This feels a bit creepy

[Outlooker]

[Bikerdude]

Well how can I put it, the guy looks like a creep and got there on the backs of others. Or as we say here in the UK, 'gormless twat'

 

And side observation, caption "skinny bloke feels owkward next to fat grumpy bloke"..

[lowenz]

"OBEY....ooops, LIKE"

[stumpy]

any pickpockets in the house!

[jaxa]

The Zuck looks so realistic in VR.

[Melan]

Too good.

[Goldwell]

Everytime I see those VR goggles I think of this one scene in a music video I saw a long time ago (1998 to be exact). I think VR could be something used in a positive way but with how fucked up humanity is, it'll probably be more akin to something like this

 

[V-Man339]

Everytime I see those VR goggles I think of this one scene in a music video I saw a long time ago (1998 to be exact). I think VR could be something used in a positive way but with how fucked up humanity is, it'll probably be more akin to something like this

 

For what it's worth I've read that actual sex crimes go down in areas with pornography and the like allowed, while those with more restrictions tend to have more.

[lowenz]

Realistic violent pornography is not simple pornography

It's not even "hardcore", it's the depiction of submission (where the sex is NOT the goal, but a tool of degradation to obtain the submission).

 

The fucked up thing is that some states/countries do not consider the "realistic violent" (vs humans) aspect as harmful but some other really idiot things as harmful (pissing, etc.)

I'm not a lawyer but this is *STUPID*

Edited February 22, 2016 by lowenz

[OrbWeaver]

The fucked up thing is that some states/countries do not consider the "realistic violent" (vs humans) aspect as harmful but some other really idiot things as harmful (pissing, etc.)

I'm not a lawyer but this is *STUPID*

 

Stupidity is the only possible outcome of governments trying to draw arbitrary moral lines around works of fiction, because they are motivated by a "monkey see monkey do" theory of psychology which, despite being thoroughly discredited and unsupported by evidence, continues to be accepted as fact by grandstanding politicians and the concerned pressure groups who lobby them.

 

In reality the line should be very simple to draw: is there an actual victim involved (e.g. a child being abused)? If not, then the state has no business trying to regulate the content of fictional artwork (however shitty or distasteful it may be) or the emotional responses of its adult viewers. This is the very definition of thoughtcrime, and has no place in a free or civilised society.

[Spooks]

I just can't help but imagine Zuckerberg sliding as that 1 frame still, across the hall, his amazing pantomime prowess unnoticed by the distracted crowd.

[Deadlove]

I was thinking all those people in the movie Wall-E. :-)