or any other term meant to provoke a strong reaction including usage of known slurs in the context of intended harm to group members.
These rules likely wouldn't touch some hateful rhetoric that sneaks through under the wire disguised in very abstracted metaphor but it creates a pretty distinct pass fail bar that would catch explicit hate speech on their platform.
By those rules we can’t even criticize Hamas or Houthis
Yes you can.
Those groups are not fully in religious in nature but represent in part a political movement with a history of violence. As long as the ire is not placed on the entirety of the faith, a particular sect that is enacting it's ideology based on violence is not a criticism based from the religion but by the actions of the group as a political and military force. Still not cool to infer they are genetically inferior or sub human or even that they are all pedophiles or something but the fact that they have been actually commiting specific crimes as an organized group means that they are free game to be critiqued for their crimes.
You can also actively critique the writings and dogma of a religion itself but the hate speech portion doesn't kick in until imply that the people who follow it are mentally ill, inferior, predisposed to crime or all going to enact all the practices listed in their holy texts that represent a modern illegal practice etc. etc. etc.
There is a distinction between nationality and government/ politics as well. You can absolutely exercise free critique of someone as long as it is not based on the criteria of their national origin. As long as you stick to talking about the facts of what specific individuals or political groups have actually been accredited as doing you are in the clear.
The problem with that is that providing a platform and a revenue stream is providing support. Whatever the intent is, that is the result. The issue isn't what I see on the Steam store, it's providing a platform at all.
And yes, obviously there's the question of where to draw the line. But not drawing one at all means providing support for the Alex Joneses of the world. There's no way around that. And I don't think that that's a worthwhile trade.
While true, and I agree it's the right thing to do, some things like this and the Rittenhouse game are in a weird murky gray area where one could argue that it's inciting violence etc. And if that someone is a lawyer, they could convince a judge/jury that it is illegal.
I agree that they should allow anything that isn't illegal, but people say this like it's black and white, and legality very much is not black and white.
This is too bad, but yes. They are like any other large corporation, I suppose -- motivated primarily by greed.
Unless it pisses off the Chinese government, like the game Devotion that was released from a Taiwanese developer. But I don't think Steam has a high ground so much as it has good PR while not being extremely greedy. In contrast, GOG also removed it, which sort of discredited any high ground they had.
Why not? It’s not like the kids are going to boycott them. Boycotts are only for easy to refuse things. Or things that sound good in a instagram post.
Not for actual thinks they like and can’t live without.
That's how boycotts have always worked. Boycotts have only been successful when people already didn't like the thing they were boycotting.
I looovvveee tollhouse cookies, crunch bars, KitKats and stouffer’s French bread pizzas but I still don’t buy them, even though they are like the only people to make a wide range of frozen dinners, and I am not even a little bit salty about it, definitely, not at all…
So yeah, some people do stick to their morals over creature comforts.
Even when it really sucks.
I did just remember Schwann’s is a thing though, so maybe nestle is good for something at least.
And you're just one person. Clearly, your boycott is ineffective against Nestlé. Nestlé seems to be doing fine.
ROFL…. So boycotts are only for people who lack the balls to stand up against the things they like?
Yes and no. They're obviously more universal, but historically, they only actually work against things people already don't like.
True… god I hate people so much.
@politics @GilgameshCatBeard Hate is a pretty strong world
You’re stalking me now? I’ve reported all of your spam comments- including the ones you deleted.
Edit: Nvm I understand now!
Valve allowing that dingus to sell a game while refusing to pay his victims families?
Sounds like a good reason to boycott to me.
But no one will.
Oh, I understand now! Yes, that would be an excellent reason for a boycott, but it never works because people never seem to be willing to sacrifice even the smallest amount of convenience for the greater good. I'd be in, and a lot of others probably would be too, but how does one even organize something like that? I think that's another part of the problem. For a boycott to work, it has to be well planned and organized.
Exactly my thoughts. Well said. Though, under normal circumstances, people would be absolutely outraged by this and the shockwave would be spreading across all platforms to boycott immediately-
but mUh gAmEz?!
So…. It won’t happen.
I boycott Nestlé, and I have ran into someone in the world who does the same.
So in my little town if there is a chance that the two of us ran into each other at the same Walmart, right as I was explaining to my kid why we couldn’t buy that type of bottled water, I think that there are a bunch of us boycotting nestle while unorganized.
Overtime cents add up to dollars, even if we can’t bring them down, we can still help them not grow as quickly.