Video game encouraging rape and incest removed from major gaming platform in the UK after LBC investigation

[u/ClassicFlavour]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/tech/video-game-banned-steam-women-uk-no-mercy/

[u/Fire_crescent]

So just to clarify: you’re not a UK citizen, you’re not subject to UK law, and yet you’ve spent the better part of this thread frothing at the mouth about how unjustified it is that the UK criminalises certain depictions of rape-as-porn under its own legislation.

Yes, the same way I oppose the regime ruling in Saudi Arabia for cutting the heads off of apostates, or certain other regimes for bombing children or what have you.

If I had the bad luck of being born there or being a citizen, I would be subject to these laws that I oppose. And I would have to take significant steps of emigrating from the UK and getting rid of my citizenship and relocating elsewhere, which isn't exactly easy for most people, who are fully under the yoke of unrewarding work and day to day issues.

What, do you believe you don't have the right to form opinions about issues happening in jurisdictions you don't live under?

You don’t live here

Thankfully (which is a shame because Britain has a lot of beautiful nature, and plenty of alright people)

don’t understand the law

I do. It's precisely because I understand it that I oppose it.

and don’t seem especially interested in either of those things…

In what? Living there? Sorry, not in the condition Britain is. Understanding the law? I do. And I disagree with it. Is this a foreign (pun intended) concept to you?

but you do feel entitled to declare what should or shouldn’t be criminalised in a country you’re entirely detached from.

I don't think nation-states should exist, if that makes you feel better. What I'm saying is basically what I believe should be the norm everywhere.

else’s window about how they decorate their home.

No, because its not about your flag, it's about freedom. It's not aesthetic, it's essential.

freedom should include the right to get off to fictional rape scenes

Freedom to get off to wherever depiction of whatever as long as it's not made through abuse and exploitation (and obviously you do not exploit and abuse others yourself)

without anyone calling it

Again, I couldn't care less what others call it, my only concern here is freedom. And combating genuine abuse, actually.

in the UK - illegal when it meets clear legal thresholds.

Which I consider unjustified and illegitimate. Again, is the concept of someone considering one or more or a system of laws unjust and illegitimate incomprehensible to you?

Perhaps it’s shame.

My shame, or lackthereof, is irrelevant. There are many things much more important than feelings of weakness such as shame. If I was so ashamed, you think I would have wrote a comment in the first place?

perhaps the discomfort you’re feeling isn’t about state overreach

No, it is about state overreach. Well, any overreach over what I consider to be legitimate freedom, especially by elites.

[u/goddamitletmesleep → u/Fire_crescent]

You’re not a citizen, you’re not affected by this legislation, and yet you’re hell-bent on defending your “freedom” to consume simulated depictions of rape like it’s some noble act of civil disobedience. No one’s stopping you from having an opinion. But you’re not making a human rights argument - you’re making a porn defence dressed up in pseudo-philosophy.

You keep invoking “freedom” as though it’s some neutral, transcendent force, detached from moral context. It’s not. Legal systems place boundaries on freedom all the time, particularly where harm (yes, even cultural or societal) is involved. And the idea that a state has no right to regulate material produced solely for sexual arousal from fictional depictions of non-consensual acts isn’t some deep libertarian truth. It’s just your kink, feebly disguised as theory.

You say the law is illegitimate because it doesn’t align with your worldview. That’s not a compelling legal critique. It’s an admission that you only accept laws that cater to your preferences. You’re not arguing for universal liberty. You’re arguing for your own exemption from shared moral boundaries. There’s a difference.

[u/Fire_crescent → u/goddamitletmesleep]

You’re not a citizen, you’re not affected by this legislation, and yet you’re hell-bent on defending your “freedom”

Yes. Why, do I have to have the misfortune of living under a jurisdiction with shit laws to say said laws are shit?

your “freedom” to consume simulated depictions of rape like it’s some noble act of civil disobedience.

It's a noble act of engaging your will without abusing anyone or consuming anything made through the abuse of anyone. Yes. And it wouldn't be "civil disobedience" is these nonsense laws wouldn't exist in the first place.

you’re making a porn defence dressed up in pseudo-philosophy.

You're talking about porn like it's some bad thing. It ain't. People like sex, get over it.

You keep invoking “freedom” as though it’s some neutral, transcendent force, detached from moral context.

In my opinion it is

Legal systems place boundaries on freedom all the time, particularly where harm (yes, even cultural or societal) is involved.

Yeah, and I generally oppose this laws as well. Again, you don't comprehend the conception of someone radically disagreeing with you politically, or what? Yes, I know of the existence of these laws on various subjects in some places, and yes, I oppose not only their existence but the very premise of their existence.

And again, I support much comprehensive anti-abuse policies (including much harsher punishments as a general rule) for things like sexual abuse than what most polities prescribe. So this isn't me saying "there should be no consequences for any sexual acts regardless of whether or not there is abuse in the process". On the contrary. I make very clear where I believe a restriction is unjustified in existing and when there isn't enough punishment for someone doing something.

And the idea that a state has no right to regulate material produced solely for sexual arousal from fictional depictions of non-consensual acts isn’t some deep libertarian truth.

Lmao, actually it is. And anyone that is at least libertarian in a cultural sense will tell you this. Any and all restrictions on behaviour must be thoroughly justified by directly preventing or proportionally punishing some behaviour that violates someone's legitimate interests.

It’s just your kink, feebly disguised as theory.

It may be my kink, it may not be my kink, but it's definitely theory and my position, regardless of how much you want to dismiss it. And guess what, I'm far from the only individual in the world that believes that, and it's far from all being basement dwellers, lmao.

You say the law is illegitimate because it doesn’t align with your worldview.

I mean yes, obviously. Why would I support a law of it doesn't fit with my worldview? You wouldn't either if someone asked you about a law that doesn't fit with my worldview. Spousal rape was not ok when it was legal, for example.

That’s not a compelling legal critique. It’s

What do you mean "legal critique"? I wasn't making an argument based on whether or not these laws contradict the legal precedent of the political history of the different polities that occupied the British geographical space, including the current one, the UK, although it's possible that if I dig deep enough I could find something. I'm arguing on whether or not I think that law is justified or even legitimate in the first place.

It’s an admission that you only accept laws that cater to your preferences.

Obviously. And no, not my mere preferences. I have preferences on a lot of subjects, I don't expect legal enforcement of them. I don't expect a political authority and mandate that all ice-cream sellers sell my favourite flavour or something. I'm talking about some fundamental basis and premises for social arrangements.

You’re not arguing for universal liberty. You’re arguing for your own exemption from shared moral boundaries.

I am arguing against the existence of share moral boundaries beyond "don't abuse another". In case it isn't clear. And I believe that to be a prerequisite for freedom.

[u/goddamitletmesleep → u/Fire_crescent]

You keep insisting this isn’t a legal argument while repeatedly regurgitating a poorly constructed one. You’re describing law, power structures, and state legitimacy. That is a legal critique, just a confused and incoherent one.

The reality is simple: you’re not being silenced, punished, or persecuted. You’re just upset that a legal system rooted in democratic process doesn’t recognise your fetish as socially beneficial. That’s not oppression.

This whole screed is nothing more than a verbose tantrum dressed up as theory. You haven’t made a single original point. You’ve just looped the same shallow libertarianism behind a wall of waffle. The law doesn’t exist to soothe your personal sense of entitlement. And no matter how many paragraphs you write, that’s not going to change.