Shop More Submit  Join Login
About Deviant Member TBSchemerMale/United States Group :iconliberals-stdt: Liberals-STDT
Liberals say the darndest things
Recent Activity
Deviant for 8 Years
Needs Premium Membership
Statistics 6 Deviations 599 Comments 20,249 Pageviews

Newest Deviations



I've posted on this forum in defense of violent video games many times before, but this topic just got pushed to its logical extreme.

Destructive Creations has just released a gameplay trailer of their new production, Hatred, in which you play as a mass-murderer trying to kill as many innocent people as possible before getting killed yourself. The gameplay trailer is here, but I have to seriously warn you that this is possibly the most psychologically disturbing thing I've ever seen on the internet, and I'm no stranger to the internet.

For those who have chosen not to watch the video (I really don't blame you), the protagonist is a brooding, hateful, genocidal asshole who has decided that he's had enough with the world, and it's time to die and take down with him as many innocent people as possible. The gameplay scenes show him walking out of his house and gunning bystanders down, slitting people's throats, blowing their brains out, and doing battle with the cops. The victims beg for their lives as they're dying.

Some have argued that this is no different than Grand Theft Auto, but isn't it? GTA certainly has gratuitous violence, but it's so much more fictional. It's nowhere near as realistic or immersive as Hatred. You can have morally repulsive violence in a game, OR you can have immersive, first-person realism. To combine the two gets a little terrifying.

At what point does a game go from "Freedom of Speech commentary on society" to "terrorist training simulator"?
The principle of the Separation of Church and State has done wonders for religious freedom, and has brought impressive levels of interpersonal harmony and general prosperity. Why? Because this principle removes the mechanism of violence from religion, making the proposal in explicitly harmonious terms.

Unfortunately, a new kind of violent, crusading morality has taken its place, in the form of economic progressivism. Progressives believe that certain kinds of economic transactions between people, though completely voluntary on all sides, are immoral, and thus must be violently suppressed. This has created, on economic matters, the same kind of heated partisan discord that once divided British Catholics and Protestants. In the less civilized corners of the world, the economic crusaders have employed corruption and military strength to gain a permanent advantage over their opponents, establishing socialist dictatorships.

To restore harmony on economic matters, and ensure that violence is never used for the sake of overly-intrusive, moralistic crusading, what we need is a principle of Separation of Commerce and State.

I believe this principle would function the way the Separation of Church and State has, becoming shorthand for the plea to maintain civility through the enforcement of "live and let live" on economic matters. In other words, you may not agree with the contracts that I agree to, but I am free to make my own choices according to my own economic beliefs, and so are you. Certainly, the progressives will object to such a principle, arguing that the people are too stupid to know what's best for themselves, just as religious crusaders have continued to do, centuries after the introduction of the Separation of Church and state. Yet, I think the formalization of this concept in parallel to the language that protects religious freedom will take a giant leap forward in protecting economic freedom, with far more success than general pleas for liberty (which are often difficult for the uninitiated to understand).

So, have I made my case? Are you ready to start framing the debate over economic liberty in terms of "Separation of Commerce and State"?
Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a Constitutional Amendment that would effectively repeal the 1st Amendment protections of political speech for everyone, and put the phrase "except for people organized as corporations" after every clause in the US Constitution that secures our basic human and political rights. The amendment as proposed is here:…

The Senate Democrats, led by Harry Reid, have voted to move this Amendment forward for debate, and plan to spend the few weeks between their Summer vacation and the November elections trying to push this Amendment through. A few dozen trolling Republicans have also voted to bring the Amendment to the floor so that they can hammer the Democrats for supporting overt totalitarianism.…

This just goes to show that the complete insanity in the Democratic Party doesn't end at the California borders. Is this the dawn of a new era of Big Brother-style speech controls and fascist corporate nationalization? Or will the Democrats' open embrace of totalitarianism incur a high enough political cost to send them scurrying back to the dark corners of the country whence they came?
The Democrats have long argued that they want to ban guns to make the public safer from the menace of shootings, "because guns kill people!"

The Republicans have long pointed out that the Democrats are trying to take away the tools you may need to defend yourself against armed assailants.

But who sounds more correct now that the California Democrats are trying to ban some types of body armor, which is, without any doubt, a defensive tool?…

Of course, the Democrat line of thinking is that body armor makes it harder for the government to kill you. If you do something that upsets the government enough that they come after you, they wouldn't want you to actually be able to survive being shot in the chest by a police officer. This might be helpful for police officers who are facing off against hostage-takers and mass murderers.

What the Democrats are not thinking about is that body armor is also helpful for people who have received death threats, for important executives who are targeted by hate groups, for journalists who are trying to cover unrest, for anyone living in Detroit or Chicago, for anyone who has been falsely accused of a crime, for black men in towns with over-militarized police forces, for anyone who is taking a stand against an assault by corrupt, militarized government agencies, etc.

But the Democrats don't care whether this stops you from defending yourself from any of those dangers. In their opinion, the best civilian population is a helpless civilian population. Your life should be entirely in the hands of the government, because no matter how many times in history governments (including this one) have abused their power or left civilians to die, it can't happen here because this is 'Murika or something.

So why shouldn't I be allowed to protect myself with body armor?

Spotlight What kooky thing are the Democrats planning to ban next? Will it be heavy textbooks? Glass glasses? Suggestive winking? The non-consensual Heimlich Maneuver? Find out next time on California Democrats Ban the CUH-RAZIEST Things! Spotlight
During my first official date with the woman who is now my wife, she interrupted the movie we were watching to drag me into the bedroom, rip off her clothes, and then rip mine off (Thumbs Up). Now, according to the State of California, she raped me, because I never verbally said "yes, I agree to sex." Or maybe we both raped each other, because neither of us said anything coherent through most of that evening (though I assure you, we were both consenting Eyes).…

This new bill passed by the California Democrats requires verbal, explicit consent prior to anything that could possibly construed as a sexual advance. Otherwise, they define it as rape, even if both parties are clearly consenting in non-verbal ways. But of course, it is only rape if college students do it, for some reason. Don't ask me why the Democrats believe that the definition of rape changes depending on whether or not you're pursuing higher education.

Furthermore, even a "yes, I agree to sex" from your partner is not enough to ensure that you avoid becoming a rapist. If your partner changes their mind in the middle of any sexual activity, and you do not read their mind and reestablish consent, then you are, according to the State of California, a rapist. There is no obligation for your partner to even let you know that consent has been revoked.

I can just imagine how these court cases will go:
"No, I changed my mind first!"
"No, I did, you rapist!"

Remember the good old days when it was the Democrats who supposedly wanted the government out of our bedrooms? Now, it is the Democrats who want to regulate exactly how your consensual sexual relations may initiate and progress. Their totalitarian, over-regulatory inclinations towards economic activity are bleeding over into the most private corners of our personal lives.

So, it feels silly that I even need to ask, but have the Democrats gone completely insane? Or are they protecting us from an evil scourge of natural, romantic foreplay that establishes clear consent without words?
Other deviants on the politics forum can get 300 comments on their posts after a week if their thread is particularly controversial. I get 300 comments overnight. :iconnorrisplz:


United States
I'm a Minarchist Libertarian, fighting against the oppression that our world complacently endures.

AdCast - Ads from the Community




Add a Comment:
ctulthu-agent-7 Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2014  Professional Artist
Thank you for the watch!!
partical0 Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014
I see a whole lot of bitching and not much art here....
Deluwyrn Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks for the watch!
Madam--Kitty Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Hi! wanna join my group called Anti-illuminati? anti-illuminati-01.deviantart.…
JooPe Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014
You're going to get blocked if you keep this up.
JooPe Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2014
If you can't answer the simple questions I asked, then you really have no place talking about such things as if you knew. Because clearly you don't know shit.
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2014
When you're being a contrarian on every little thing, it's a waste of my time to respond to everything.
(2 Replies)
JooPe Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2014
Clearly, you have already placed a mental-block on all questions you cannot answer. Go ahead, I look forward to adding you to my signature.
Timon-Berkowitz Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2014
A response...  individual rights are good, but if we have a nation of solely extreme individuals, then would it not be much easier for Americans to be taken advantage of if they cannot organize or unify together?
Add a Comment: