Am I Wrong to feel Vindicated by this 'Censorship'?

meiam

Elite Member
Apr 19, 2020
1,565
212
68
For those saying that blizzard acted out of there own decision, what your opinion on the Nintendo employee that got fired? I'm not super on top of the story, but from what I understand after the change to the latest fire emblem a Nintendo employee that was defending the change on tweeter got targeted and some people went trough her past and find out that she wrote some academic paper arguing that the punishment for possessing child pornography be lowered (haven't read the paper, so can't really tell much about it). As a results of this Nintendo ended up firing her.

Is this also a case of company just changing there mind? Card on table I think in both case the company were perfectly within there right to make the change but I think in both case they shouldn't have done so.
 

Supernova1138

New member
Oct 24, 2011
408
0
0
Meiam said:
For those saying that blizzard acted out of there own decision, what your opinion on the Nintendo employee that got fired? I'm not super on top of the story, but from what I understand after the change to the latest fire emblem a Nintendo employee that was defending the change on tweeter got targeted and some people went trough her past and find out that she wrote some academic paper arguing that the punishment for possessing child pornography be lowered (haven't read the paper, so can't really tell much about it). As a results of this Nintendo ended up firing her.

Is this also a case of company just changing there mind? Card on table I think in both case the company were perfectly within there right to make the change but I think in both case they shouldn't have done so.
Nintendo stated that Allison Rapp got fired for moonlighting in a second job that conflicted with Nintendo's corporate culture/image. It's not confirmed but that second job might have been camgirling and Nintendo fired her for that as it doesn't help the company's image as the family friendly video game company. The whole controversy about Rapp's thesis, including getting a foundation against child exploitation demanding her head combined with her simply sucking at her job as a PR person eg. throwing insults at those who didn't like the Treehouse localization changes to Fire Emblem likely didn't help her case.
 

Siege_TF

New member
May 9, 2010
582
0
0
It might not be 'censorship', but that argument is 'semantical bullshit', because one body of people is imposing what they think isn't right with a piece of art on others. It's too sexy! It's out of character! Think of the children!

Where is her hajib?! I can see that woman's hair! That woman who is not to be sexualized! This is still an outrage!

Just put a fig leaf on David and be done with it.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,059
1,718
118
Country
United Kingdom
Siege_TF said:
It might not be 'censorship', but that argument is 'semantical bullshit', because one body of people is imposing what they think isn't right with a piece of art on others. It's too sexy! It's out of character! Think of the children!
Only if we consider criticism to be "imposing on others". The publishers or developers are the ones enacting the change; the consumers are merely the ones criticising it.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
Angelblaze said:
To put it in short, am I wrong to feel Vindicated by things like Blizzard removing the sexy tracer pose and other (ha), "attacks against freedom of speech"?

In long form, I previously posted that multiple times in recent history changes to 'desexualize' male characters and make honest changes when aesthetics and such don't fit aren't considered attacks against freedom of speech. (In a locked thread, I'll post in spoiler afterwards.)

People in that thread either agreed, or claimed that they, 'didn't know', 'can't fight every battle', 'this is a different argument'. Etc.

Well. Fair enough. But tell me, if others get to claim ignorance why exactly should I care about all this so called 'censorship'? See, the reason I ask this is because I'm being told that this is going to somehow be the death of Freedom of Speech in media, blah blah blah, you can turn your television and see Game of Thrones and Penny Dreadful and see all the tits you want, this supposed 'SJW' fight is condensed to gaming and heavy nerd culture frankly.

If you're going to say I'm wrong to feel that way, lets keep in mind all the joy the 'Gamergate' group has been having laughing at Polygon after the Steven Universe lesbian imagery was removed. I'm essentially doing the same thing: "You constantly complained until what I liked was removed, now I'm laughing from the sidelines while you suffer. You could have stopped this."

As far as I'm concerned, my Freedom of Speech died quite some time ago. Maybe it'll be brought back if some people decide they don't like how pro-female sexualized the FFXV boys are and maybe I can stand in solidarity with you. But for now it feels like I'm repeatedly being attacked, never defended but am expected to somehow defend everyone else.

Hell, if anything, I feel freaking just in my decisions, but maybe I'm wrong.

Tl;dr: Anyone angry about Blizzard's removal of the 'sexy tracer' pose probably put themselves in a 'No one Left to Speak for Me' situation and dear god am I enjoying the schadenfreude.

Tl;dr2: Gamers only care about the creative freedom they agree with. None otherwise.
Silvanus said:
Are you making the point that creative freedom (against public criticism) is only usually invoked in certain instances, those that suit the speaker's own wants?

If so, I agree entirely.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.874866-You-All-Depress-Me-Something-We-Need-To-Acknowledge#21987685

Edit: So, judging by the answers that are mainly split between vaguely abusive and vague agreeable, yes. I should feel vindicated. Not because a majority of you are okay with how I feel mind you but because I've now decided that none of you -- or us for that matter -- deserve freedom of speech.



New Tl;dr: Anime The Internet was a mistake.
Yep. I don't see how insisting one's one standards be applied to everyone for a completely optional pose could ever be right or that gloating when it happens is a good thing.
 

visiblenoise

New member
Jul 2, 2014
395
0
0
There seems to be too much context for me to fully grasp what's being said - I'm not terribly interested in these gaming/nerd culture controversies. But...

Of course people only speak up about creative freedom when something they like is at risk of being affected. Why is there an expectation of people to always voluntarily champion creative freedom? The internet is not a mandatory survey, and people click away if they're not enthused within seconds.

If you order food at a restaurant and the chef takes some creative liberties that you happen to enjoy, how far are you going to take your complaint that they didn't follow your order to the tee? Being that principled is absolutely useless.
 

PunkRex

New member
Feb 19, 2010
2,533
0
0
This whole poxy "debate" is so bloody typical of the current state of gaming gender politics.

One side takes issue with a single action of one character, claiming it's overly sexual, despite the fact that it's a pose shared by quite a few other characters and is only made sexy due to said character's visual design.

Then you have the other side take issue with peeps taking issue and start spouting 'censorship!' despite that small changes characterize game development at that phase (I'm not an expert, might be speaking out of ass there).

Samus Young's last article and the little disclaimer at the start basically sum it up. Once again a minor, weird event gets blown out of all proportion by both sides, people need some fucking perspective, this angry loop is getting reeeeeeeeeal tiresome.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
PunkRex said:
Samus Young's last article and the little disclaimer at the start basically sum it up. Once again a minor, weird event gets blown out of all proportion by both sides, people need some fucking perspective, this angry loop is getting reeeeeeeeeal tiresome.
I believe his name is Seamus, though it would be pretty fucking awesome if it was Samus.
 

MHR

New member
Apr 3, 2010
939
0
0
The idea of "censorship" and that Mass Effect shit show is a laugh. Nobody was making a statement with that ending. It wasn't a "Greedo shot first" thing where the writers wanted it one way for specific reasons, it was about giving us a shit ending that few of the writers even had a say in.
 

Fieldy409_v1legacy

New member
Oct 9, 2008
2,686
0
0
Fappy said:
Ryotknife said:
Fappy said:
Serio said:
To be fair, though. I recall there was a bit of an "outcry" when Blizzard added the Blood Elves as a playable race in World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade. People claimed they weren't "masculine" enough, and it was apparently enough to dissuade some people from playing them. I guess that's the other end of the spectrum entirely, though; people were pissed that the male characters weren't oversexualised.
I could be remembering wrong, but weren't the cries of them not being masculine enough coming from people who didn't want them sexualized? As in, they wanted them to be typical male-friendly he-men rather than female-pandering sexy men? Many of the female WoW players I have known over the years think male belfs are sexy.
I thought it was because the Horde didnt want a sexy race. Horde races were "hardcore, ugly badasses"
That was certainly the argument against their race's inclusion as a whole (so both male and female), but I was speaking strictly of the backlash the male belfs received. That said, I also remember people saying the female belfs were too pretty compared to the other Horde races, so the complaints were multi-dimensional I guess. No one is ever happy with Blizzard, especially when it comes to WoW.
Which is messed up because the Horde arent about being badass, they are the black sheep labelled 'monsters' by the Alliance, either because of looks or past mistakes. The knowledge of the alliance that the blood elves once took in demon energy in the desperate situation after their sunwell was destroyed is the reason they are now considered by many to be an evil race.
 
Feb 26, 2014
668
0
0
PunkRex said:
One side takes issue with a single action of one character, claiming it's overly sexual, despite the fact that it's a pose shared by quite a few other characters and is only made sexy due to said character's visual design.
Does this side even exist? Last I checked this whole thing started because one person criticized the pose. And I'm pretty sure the criticism was that it didn't fit the character. Widowmaker still has the pose, right?
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
MHR said:
The idea of "censorship" and that Mass Effect shit show is a laugh. Nobody was making a statement with that ending. It wasn't a "Greedo shot first" thing where the writers wanted it one way for specific reasons, it was about giving us a shit ending that few of the writers even had a say in.
Irrelevant to the argument under discussion. If all censorship is inherently bad, then the nature of the person being victimized by censorship doesn't matter.
 

Cecilo

New member
Nov 18, 2011
330
0
0
First) Yes, it isn't censorship.

Second) It is still terrible, putting societal pressures on companies for things you don't like, when they aren't terrible things like hate speech, is still petty and leads to a fear culture. Right now, you and your friends and like minded individuals apparently think it is alright to drag people through the mud, mudslinging, or besmirching companies for not caving to your demands. With the stigma of "If you don't comply we are going to run your name through the mud, every terrible word, and every bad thing that we can do to you, we will do to you" pretty much goes with every comment involving sexuality, portrayal of women, exclusion of women, etc, they are going to change them, not because they want to in the majority of cases (an assumption on my part I grant you, but for the sake of example), but because if they don't, there is a consequence, and it isn't that they aren't going to get sales, it is that they are going to be attacked for.. doing something a few people don't like.

Third) There is a system going into place in China right now, in it, it encourages you to distance yourself from friends, and even family who do things that the system dictates is bad. Because if you don't. You also get punished, it has very real consequences starting in a few year, including I believe (Don't quote me on this it has been a while since I watched the extra credits vid on it) Loans, and a few other public services. The point of the system is that it actively rewards people who commit to the right type of thinking, and punishes people of wrong think.

This is what you are doing, you are holding a consequence over developers if they commit wrongthink. And that is why it is terrible. If you don't want to call that censorship, that's fine. Because it isn't a government doing it. But don't go waving your arms like you are in the right just because it is you doing something terrible and not a government. People are just as fallible and just as corrupt and horrible as any government. Afterall, terrible governments only have power if terrible people empower them.
 

9tailedflame

New member
Oct 8, 2015
218
0
0
I'm not really sure which side you're on in all this from your OP, but personally, i think removing anything for simply sex appeal, beyond where it's blatantly in contrast with the tone of the game, is wrong, as is removing gay relationships to appeal to suburban scum. I think any kind of policing enforcement to suburban parents' sensibilities is a bad thing. I also think that the constant bickering and trying to get things censored just to spite each other is a bad thing.

Personally, i'm happy with both blatant sexualization of female or male characters, again, so long as it isn't a blatant spit in the face of the theme of the game, for example, playing dark souls as a fanserviced-out schoolgirl pretty well breaks the atmosphere, and i'm happy to all kinds of relationships, be they same or differently sexed. I don't really get why there's a divide there, well i do, but i don't see why either side really wants either of those things gone or censored or edited or whatever your preferred terminology. The more options and openness we have the better, those kinds of restrictions are pure bad for all of us in the end.
 

PunkRex

New member
Feb 19, 2010
2,533
0
0
Captain Marvelous said:
PunkRex said:
One side takes issue with a single action of one character, claiming it's overly sexual, despite the fact that it's a pose shared by quite a few other characters and is only made sexy due to said character's visual design.
Does this side even exist? Last I checked this whole thing started because one person criticized the pose. And I'm pretty sure the criticism was that it didn't fit the character. Widowmaker still has the pose, right?
What I read was that the pose is rather tame, it's merely the character peering over their shoulder in a sort of 'cool guy' way, many of the less sexualized characters have it too. What makes it sexy is the fact that Tracer's bottoms are so tight, the pose itself doesn't seem to be at all sexually charged, it being more cheeky (pun intended) or smug then anything.
 

Windcaler

New member
Nov 7, 2010
1,332
0
0
I have not followed overwatch at all (i really could just not care less about the game at this point) so I dont know if there is a reason for the butt pose of the tracer. At the end of the day I think theres room for both camps. 1. Artists have the right to express themselves however they like. I dont believe that there is anything that should be off limits when it comes to art. Does the butt pose have a place because of artistic expression or is it just there for some T&A? I think thats the crux of the matter there and I dont know what the answer is because I dont know anything about overwatch or specifically the character of tracer. 2. People have a right to criticize art. If someone thinks the butt pose doesnt fit the character of tracer then they have a right to that opinion but everyone else has the right to the opposite opinion. Thus a discussion can happen

Just as an observation in this day and age with gaming it seems to me that sex positive characters are very few and far between. There seems to be a general backlash against sex positive characters as people generally see women or men that embrace sex and sexuality as abnormal and weak. We know that isnt true though because sexy characters can be just as strong and confident as non-sexy ones.
 

PunkRex

New member
Feb 19, 2010
2,533
0
0
JimB said:
PunkRex said:
Samus Young's last article and the little disclaimer at the start basically sum it up. Once again a minor, weird event gets blown out of all proportion by both sides, people need some fucking perspective, this angry loop is getting reeeeeeeeeal tiresome.
I believe his name is Seamus, though it would be pretty fucking awesome if it was Samus.
Whoops, and I always reread my stuff like six times to avoid that sorta thing... I'mma leave it anyways because imagining Shamus writing his articles with an arm cannon is cool.
 

Candidus

New member
Dec 17, 2009
1,095
0
0
This can be solved quite simply.

Get a high res animated wallpaper or looping video of the censored content, and have it active beneath Overwatch. Everytime you win a game as Tracer, force your Twitch viewers to see the content whether they like it or not by tabbing for a few celebratory seconds. You're basically opting in to the victory pose, and possibly pushing it up the nose of an SJW once before he or she leaves your livestream for good.

Everything to like.
 

SamTheNewb

New member
Apr 16, 2013
53
0
0
Siege_TF said:
It might not be 'censorship', but that argument is 'semantical bullshit', because one body of people is imposing what they think isn't right with a piece of art on others.
But what about blizzards right to not have something in their work and to remove a part that they don't like? Can the complaints from the recent Blizzard's 'event' not be considered one body of people imposing what they think should be in a piece of art?

This is the intent of the original post. To help people realize that this knife, the claim of censorship, that people use cuts both ways. "Your thoughts cause censorship, so you can't have your thoughts"... It doesn't work.

The sad part, is, most people are probably intelligent enough to realize this. But they don't care. They want to have the knife turned on them, so they can lash out and attack while having the illusion of defending themselves. It seems that people can only seem to have a fulfilling existence if they have a battle to fight and a war to wage.