Anyone know if this is true or not?
these people have been planning on this for lot longer than a year. christians have been trying to ban video games for decades. the only reason this group hasn’t come after more games is because they know they don’t yet have enough politicians behind them to manage it.
Christians are evil
I don’t want to come off as pedantic, but what we’re dealing with in the US is a very strange and successful breed of “Christian Nationalism.”
Essentially, it’s a belief that ultra-conservative Christianity is the only legitimate religion and that the USA is a Christian nation.
It probably comes as no surprise that these people heavily influenced the Confederacy, is strongly white-supremecist, anti-vice, etc, and has been an anathema in this country since before the states actually formed.
Christians themselves are… A problem, but not the problem. It’s these Christian nationalists. They’re loud. They want you to think all Christians believe what they do too. They also tend to drown out opposing Christian speakers by being louder than them too.
It’s one of the reasons why MLK Jr was hated so much by Hoover, by the south, etc. He was a Christian pastor, and stood against everything they did.
It’s important that we don’t group Christians in with Christian Nationalists. It’s very difficult but necessary.
I do agree, but I still think that all religions are a cancer on humanity, harming us, dividing us and holding us back. Religion is the enemy of progress.
Was it nationalists carrying out the crusades? Diddling kids? Demonizing LBGTQ? Seems like a convenient deflection.
The existence of good does not justify the evil, and there has been way more harm than good in the name of gods, abrahamic or not.
I do not dispute that. I am stating that this power grab is Christian Nationalism. If you read my comment, about half-way through I said Christians are a problem, but not the problem right now.
I also would argue that MLK Jr. did much more good than any evil.
All religions are evil.
Right on man. Fuckin’ Buddhists. Probably don’t even use Linux.
Buddhist nationalists do genocide all the same, like in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide
It’s almost as if it’s the nationalism part that makes them do that rather than having anything to do with their religion.
Same with christianity, the core religion is somewhat fine, it’s the church and the people that used it as a tool that arent.
I mean, I kind of guessed this way back when Collective Shout pushed their action.
I actually had a comment removed here on Lemmy when I brought up how this was “US politics/elections affecting your life as gamers”, because the mods insisted it was purely an Australian action, and my comment was off-topic. But we live in a global online world. There’s no way that US politics wouldn’t have a huge effect on this type of censorship.
It is as it always was: Even if you have no interest in politics, the politics are interested in you.
Ordinary people should adopt politics as a hobby, if only to have agency about which type of politics thrives or dies. I would much prefer sex-positive media to proliferate over sex negative, because the latter will take away my hentai games and manga. Furries, queers, and genuine perverts, all of them should have a shared interest of putting conservative values into a pine box, with a bit of stake and garlic.
Furries, queers, and genuine perverts, all of them should have a shared interest of putting conservative values into a pine box, with a bit of stake and garlic.
And facing towards the earth with their head decapitated and placed between their legs. Kudos in advance if you know what that means.
There’s no way that US politics wouldn’t have a huge effect on this type of censorship.
I’ve been called a fearmonger also for trying to tell apathetic gamers who “hate politics” that if they don’t get involved they’re going to start losing their own goddamn games.
I have linked the “Conservapedia” articles on video games all over reddit until they banned me. I have tried to tell people that voting for Trump or supporting his ideals even distantly isn’t going to “take the woke out of your games” that it will actually crush your gaming entirely, because… and I can’t stress this enough, Conservatives HATE GAMING. Not the online chuds and 4channers who hate women, they’re barely even conservatives… they’re fodder for the online fights. But the old-guard and middle-class conservatives who get marching orders from churches and grifters, the ones who have all the actual money on the right. They want to see an end to “distractions” and fiction and fantasy and everything that isn’t some kind of sanitized, un-nuanced devotion to Dear Leader and his United States of White Jesus.
Fiction has been an enemy of power since writing began, and games are just another kind of fiction that lets people stretch their imagination. This is why it’s dangerous, this is why they want to see it ended.
Conservatives HATE GAMING. Not the online chuds and 4channers who hate women, they’re barely even conservatives…
They sure sound like conservatives to me.
Terminology is confusing. Lowercase-c conservatives want to keep the status quo as it is. But fact is that e.g. in the USA, legal access to abortion has been the status quo for 50 years.
So nobody can say that the status quo has been anything but that in the US. So uppercase-C “Conservative” just means “reactionary” now, because that’s what it is to roll back a 50 year old right.
I mean, they are in the moment that they’re mad that someone made a black female with realistic proportions as a selectable character… but they largely don’t have principles or values at all, they’re a slime-mold that fits into whatever social trend is easy to latch onto right now so they can share emotional connection with their peers.
What happened is we ignored them and people like Steve Bannon and Russians and other agents of regression saw them as a ripe target for exploitation and manipulation. We have a massive rise in things like incels and anti-woke young men, but it’s largely manufactured. These are mostly young people who are unhappy, alone and they’ve been nudged towards easy-to-digest memes and talking points that this is the fault of unattractive feminists who want to take their games away.
This isn’t “conservatism” as much as reactionary attitudes and social isolation. If we were able to get a foot in the door faster and have a concerted effort to show them that their issues are largely socio-economic and mental-health related, we would have made a lot more progress a lot sooner. Source: I used to do just that and mentored/coached lonely young guys for years, they’re staggeringly easy to turn if you make the effort and are social and can listen to people.
Fiction has been an enemy of power since writing began
x for doubt
Since there are downvotes, what are the earliest fictional texts and what did they do in regard of power?
Gilgamesh literally becomes king. He changes the power paradigm to put himself on top and thats the oldest text we have.
What came first, kings or the stories about kings?
I think kings came first, and the story supported their power.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Even if, why shouldn’t something doubtful be pointed out?
But in this discussion it’s relevant. That White Jesus, do we believe that it is facts? Power is using fiction to create a following first. Then those followers prevent an opposition from forming.
Now why are stories about sex told? There seem to be many reasons but one could be to encourage people to have sex. So the opposition tries to make people experience reality with other people while Conservatives try to keep them in their fictional, isolated world.
In other words, fiction is not only an enemy but also a friend of power.
No matter how you measure it, global sexually repressive puritanism always traces back to the US.
There are a lot of people that are capable of suppressing women without the US just fine. Just have a quick look at the Arabic peninsula, or the Taliban.
Western securely repressive puritanism, maybe.
Nah, we funded both Iran and the Taliban. We even elected a guy who illegally funneled weapon sales to Iran in order to take that money and give it to Nicaraguan death squads. Arguably, without US support, neither gets the critical mass it needs to effect regime change or become anything more than an upstart.
This is Iran in the 1970s, before the US started providing weapons, training, and funding to groups like literally the Taliban.
Those photos are of Shah-era Iran, when the West was propping up (including providing weapons, training and funding to) an unpopular authoritarian that had been installed by the UK and US when the previous democratically-elected government dared to attempt to nationalise the oil industry, which was owned by BP. Under the Shah, traditional Islamic dress was outlawed, which is why everyone’s in 1970s clothes. If you disagreed with the Shah, the secret police would take you away and kill you.
Eventually, a coalition of leftists and religious leaders overthrew the Shah. The religious faction then assassinated all the prominent leftists and switched the secular authoritarian dictatorship for a theocratic authoritarian dictatorship. Under the Ayatollah, traditional Islamic dress was mandatory, which is why women in contemporary photos from Iran always have some kind of headscarf unless it’s in a news report about a protest that someone got executed for. If you disagree with the Ayatollah, the Revolutionary Guard will take you away and kill you.
So Iran’s had laws forcing women to wear only the clothes approved by a dictator both with and without help from the West.
Wow, I’ve never seen this before. I don’t mean this in a derogatory way or anything, but they look like people.
It’s why iran has so many educated women and is weirdly technologically powerful for a theocratic regime. Iran in the 70s was modern. Inshallah the people of iran will be freed from the tyranny of theocracy.
But yeah, iran is what should scare you the most because their collapse was fast and unexpected.
The US is still the leader of the West, whatever its policies are, they will greatly affect the people in these countries.
The US isn’t a leader in anything they are imperialist and they meddle. It’s not leadership it’s influence. They’ve consolidated political, economic, and military power and they use all of those to varying degrees to meddle in everyone’s affairs
Calling it now: What we currently know as “Project 2025” will reveal itself to be the largest conspiracy of this millenium. The push for internet ID verification “to protect the kids” in UK, US, Canada, EU, Australia is 100% a collective effort. Fuck this timeline, we will not comply!
The English speaking world should be isolated. Rupert Murdoch made it sick.
A conspiracy implies they made an attempt to hide it.
I’ve been showing people this shit on social media and reddit for years now and nobody cared. I was called a fearmonger and hyped up “shrill” leftist, stirring up controversy over unrealistic possibilities, etc. etc.
Fuck all ya’ll, I know some of you are out there reading all this, some of the same head-buried-in-the-sand lazy fuckers who tried to dismiss real warnings about real things because you didn’t want to be bothered to get involved or change your vote.
I know this is not going to be well received here, but we as a society do need to do something to prevent children from being able to access pornography. We are just now getting research showing the detrimental effects of social media and internet pornography on developing children’s brains. There hasn’t been concrete evidence until recently, and now we know. Things do have to change.
However, this needs to be done with as little information as possible collected and distributed. Zero-knowledge proofs should be used to establish that a person is above a certain age without telling the site what their age actually is. This can be done, however I do imagine they are going to skip past all of that and just go to collecting all the information possible.
No one is saying that kids should be able to access pornography. People are saying that it shouldn’t be the states job to raise your children for you.
Effectively blocking pornography for everyone in the country unless you dox yourself to shady websites is not the answer. The answer is developing the tools and simplifying processes required to stop children accessing these things on the device and local network level and putting those tools in the hands of parents. Doing this is almost certainly orders of magnitude cheaper than trying to police the internet
The Great Firewall of Britain is a frankly stupid concept.
People are saying that it shouldn’t be the states job to raise your children for you.
This logic does not hold up in most other cases. We stopped selling alcohol and cigarettes unless you dox yourself to shady gas stations and stores. Parents should be able to stop their kids from being able to buy that shit, why should the stores have to do more work to enforce it? You’re seriously going to inconvenience all the adults that can legally buy it just to prevent kids from being able to buy it? Why can’t we keep our cigarette vending machines? Surely it’s cheaper just to have parents control their kids, rather than manage every single store in the country.
The internet is different, and it’s currently the wild west. Because it’s different, it’s also possible to prove your age without doxing yourself (like I mentioned with zero-knowledge proof). It is possible to prove you are over an age without telling anyone anything about yourself. Unlike being required to give your drivers license/ID card to buy alcohol or cigarettes which gives all of your information to every person you hand it to.
Not all parents are going to have the know-how to lock down a child’s internet access. They may need to use 3rd party tools, many of which would cost money. Does it really make more sense to have parents try to secure every place a kid may access internet pornography rather than securing it at the source? Again, if done correctly, it can be done privately and securely. I am not advocating that we give our ID to every sketchy internet site. I am advocating for a widespread secure and standardized solution. That makes more sense than to put all of the onus on the parents.
We stopped selling alcohol and cigarettes unless you dox yourself to shady gas stations and stores.
Both of which famously keep databases of everyone’s IDs, and require transmitting your ID over who-knows-what network to who-knows-where.
Oh, wait, no they don’t.
Again, if done correctly, it can be done privately and securely. I am not advocating that we give our ID to every sketchy internet site. I am advocating for a widespread secure and standardized solution.
Right, and such a solution will ultimately just require everyone to trust the fact that it’s been “done privately and securely”
It’s your job to keep your kid from cruising porn on the devices you own
What about the devices you don’t own?
And regardless, how are parents that struggle to setup their email going to keep their kid from accessing porn? What would you have them do? Install a 3rd party software? Setup a local DNS filter? Prevent them from using devices that can access the internet? When it is as easy as googling “naked girl” how on earth are parents going to stop them from access it. The answer? The aren’t. There is nothing even the most diligent parent can do to stop them from accessing it while it is so readily accessible.
You haven’t demonstrated what harm comes from googling naked girl and seeing boobs.
If you want devices with parental control you will need to pay for them.
Devices like school computers already have such. This won’t stop a determined person from borrowing their friends phone and googling naked girl but that is a reasonable trade off honestly.
I don’t want to turn the entire Internet into 1984 so your kids doesn’t see boobs until he’s 18
Anthony Comstock.
J. Edgar Hoover.
Joseph McCarthy.
Roy Cohn.
Donald Trump.
Willful traitors all. Have it writ upon thy meager graves, “destroyed the union just so people wouldn’t masturbate.”
There’s more, I know. But those fellas are all linked.
I’m all in for banning pornographic content but if their intentions is anything else than that then I am all against it.
FYI: I have no idea what the hell is going on, I don’t follow the news, I just randomly opened lemmy then stumbled upon this post, I didn’t read the whole article, just a paragraph or 2.
Very shocking to me that a conservative would barge in with a strong conservative opinion but not know what’s going on and having barely tried to find out.
This is sarcasm, right? Surely you jest.
yes but the kernel of truth is that is a bit shocking that they were self aware enough to admit not having the information, that’s better than most conservatives
They’ve been playing the very long game of trying to control human behavior for centuries, not just decades. The one thing to note is that the United States began as a bunch of colonies run by ministers, and the fundies want to go back to that theocratic form of rule. That by the 19th century the temperance movement came from the dozens of Christian subsects. Yeah, they also extended it to anything that did not define as “Christian” behavior, including choice of ideologies (socialism = bad), gender (male or female = good), source of knowledge (Bible > science), beliefs (they have veiled Islamophobia), and even eating and sexual habits.
Now – based on their basic blueprint – they want to artificially induce the Second Coming by trying to get their fucking project off the ground, and impose control on everyone else.
BTW, any collapse or devolution of the United States and the Western world would come off as a wonderful realization for Putin, Dugin, Kyrill, and their cronies. That Jesus himself in his actual Middle Eastern appearance and acts of progressivism would be considered an enemy by fundies expecting a “whitened” Jesus.
They? For centuries? Who is “they” that has been this organized for “centuries”? The fucking illuminati? The masonic order?
Maybe you’re exaggerating a bit?
Conservatives…? How is that not obvious? It’s clearly true.
It isn’t though? Conservatism has changed meanings quite a bit from the 17th century from 1620’s Massachusetts Puritans and later Loyalists to the crown. Note that neither of these have anything to do with imposing moral values and promoting censorship.
In fact, the push for “Religious values” like censorship in the case of this thread has only been around the US since the 1920’s. Which if that’s what you mean by “centuries” it’s a bit of a stretch since that is a single century.
Moreso, if you want to trace those ideologies back to politicians in the US, you’ll find maybe a couple of mentions of this in people like Buckley (in 1955) or Goldwater (in 1960) and of course from Reagan.
That is why I am saying “centuries” is an exaggeration.
You are interpreting everything extremely narrowly. I don’t care if “conservative” wasn’t what they used to be called, but there have always been groups of people imposing social control, and there’s a common thread running through that over time. The long game is paying off, because they have not let up. If you want to get super pedantic about it, everything breaks down here and I’m not sure what the point of that is.
You are not the OP, but let me take a stab at what you’re saying. Conservative has always been a word to describe a train of thought or ideal to not change from how things are.
The objective of that can change wildly throughout the years to the point of it even being contradictory to itself. (for example Greek conservatism probably wanted sexual freedom and current conservatives want “traditional sexual values” from a Christian point of view which is absolutely contradictory. )
I’m saying that conflating a group of people, “conservatives” in this case, isn’t a group of people that have been around for centuries plotting against some idea. They have been different groups trying to hold on to the world that they know and dislike change.
If you mean “conservatives” as it is currently known in the US, then yes that is a group of people who have been plotting on how to force their “ideals” on us but it’s hardly “centuries” as how OP put it. It’s just been from the 1950’s.
This is why I’m saying that OP sounds like a conspiracy nut.
The reason why I want to point this out is because claiming a group is centuries old adds to the belief that they are an entity that has survived massive world view changes; Colonialism, Revolution, Civil Wars, World Wars. All of this makes them seem like an invincible group, but in reality they aren’t that. They’ve only been around since slightly before Reagan and they are not absolute and they can be overthrown and toppled.
We should not equate “conservatism” with groups that advocated for feudalism or monarchy, but we should totally treat them like both of these were treated at the end of their era. We should get rid of backwards, draconic ways of thinking and always move forward.
I appreciate that there are nuances here that aren’t even just pedantry, however I knew what they meant. Those imposing social control via morality. That idea transcends specific ideology imo. I used to believe this kind of thinking was on the decline, but in my lifetime I seem to have discovered that no it is not. I want to believe this is a temporary setback but I can’t bring myself to believe something unless I really see the evidence for it. I see a lot against it.
Going to need done links for you claims chief
Most of that comment is basic American history chief
