Tech advancements are unrelated to the effect censorship has on the industry. Your assertion that the increase in variety caused by technology means that censorship isn’t a looming problem is a red herring; you’re using it as evidence to something it’s completely unrelated to.

Which part? Buckling to special interests being a cultural mandate is just fact, and the rest is simple causality.

The amount of games you can buy now has increased because of technological advancements; it has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Censorship doesn’t create more freedom and variety in the industry.

Video games are more varied and played by more people because of technological advances.

If you’re happy with the changes then kudos; no one’s saying you have to feel the same way as anyone else about this kind of censorship.

Because it’s often used to make fallacious connections, not because it’s a concept that can’t be applied to anything.

There’s a special interest behind nearly everything that could be viewed as offensive. “it’s kind of creepy” is fine as an opinion, but not as a grounds to have something removed.

I’m sick of this moronic, reductive straw-man argument.

The problem is that Western standards generally involve immediately and completely buckling to any special interest that even looks in your direction. Eventually little concessions become big concessions, until all we’re left with is bland, neutral content that’s as stilted and boring as it is inoffensive.

Well, since it is a jury trial I suppose technically they might convict based on anything, no matter how legally insufficient.

I guess that’s true, but it doesn’t really apply to this case, since there’s no actual evidence.

I’m a little curious, what actual evidence did they have that he was guilty? From what I’ve seen this entire case was a “he said, she said,” with the “she said” being the more believable story.

Doesn’t matter who’s fault it is; sitting on something like that for years DESTROYS your credibility. I’m not sure why people are surprised that there was no conviction. Cosby may actually be guilty, but this case was a dumpster fire for the prosecution. They had nothing.

It’s not about believing “it’s all a lie,” it’s about whether or not it’s possible that she’s lying. It’s not enough to accuse someone of rape and have a believable set of circumstances backing you up, you need hard evidence.

He said the sex was consensual, and the only evidence is her word and a series of events that, while circumstantially damning, doesn’t prove what actually happened.

You people really have no idea what constitutes evidence, do you? Maybe she slept with him because he’s Bill Cosby? Nah, women only sleep with people they’re attracted to; they would never put out just because someone is a celebrity or has money.

Notspam

Spam

Nah

Not quite.