- Nov 6, 2008
Sorry- I'll rephrase that: The opinions of any individual outside of China, about China itself, and the impact of the country's actions on how the average citizens of the world view it is something China would hardly care about. Not trying to single you out personally here; just including you -as I am too- in the demographic of 'average non-Chinese citizen.'Saulkar said:The beginning of your reply came off quite bitey, I will accept that it is probably the lack of emotional context in text in which case the following tangential rant need not apply further but if it was intentional then I ask here and now to please refrain from it and if in turn I commit to said venom that you in turn point it out without taking a sip. I am sick and tired of almost every rebuke to an opposing opinion on the Escapist, a supposedly civil place, possessing an air of passive aggressive ire. Once again I am open to it being a lack of emotional context and thus an issue on my end in which case I meant no harm.
Now to as civilly as possible address your reply and elaborate my position. Few have a reason to care about another's opinion until it affects them personally let alone said opinion being expressed for the sole purpose of being viewed by those whom it specifically concerns. That does not stop people from having or expressing opinions wich makes it curious as to why it is a point in this conversation to being with. Can we toss that out?
Now we both agree that China does not have the best system but I personally cannot agree with whatever their bother with the game is. It is the opinion of those in power and not the general population. With such control over what the general populations consume and how that can be a tool to shape opinions, is that not ripe for abuse? We can already observe it on a smaller scale with our own news stations and how there is normally an ulterior motive behind the curtains, controlling what we see for profit/ratings or ideology. Like you said, it was a pointless stab which I interpret as lacking motivation, statement, or genuine maliciousness. Actually, I would be more inclined to call it apathetic carelessness but if they can censor consumer media like that then is there not the possibility they can censor anything else that they do not agree with? People arguing in turn that it is inconsequential media opening up to the possibility that those in power choose what is or is not significant in a game of semantics to justify their censorship? Why would someone justify/rationalise the former without realising the consequences of the latter?
I hope I was not antagonistic in my reply.
I'm not defending China's state-run censorship or the way it treats it's media and population. All I'm saying is that I can appreciate why they'd be pissed off by Battlefield 4's carelessly (as opposed to blatantly) antagonistic depiction of China and Russia. How they reacted to it is something else entirely.