Actually, I need to ammend this. Thinking back, this may have been John Kelly trolling Oliver Campbell, not William Usher. Oliver isn't a cow as far as I know.
Plagued William "Billy D" Usher / cyguration & OneAngryGamer (oneangrygamer.net) - Joe McCarthy if McCarthy were a self-hating Black Pedophile alongside his Base of Authoritarian Wingnuts who hate The Gays™ & Overwatch; Definitely Not (((Nazis))); From Sperging about Anything in Multimedia to Splurging out Garbage Articles
- Thread starter Feline Darkmage
- Start date
Actually, I need to ammend this. Thinking back, this may have been John Kelly trolling Oliver Campbell, not William Usher. Oliver isn't a cow as far as I know.
I was closer to the main age demographic who were playing this game and nothing like this happened. Maybe some people told me they thought she was hot, but that was it. I'm just going to have to still click doubt on this one. In 1999, a lot of people still weren't using the internet like they are now, it had only been around for like two and a half years or something. I can't even remember posting on a forum until well after this point, so what discourse would you even be referring to. I don't think 1999 friends would have such a 2011 conversationa about Anita Sarkeeesian-esque arguments regarding "this outfit, armor isn't realistic." Like that's not how games were viewed back then. And calling her outfit "skimpy" to me is a stretch. I don't think even my mom would call an outfit that just showed shoulders and some legs skimpy. Looking at PS1 screenshots, it's very tame and no where near deserving that kind of reaction. I've seen skimpier clothes in cartoons for kids. Regardless, being against revisionist history for re-releases is a pretty reasonable stance to take and you don't have to be sperg like Billy to come to that conclusion.
Sir Wesley Tailpipe
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2019
Well, those of us who were out of diapers at that time discussed the realism of the outfit as it related to what a SWAT cop would wear around zombies after having fought them, which would be clear to anyone reading my comment who has decent comprehension. We didn’t give a shit about the feminist garbage, and for the most part we were horror movie fans who had seen the movies that inspired Resident Evil when you couldn’t just walk out the door and find 50 zombie movies. Even in the Italian trash flicks that inspired the dev team, a character like Jill wouldn’t have gone out in a miniskirt and tube top, she knew better after the first game. Exposed skin=zombie bites.
Also, the internet existed for a long time before 1999, and we were discussing the first Resident Evil on usenet in 1996, and then on forums once the WWW took hold.
Well okay, I'm a millennial, not a boomer like you I guess. I was a teen when this game came out, and I'm pretty sure most people who played this game at the time it released were in my age range or younger and we weren't on usenet having proto-SJW discussions about whether or not a highly pixelated tube top was too racy for a Japanese horror game.
In the context of 1999 games, this was standard fare. Things weren't viewed like this in general. I'll attach a few ads to prove that much, even the marketing for all the mainstream companies was anti-PC and racier than what was in this game. RE3 was one of the best selling games at the time. It certainly didn't need these "fixes" to sell as many copies as it did.
I was also a horror fan and knew George A. Romero, Fulci, etc. and again I don't remember horror fans acting like puritans and shrieking when seeing modest skin on a TV screen even if Romero generally didn't take that approach with his Marxist themed zombie movies. Also even if you only view horror in this aspect through George A. Romero (who was treated like garbage by the people making the RE movie btw), this isn't just a Romero game. It's a Japanese game, and you should expect it to have Japanese aesthetic and design choices, which is probably another reason why some people don't want this remake altered to match current western preferences (if the amount of people with that specific preference over the original RE aesthetic are that large anyways).
Attachments
Herbert West Reanimator
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2019
In case you've missed this yet again, you've been told twice now that muh social justice had zero relationship to anything, and that it is the believability and realism of the subject matter in the context of existing canon that was being discussed. Nobody had any problems with it being "too racy for a Japanese horror game". People had problems with it because it made no sense against the already established background of the character.
You are correct that this was common fare back then. Nobody here is quibbling with it on the basis of modern standards, Sarkeesian-style. In fact, by dint of having been in the past, nobody at that time would have had current-day standards to compare to, so none of what you are saying would have remotely computed for a group of adults discussing a new game on the proto-web well before feminism had its tentacles everywhere. Saying Jill's outfit in OG RE3 makes no sense for her character is equivalent to saying Rey's lightsaber color in Disney's atrocious new trilogy makes no sense - it clashes with established canon. If you're OK with what is essentially a minor plot hole and just enjoy the sexy outfit, that's fine, but that doesn't mean anyone who isn't OK with it is automatically being SJW-esque.
- Joined
- May 20, 2019
The gay fat child diddling niggerdom is coming from inside the thread!
Brief history lesson: this stuff was absolutely standard in the 90s. But there were still plenty of us that noted that while this stuff was sexy, it didn't actually make sense in the context of the world building and the setting. Pointing out "hey walking around in a tube top and a miniskirt when there are a bunch of zombies around waiting to bite you isn't very smart" is not the same as being an SJW.
Jill was presented as a cop in the original RE3 so her walking around in a tube top and miniskirt was met with actual discussion instead of shrieking. And we pointed out over the years that Resident Evil was trying to present a survival horror environment but that they were not adequately presenting this theme with the costumes the characters were wearing. That's not being an SJW: that's being critical of the material and pointing out its faults.
This is why niggers like Billy and this faggot are annoying. The moment you point out "hey this fanservice outfit doesn't actually fit into the themes of survival horror and the zombie apocalypse that Resident Evil is presenting especially since the character is supposed to be a cop" they immediately chimp out because any kind of criticism whatsoever automatically makes you an SJW. I wonder if Billy would have been in favor of the Iraq War just because it pissed off liberals even though it was a bad fucking idea lmao.
What's next, are you going to walk up to a local police chief and whine at him for putting armor on his SWAT team? "SWAT dooesn't need that armor! They should be walking around shirtless wearing jockstraps and nipple rings! Wearing bullet proof vests is just SJW brainwashing!" Covering your body with realistic armor is oppression or some shit I guess, never mind the fact that you're supposed to be protecting yourself from injury.
Niggers shit up everything.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
So is Billy admitting his homosexuality is something in his inherent nature and he didn't choose it?
Well, there's two things with that really. First, interpreting Resident Evil like it's a documentary that needs hard "realism and believably" is ridiculous. The zombie creatures and their mechanics in the game are not realistic at all. No horror is realistic. George A. Romero isn't realistic, H.P. Lovecraft isn't realistic, Bram Stoker isn't realistic. It's all fantasy that plays with unbelievable extremes. The idea of a cop showing ankles in a world with dog zombies and plant zombies, and zombies crawling on walls and everything else is not a big deal. So, yes, all the kevetching about it is suspcious to me.
"Believability and reaslism" is the go to SJW argument for anything really. Don't like "boob armor" that's fun and harmless in a world with elves and dragons, argue it's not realistic when your main goal is to rid the game of sexuality. I'm not saying the people I'm responding to are SJWs or have that motivation, but trying to re-mold the world of fantasy to one that is sexlesss and as boring and as ugly as the danger hairs certainly is one of the end goals of that camp. Just because Billy is a spastic hateful retard angry at the world does not mean taking the opposite stance of him on every issue is warranted.
Disagree on that point. Political correctness and feminazism certainly existed at that point, Sarkeesian herself just draws mainly from 70's 2nd wave feminist BS, but it was rightfully mocked in niche nerd subcultures like video games. Young people only started taking it seriously recently, which is sad really. I'm hoping coronachan knocks some sense into these people that "video game gender politics" isn't something anyone should give a shit about.
Herbert West Reanimator
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2019
Then your quibble is with the people having the discussion, on the grounds that they should not be treating the subject matter as realistic or semi-realistic. You have no quarrel with the logic involved; you have a problem with the starting point. If treated as realistic, the logic is sound. You just don't agree that that's how it should be treated. It can be as "suspicious" to you as you please that people are treating it semi-realistically, but you have no actual case to make beyond "I think your motives are suspect", which is a piss-poor case. Anyone can assert someone else's motives to be anything at all; most of the time, those assumptions are going to be incorrect. Deal with the actual facts of the matter instead of using your assumptions of others' motives as a jumping-off point, unless of course you enjoy being taken for a Billy-tier idiot.
Just because the SJWs use a certain line of logic doesn't mean taking the opposite stance to that line is warranted. A broken clock is right twice a day, even if it's right for the wrong reasons. Quit opposing a stance that looks like one an SJW would hold, just because it looks like one, or you'll keep sounding like Homer.
Congratulations, you've refuted a point I didn't make. I said "before feminism had its tentacles everywhere", not "before feminism existed". I'm well aware that feminism was alive and spreading back in the '90s, that it dates back a few decades more than that, but it had basically zero hold in video games at that point. I also said nothing about political correctness, and I'm not sure why you chose to pull that out of your ass.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension, and more importantly you really need to work on not assuming that people who look like they're doing something similar to what your enemies do are doing it for the same reasons as your enemies. That's how you make non-enemies into fresh enemies - you lump them in with the monsters until eventually they say "fuck it, I'm going to be a monster just to get rid of you." That's how feminism is killing itself right now. Do you want to go down that same path?
Last edited:
Sure I do. Arguing for realism regarding a minor detail, clothing, in something that is highly unrealistic and fantastical in all other aspects is illogical. The fact a zombie can bite exposed skin isn't a logical argument to me to justify censorship or revisionism. If you want to take that to extremes, she should be wearing several more layers of protection until its ridiculous and she's wearing one of those dog bite training uniforms that looks like a snow suit.
This kind of nitpicking is dumb to me, I'm sorry. It's the same if I said Darth Vader's cape should be edited out of a re-release of Star Wars. You could make an argument the cape is impractical since it would do nothing other than restrict his movement. The cape is there because it looks cool. This is the problem I have with these arguments. Games are supposed to be fun and entertaining first and foremost. Yes, I know the retort is "but she wore something different in RE1." Maybe having her wear something else was interesting. Maybe they just didn't want to remake RE1 again. I'm pretty sure the main audiences of the game had no problem with this even if a small amount post-college-graduates on usenet in 1999 did. Either way, that's the way the game was. If you want to play RE1 again, play RE1. I'm not going to buy the revised for current year western audiences RE3.
Second point of my stance is I'm ideologically against revisionism and censorship. The game was released the way it was in 1999. Radically altering it now is dumb to me as much as I would have the same issues if someone went back and edited Pulp Fiction or whatever else to meet modern standards or perceived issues of "realism."
Do you read the resetera thread in this forum? Ever notice how the discourse regarding games is the complete polar opposite in that thread versus this one? Both resetera and Billy are retards worthy of scorn who are irredeemable imo, but if I made these same comments in the resetera thread I'm pretty sure it would not produce the same reaction. Not implying motives here or anything, like you said that's not something you can deduce without a lot of information, but just pointing out the duality of that.
I'm taking an opinion and stance you don't agree with regarding a game that wasn't changed for 20 years. I doubt this is serious as "allies and enemies." I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks this way outside of Billy's stormfront circle jerk either.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2014
From what I remember reading in the OG RE3's concept art book, the reason Jill was wearing the outfit she was is in the original was that the situation went south in Raccoon in record time, and when things got bad she was forced to demolition her way out of her apartment building, which is why she just inexplicably Kool Aid Mans her way out of the building with explosives in the intro.
I'm a purist for oldschool shit and even I will acknowledge that is silly. She's dressed like she was headed to a club to go drinking, and while I can totally sympathize with that decision considering, it does come across as silly. Now I know some of you are of the opinion that even the mere appearance of kowtowing to outrage is an unforgivable sin, but I'm going to ask you to stop for a moment and calm your shit. Not only because this isn't a fucking plot by the woketards, but because this doesn't fucking matter. The new costume looks good. The PC Version also already allows modding, so you can give her the original outfit. Fuck, you can make Jill dress however you want or replace her with Rebecca, or even put Barry in the game or something. It's such a fucking minor thing to be pissed off by.
I'm a purist for oldschool shit and even I will acknowledge that is silly. She's dressed like she was headed to a club to go drinking, and while I can totally sympathize with that decision considering, it does come across as silly. Now I know some of you are of the opinion that even the mere appearance of kowtowing to outrage is an unforgivable sin, but I'm going to ask you to stop for a moment and calm your shit. Not only because this isn't a fucking plot by the woketards, but because this doesn't fucking matter. The new costume looks good. The PC Version also already allows modding, so you can give her the original outfit. Fuck, you can make Jill dress however you want or replace her with Rebecca, or even put Barry in the game or something. It's such a fucking minor thing to be pissed off by.
Herbert West Reanimator
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2019
Apologies to the other readers of this thread for the long back-and-forth, but there's a Billy-relevant point at the heart of all this, so please, bear with me. This will likely be the end.
This is how one makes enemies out of neutrals; this is how both Billy and Era became so reviled, by endlessly painting those they disagree with as not merely wrong, but consciously working to undermine the things they hold dear. I don't mean to focus this directly on you, necessarily, because obviously we're not in the allies-or-enemies business here (we're on the Farms, we're already hated). This is just the mental root of the behavioral disease, so to speak. If allowed to, it'll grow into something just as lolcow-worthy as Billy. I'd prefer it if we did better than the person we're here to laugh at.
(I'll call off the exchange here, on my end anyway, so as to stop clogging the thread with text walls.)
Again, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. I very clearly spelled this out for you. If someone thinks realism is an important point of the canon, it is logical to think that a more realistic outfit is desirable. I made no comment on whether thinking realism was important was itself logical; that is a matter of your opinion, and is, as I pointed out, the actual source of your contention here. You seem enamored of the idea that anyone who wants some sort of realism/semi-realism in the franchise is either very stupid or ideologically motivated, to which I can only sigh and point you in the direction of Hanlon's razor.
So am I. This is, by all available evidence, neither of those things. It could be, but by everything we have to go with (an interview with the people who made the change), the developers themselves chose to alter it while including the original outfit as a bonus (important, because for this change to be revisionism, it would have to attempt to pretend that her outfit was always the way it is in the remake and that the original never existed), for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with deciding the outfit was too sexy or otherwise ideologically undesirable (important, because for this change to be censorship, it must be motivated by a desire to restrict what you can see, for your own good). You apparently do not understand the terms you are using (and neither does Billy, for that matter; he regularly tortures those terms beyond recognition).
Check my post history; my very first post was in that thread and I've made most of my posts there. I would challenge you the same way; the only reason I might simply shut up there, as opposed to here, is that ResetEra isn't screeching about Jill's outfit, so it's not terribly relevant to ResetEra - but it is to Billy's retardation.
Any time someone decides that the people they disagree with are ideologically motivated to oppose them, instead of engaging in informed dissent, or even just being stupid or misinformed, conversational lines with those people break down, because those other people are now perceived as not simply wrong, but actively evil. This is how Billy engages with the world. Either you agree with him totally, or you are at best a stooge for the other side, more probably an active agent of the enemy working to undermine him (le centrist scum!). Era does this quite a bit as well, though they don't broadcast it out to the world via Twitter spergfests the way he does. This is why I take such umbrage with your starting point, which, lest we forget, is as follows:
You stated outright that any complaints probably came from ideologically motivated actors if they existed at all, then attempted to cast doubt on the veracity of a personal anecdote that contradicts your assertion because "nothing like this happened". As you went on to admit, you're much younger than the person who gave the anecdote, and wouldn't have known what was or was not happening in friend circles older than yours on an internet you weren't yet plugged into at the time, so you have literally zero basis for concluding what you've concluded. For all you know, since you didn't have access to a broader sample size, what's been described to you was actually the prevailing thought pattern among gamers upon the release of the original RE3. I certainly don't know any more than you do, but it's entirely reasonable to conclude that at least some people had the opinion "Jill should really be dressed like a cop" at the time, even if it was just a minority opinion, and furthermore to conclude that since feminism wasn't firmly embedded in gaming yet, those people were holding that opinion for non-ideological reasons. Yet you paint them as if their opinions were ideologically motivated, in essence assuming malice where either stupidity or simple difference of opinion will suffice.
This is how one makes enemies out of neutrals; this is how both Billy and Era became so reviled, by endlessly painting those they disagree with as not merely wrong, but consciously working to undermine the things they hold dear. I don't mean to focus this directly on you, necessarily, because obviously we're not in the allies-or-enemies business here (we're on the Farms, we're already hated). This is just the mental root of the behavioral disease, so to speak. If allowed to, it'll grow into something just as lolcow-worthy as Billy. I'd prefer it if we did better than the person we're here to laugh at.
(I'll call off the exchange here, on my end anyway, so as to stop clogging the thread with text walls.)
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 20, 2019
José Mourinho
The Special One
Forum Staff
Retired Staff
Global Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
I want you all to remember that this is the same guy whom people praised for "doing tons of research". Because the amount of research he does is once again, similar to what Chris Bores.Within the Ducktales tweet chain is this truly exceptional exchange. After a while arguing with another user, Billy presents this article as proof homosexuality is a choice
Is Homosexuality a Choice?
blogs.scientificamerican.com
When challenged as to if he's actually read it, he presents this line in particular as an argument
View attachment 1224851
Billy, convinced that choosing to be in a relationship and choosing your sexuality are the same thing, continues to berate everyone who thinks otherwise
View attachment 1224867
One Angry Gamer on Twitter
“@MSFHMysticJoJo @omeagoz @NeoTechni WRONG. Literally, you illegal immigrants need to learn basic English before you're allowed to use social media.”twitter.com
Maybe we should take bets on how long it is before he's caught with a male prostitute
Let's see the blog which he talks about that supposedly proves that homosexuality is a choice and not otherwise. Hey, even Billy himself says it:
Alright, time to go into the blog. It's pretty long but I even provided a tl;dr after this huge spoiler btw:
Okay, starts off actually neutral on the situation. Doesn't even seem to support Billy's argument so far.
Alright, actually one that supports Billy's argument for this part: "Perhaps sexual preference can be changed". Needless to say, the article like I said is neutral so it's countered by "people have the right to engage in gay sex etc.". And it doesn't even help that even the article later says "sexual preference has a genetic component".
1. Perhaps sexual preference can be changed.
2. Sexual preference has a genetic component.
2. Sexual preference has a genetic component.
Did Billy actually only read the parts where it says sexuality is a choice? Hope not. Let's continue...
Article later on says about how genes can't completely control your behavior (which for this case, includes homosexuality), but also says that environment can also play a part in it. Still doesn't prove Billy's point that homosexuality is a choice. Moving on....
1. Perhaps sexual preference can be changed.
2. Sexual preference has a genetic component.
3. Genes can't control behavior completely.
4. Environment also plays an important role in how our behavior develops.
2. Sexual preference has a genetic component.
3. Genes can't control behavior completely.
4. Environment also plays an important role in how our behavior develops.
More in detail about how environment also affects your sexuality. This however doesn't even prove Billy's point that homosexuality is again, a choice.
Sadly, this is actually the part where Billy thinks that homosexuality is a choice:
Yes. You read that right. If you actually read the spoilers where I took down the important notes, Billy skips over these following parts:
1. Perhaps sexual preference can be changed.
2. Sexual preference has a genetic component.
3. Genes can't control behavior completely.
4. Environment also plays an important role in how our behavior develops.
The article so far actually says that sexuality can be down to genetics, but also that doesn't mean you can't control it completely because it can be due to other factors, like environment. Billy however misinterprets this as "environment affects your sexuality, and nothing to do with genetics". Proves that Billy didn't even fucking read the article.
This one is about how culture also affects your views on sexuality. The last part might support Billy's point, but the argument isn't once again about how "homosexuality cannot be determined by your genes", and instead once again this is about how "homosexuality is affected by a variety of factors such as genetics, environment and culture".
I'll just change the points and summarize them well then:
1. Perhaps sexual preference can be changed.
2. Sexual preference has a genetic component, but genes can't control behavior completely as there are other factors like environment and culture.
2. Sexual preference has a genetic component, but genes can't control behavior completely as there are other factors like environment and culture.
The article later goes into the brain. It says how the brain might (keyword: might) influence sexual preference, and for this case, would be related to the hypothalamus which later proved to show no significant difference, but instead it was the neurons in the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3).
Different studies that clash, but to sum it up, your brain was influencing your sexual preference even before you are born, but however you can even change your brain development even when you are old. Now how does this even support Billy's idea that "homosexuality is a choice" again? Maybe he thinks just because you can change your brain it proves that homosexuality is a choice? That still doesn't disprove the genetic parts and even then, it was even contradicted by how it even says the brain was influencing your sexual preference even before you are born.
1. Perhaps sexual preference can be changed.
2. Sexual preference has a genetic component, but genes can't control behavior completely as there are other factors like environment and culture.
3. Your brain was influencing your sexuality even before you are born, but you can change your brain behavior even when you are old.
2. Sexual preference has a genetic component, but genes can't control behavior completely as there are other factors like environment and culture.
3. Your brain was influencing your sexuality even before you are born, but you can change your brain behavior even when you are old.
Uh-oh. Keep in mind this was an article from 2012 so there may be some successful cures after the article was posted (please let me know), but the article actually later on says that even though it has worked on rats to change their sexual preferences, it does not work on human beings so far.
1. Perhaps sexual preference can be changed.
2. Sexual preference has a genetic component, but genes can't control behavior completely as there are other factors like environment and culture.
3. Your brain was influencing your sexuality even before you are born, but you can change your brain behavior even when you are old.
4. However, attempts to "cure" homosexuality by operating on the brain has never worked (as of 2012), influenced by point 3 via rat experimentation.
2. Sexual preference has a genetic component, but genes can't control behavior completely as there are other factors like environment and culture.
3. Your brain was influencing your sexuality even before you are born, but you can change your brain behavior even when you are old.
4. However, attempts to "cure" homosexuality by operating on the brain has never worked (as of 2012), influenced by point 3 via rat experimentation.
Article is once again neutral. Gay people can learn not to act on their desires, but however the author of the article says they have the right to engage in it as long as their actions do not harm others. Even the article says gay relationships don't even cause harm to others. This is a pretty bad article for Billy to prove his point....
1. Perhaps sexual preference can be changed.
2. Sexual preference has a genetic component, but genes can't control behavior completely as there are other factors like environment and culture.
3. Your brain was influencing your sexuality even before you are born, but you can change your brain behavior even when you are old.
4. However, attempts to "cure" homosexuality by operating on the brain has never worked (as of 2012), influenced by point 3 via rat experimentation.
5. Although gay people can learn not to act on their desires, the author believes that gay sex and gay relationship do not cause harm to anyone, and they have the right to engage and remain that way.
2. Sexual preference has a genetic component, but genes can't control behavior completely as there are other factors like environment and culture.
3. Your brain was influencing your sexuality even before you are born, but you can change your brain behavior even when you are old.
4. However, attempts to "cure" homosexuality by operating on the brain has never worked (as of 2012), influenced by point 3 via rat experimentation.
5. Although gay people can learn not to act on their desires, the author believes that gay sex and gay relationship do not cause harm to anyone, and they have the right to engage and remain that way.
The article later criticizes people who support gay rights by criticizing the statements that "gay people should be protected from discrimination" and "gay people have no choice but to be gay". This one might support Billy's arguments, but the argument at hand isn't "Gay people cannot change their sexuality" but rather, "Homosexuality is a choice".
1. Perhaps sexual preference can be changed.
2. Sexual preference has a genetic component, but genes can't control behavior completely as there are other factors like environment and culture.
3. Your brain was influencing your sexuality even before you are born, but you can change your brain behavior even when you are old.
4. However, attempts to "cure" homosexuality by operating on the brain has never worked (as of 2012), influenced by point 3 via rat experimentation.
5. Although gay people can learn not to act on their desires, the author believes that gay sex and gay relationship do not cause harm to anyone, and they have the right to engage and remain that way.
6. Article later criticizes the statements that "gay people should be protected from discrimination" and "gay people have no choice but to be gay", that is if sexuality can be altered as if homosexuality is an illness.
2. Sexual preference has a genetic component, but genes can't control behavior completely as there are other factors like environment and culture.
3. Your brain was influencing your sexuality even before you are born, but you can change your brain behavior even when you are old.
4. However, attempts to "cure" homosexuality by operating on the brain has never worked (as of 2012), influenced by point 3 via rat experimentation.
5. Although gay people can learn not to act on their desires, the author believes that gay sex and gay relationship do not cause harm to anyone, and they have the right to engage and remain that way.
6. Article later criticizes the statements that "gay people should be protected from discrimination" and "gay people have no choice but to be gay", that is if sexuality can be altered as if homosexuality is an illness.
"Science doesn't change in order to support political opinions. Scientific beliefs change as we gain new information, and sometimes science tells us things that we would rather not hear."
This one just really damages Billy's viewpoint on the other hand. Why did Billy bring up this article again?
1. Perhaps sexual preference can be changed.
2. Sexual preference has a genetic component, but genes can't control behavior completely as there are other factors like environment and culture.
3. Your brain was influencing your sexuality even before you are born, but you can change your brain behavior even when you are old.
4. However, attempts to "cure" homosexuality by operating on the brain has never worked (as of 2012), influenced by point 3 via rat experimentation.
5. Although gay people can learn not to act on their desires, the author believes that gay sex and gay relationship do not cause harm to anyone, and they have the right to engage and remain that way.
6. Article later criticizes the statements that "gay people should be protected from discrimination" and "gay people have no choice but to be gay", that is if sexuality can be altered as if homosexuality is an illness.
7. "Science doesn't change in order to support political opinions. Scientific beliefs change as we gain new information, and sometimes science tells us things that we would rather not hear."
2. Sexual preference has a genetic component, but genes can't control behavior completely as there are other factors like environment and culture.
3. Your brain was influencing your sexuality even before you are born, but you can change your brain behavior even when you are old.
4. However, attempts to "cure" homosexuality by operating on the brain has never worked (as of 2012), influenced by point 3 via rat experimentation.
5. Although gay people can learn not to act on their desires, the author believes that gay sex and gay relationship do not cause harm to anyone, and they have the right to engage and remain that way.
6. Article later criticizes the statements that "gay people should be protected from discrimination" and "gay people have no choice but to be gay", that is if sexuality can be altered as if homosexuality is an illness.
7. "Science doesn't change in order to support political opinions. Scientific beliefs change as we gain new information, and sometimes science tells us things that we would rather not hear."
So to sum up the article:
1. Perhaps sexual preference can be changed.
2. Sexual preference has a genetic component, but genes can't control behavior completely as there are other factors like environment and culture.
3. Your brain was influencing your sexuality even before you are born, but you can change your brain behavior even when you are old.
4. However, attempts to "cure" homosexuality by operating on the brain has never worked (as of 2012), influenced by point 3 via rat experimentation.
5. Although gay people can learn not to act on their desires, the author believes that gay sex and gay relationship do not cause harm to anyone, and they have the right to engage and remain that way.
6. Article later criticizes the statements that "gay people should be protected from discrimination" and "gay people have no choice but to be gay", that is if sexuality can be altered as if homosexuality is an illness.
7. "Science doesn't change in order to support political opinions. Scientific beliefs change as we gain new information, and sometimes science tells us things that we would rather not hear."
Let's get over point by point and see how any of these support Billy's point that "homosexuality is a choice, and not natural". Don't take my word for it though...
1. This one might support Billy's point, but further down the article it actually showcases so far not really.
2. Doesn't support Billy's point at all. This is actually the part where Billy brings up as a fact that homosexuality is a choice due to environment, forgetting other factors like cultures and... even genetics.
3. Doesn't even support Billy's point, actually the opposite due to brain behavior.
4. Remember point 1? Yeah, nope, not supporting Billy's point too despite point 3 does say you can change your brain behavior.
5. Doesn't support Billy's point, and even harms his point especially how he rants about HIV etc. Why not take it from the man himself?
6. This one could support Billy's point, but the keywords are "if sexuality can be altered". Maybe he meant choice as in "Oh, you can change your sexuality due to your brain and culture, so therefore it's still a choice". Too bad Billy acts as if "homosexuality isn't natural and there's no evidence that a gay gene existed" so that's still a no:
Maybe I can see that article later and see if it actually proves Billy's point in the near future.
7. Definitely a big no.
tl;dr Billy Bores fails at research once again and uses an article to prove that "homosexuality is a choice" but the article actually does prove otherwise, and he likely read the part that says "environment affects your sexuality" and treats as if "genetics can't, but environment can".
I'll just end the post with this showing how well Billy excels at arguing:
Remember, Billy has the facts.
EDIT: I took a read for the other article about how "there's no evidence that gay gene exists". This one is supposed to be evidence for Billy to prove that "homosexuality is a choice", but I'll sum it up with these quotes from the article itself:
You still need to do a lot more research, Billy Bores.
Last edited:
From what I remember from said interview, it gave me the impression it was censorship/revisionism. You don't agree. Okay. Capcom is on thin ice with me regardless. The last game I bought from them was the last Megaman game because it at least appeared to be a normal by the book Megaman game and who knows how many more of those there will be. I'm not required to buy these companies' products. I recall someone several pages back saying Sony's censorship was a good thing and I don't recall you reacting to that despite you saying you agree about censorship/revisionism. Admittedly, this is an lolcow thread so you wouldn't have a reason to respond since it wasn't about Billy specifically. Regardless, again, I think it's censorship, you don't. I said my piece. I'm not getting back into the point by point rebuttal to everything else that was said because I already made the points I wanted to make.
You're wrong that I view this as a conflict at this point. If the other side are SJWs, they're losing right now because of the coronavirus and will likely lose more power because they had gotten too arrogant in a capitalist economy based on not treating the customer like shit. I have no interest in converting "neutrals," because it's a waste of time and if they haven't realized what is happening at this point they probably never will. If I don't like something, I don't give it money anymore and I'll occasionally give my opinion on why. That's all. Happy Easter.
"NOTICE ME, SENPAI!"
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2019
The next 5 big weeb games that were released within this month and next month are all uncensored on PS4
Persona 5 Royal
Final Fantasy 7 Remake
Sakura Wars
Ys: Memories of Celceta PS4 Remaster
Trials of Mana
XSeed has held onto what previous falcom games they released before. They apparently didn't do well with grand Blue Fantasy versus or at least what they expected to earn from it. Their next game is Story of Seasons: Friends of Mineral Town. They may have to pad out their releases with more remasters because they don't have anything super popular. YS Books 1 and 2 may belong to NISA now since Falcom wants another go at them. So Xseed may have to wind up bringing Oath and Ys Seven to the PS4.
Persona 5 Royal
Final Fantasy 7 Remake
Sakura Wars
Ys: Memories of Celceta PS4 Remaster
Trials of Mana
XSeed has held onto what previous falcom games they released before. They apparently didn't do well with grand Blue Fantasy versus or at least what they expected to earn from it. Their next game is Story of Seasons: Friends of Mineral Town. They may have to pad out their releases with more remasters because they don't have anything super popular. YS Books 1 and 2 may belong to NISA now since Falcom wants another go at them. So Xseed may have to wind up bringing Oath and Ys Seven to the PS4.
Herbert West Reanimator
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2019
...is censored. Atlus USA altered dialog in "controversial" scenes. Again. (At least this time it wasn't Sony's fault, I suppose.)
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2019
They basically say the same thing in the Japanese version. Japan and English are not 1 for 1 so you're allowed some wiggle room when it comes to intent.
Censorship would be just axing the whole scene together.
Herbert West Reanimator
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2019
The point of the changes is to remove supposed aspersions on homosexuals, among other things (note the express removal of the reference to the homosexual couple as "monsters"). Censorship is not action-based, it is motive-based (otherwise any change could conceivably count as censorship, including patching a game to remove bugs - we wouldn't say the bugs were "censored").
These same scenes were specifically and repeatedly called out by ResetEra during the initial launch of P5. Given how Atlus USA reacted to the Catherine: Full Body storm in a teacup that came from the same place, this is probably not a coincidence.
These same scenes were specifically and repeatedly called out by ResetEra during the initial launch of P5. Given how Atlus USA reacted to the Catherine: Full Body storm in a teacup that came from the same place, this is probably not a coincidence.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2019
The Catherine release wasn't censored either. It still made the trannie jannies get their granny's panties in a shanty.
There's about 100 ways to translate the simplest japanese phrase into english, this is how wide the options are when it comes to english translations.