Censorship! Vile, disgusting CENSORSHIP!
- Thread starter Zhukov
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That is a difficult question to answer, because ultimately we are talking about two different grey areas.BloatedGuppy said:
First we have a grey area in the truest sense of the word. Consider a continuum, where censorship charged criticism is on one side and non censorship criticism is on the other (we don't have a good word for non censorship). Say the censorship side is white, the other side is black. In the middle is the grey area - an area that is both censorship and non censorship in equal measure.
But then there is also the grey area in which it is not immediately clear if you are attempting suppression or not. Example: In the new SMTxFE trailer some of costumes we see the women wearing are uncomfortable for my tastes, I would prefer they not be in the game and my experience with the game will likely be damaged because of it. I would prefer the game to be different. However I am not judging it on a moral level, nor am I saying these things should not be. I am not suppressing the idea or attempting to. In fact, I think things like this should exist for those who want to consume them. I just don't like it personally.
On the other hand, and I only bring her up because she provides such a great example, Anita has repeatedly called out games on a moral level and made the claim that some ideas should be partially or totally suppressed. And Anita is open about her intentions. She wants to eliminate certain content she finds objectionable, first and foremost on a moral level. I respect her frankness about this, it allows a more open and transparent discourse on what was always going to be an issue muddled by high emotion and poor understanding.
It can be very hard to tell the difference between these three possibilities, especially if the writer tries to obfuscate the issue. For example, a person might say "I have no problem with homosexuality, but I would rather not see a gay romance film." The person may actually not have a problem with homosexuality, or they might be a raging homophobe. Impossible to tell.
Yes. As I said not all censorship is bad, and I would like to add that not all censorship is even avoidable. Often ideas are fundamentally opposed to each other - by advocating for one you necessarily advocating for the suppression of another. Sometimes you have to pick a side to say anything meaningful.
While I am for feminist ideals and the like, I am opposed to people like Anita on a more fundamental level. I personally believe that ideas and information, whenever possible, should not be suppressed unless we can prove significant harm will come of the idea. People like Anita try to suppress ideas based on being objectionable alone. This is highly apparent in some recent tweets she made about violence in games. For example:
"This level of extreme violence shouldn't be considered normal. It's not an excuse to say it's expected because DOOM. That's the problem"
Now, as I pointed out in another thread, she can only mean that this level of violence should not be socially acceptable in games, because it is not normal in games (that is the entire point of the violence) and Anita is no idiot. Her objections are on moral grounds first. She does not want such things to exist because she finds them morally objectionable.
I oppose this moral based model of censorship. I am, myself, engage in attempted censorship against that idea. I attempt to suppress and counter it at every turn. I believe it causes real damage, curtailing freedom of both the censored party and those who want to experience or explore the idea. Now, as a key point, I do not think the idea should not be discussed. It needs to be discussed so everyone can understand it for the bad idea it is.
I would also like to introduce a key idea - the difference between hard and soft censorship.
Hard censorship is where ideas are suppressed by force, typically by some regulatory body (though not necessarily so) with harsh penalties attached to violations of the censorship policy. We have all seen organized instances of this before, but I would also include things like an internet mob calling for someones job. The key here is force - if this is not changed we will force it to change or be destroyed/greatly damaged. When the gearbox employee said "girlfriend mode" and thousands of people called for him to be fired, that was attempted hard censorship.
Soft censorship is when censorship, or the suppression of ideas etc, is accomplished by persuasion or by swaying public opinion against the idea. The suppression is not accomplished by force or drastic penalty, but by making the idea prohibitively unappealing, such as by reducing the audience for a game about boob physics or even by just making the person not want to make a game about boob physics.
Now, while I will not say hard censorship is universally bad (there are some cases where information should be kept secret on penalty, for example privacy laws or military secrets) it is always bad when a mob engages in it. And soft censorship is not universally good for many reasons, not the least of which is that people will always take the ideas you espoused in soft censorship and try to enforce them with hard censorship. But generally speaking soft censorship is the route we should take when opposing ideas.
Anita engages in soft censorship against things she sees as objectionable. Many of her followers engage in hard censorship. Many of the people anti Anita engage in hard censorship. I engage in soft censorship against the idea that objectionable material should be censored simply because it is objectionable.
Sorry for the wall of text and any typos.
P.S. Incidentally, I see hard vs soft censorship as the primary difference between Jack Thompson and Anita, and that difference is why I respect Anita and not Jack Thompson.
There's absolutely no way I'm ever going to have time to properly respond to this, but I wanted to sincerely say thank you for the thought and effort you put into that. I don't know if we're universally in agreement (I'd have to give it a second, even more careful read), but we're certainly in agreement on a great many points.DrOswald said:
I've read the full exchange, John, more than once. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?Johnisback said:
Because threatening physical force is not at all the same thing as threatening to use speech and the free market.
Goodness me.Johnisback said:
How is it "playing the same sport"? One is the free market. One is literally a crime. I honestly don't understand what it is you want, what it is you are trying to say.
Moreover, I asked several posts ago for someone to please explain to me what "self-censorship" actually is. Could you help me out here?
See, this reads like: You might deem the threat of plummeting to your death from a tall building as just part of gravity but other people might not.Johnisback said:
It IS a part of the free market. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not. That's the way the free market works.
So developer/artist/musician/writer/whatever may or may not change their product based on market forces at their discretion. So, "self-censorship" isn't censorship at all, then. So who gives a crap?
I didn't say no one should have a problem with the free market. Often times, the results of the market suck. Them's the breaks.Johnisback said:
And I agree, not every outside force is a market force. Mike Tyson threatening to punch you in the face, for instance, is not a market force.
However, if petitions/boycotts/criticism are not market forces, then what are they?
Wait wait wait! Are you saying gamers can be hypocrites if it means they get the games they want?!
Oh fuck! And here I thought us gamers were moral paragons of honesty, truth, justice and the politically correct not-specific nation of origin way!
Oh fuck! And here I thought us gamers were moral paragons of honesty, truth, justice and the politically correct not-specific nation of origin way!
You will also note that, based on your definition, I also find the very concept of "self-censorship" laughable on its face. There's no "force" being applied.Johnisback said:
What exactly would your solution to this dire situation be?
Thanks for taking the time to read it! I totally understand that you probably cannot respond, I practically wrote an essay, so don't feel bad. But do keep in mind that I am no writer, and I probably failed to communicate all the subtleties of my position. And even if we are not in complete agreement, I am glad we could talk about it. Thanks for listening.BloatedGuppy said:
I phrased that poorly, I apologize. What I meant by "force" in that context is that there is no threat to the developer/artist/writer etc. outside of just normal economics. That is not censorship. "Self-censorship" is, at best, an extremely poorly-worded concept, as censorship doesn't enter into the equation in anyway whatsoever.Johnisback said:
No, it's a threat within the context of normal economics, which amounts to welp, tough shit, that's the way it works.Johnisback said:
The day I give a damn about what wikipedia says about something is the day I just plain give up on life.
As someone who likes Metroid (as in, I played Metroid Prime 3 and thought it was a fantastic game and later tried to play Other M and found it to be even shittier than I thought it was going to be), I find this ubelieveably stupid. I was admittedly disappointed that after almost 5 years, they were giving us a multiplayer thingamajig, but that is in no way close to a decent justification to try and ban something. Don't like it? Fine! Criticize their decision, give the developers feedback and tell them what you think. Don't buy the game if you don't support their idea, that could actually be constructive feedback. But if you actually think not liking something removes its right to exist, you do in fact think you are entitled and should remove your head from your own ass so you don't choke. Only stuck-up babies think they can just cry and everything will be changed to suit their liking, regardless of what others or even those who spend actual resources and work hard to make this game believe(hell, my 4-year old cousin has made more sensible decisions than these people just have).
Lets say in the grim darkness of the future, there are two media companies that control any and all news gaming related or whatever and all the websites people go to for discussion of issues. Lets say they both agree not to talk about a certain issue and delete all comments and discussion about them. The monopoly has decided to not let you discuss the issue.
Is that censorship?
Is that censorship?
... that's not self censorship. That's just your garden variety censorship, since it involves coercion from an outside source.Johnisback said:
I see what you mean, though, this is a rather dumb petition. I'm rather tired of all these self censorship debates. Everyone's doing it. Yes Gamer Gate, even (especially) you. It's not even about censorship debate anymore. It's just a battle between idealogues.
I'm curious what the relevance is. Shall we next speak of an ice cream man who controls all ice cream production and only produces vanilla?Fieldy409 said:
Anything can be made to look scary if you give someone total control of an entire industry. I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove.
Only if other circumstances prevent people from starting a wordpress blog or something. Then again, the problem would be more "how did our Internet get messed up this very badly" rather than "these companies aren't talking about what I want to talk about"Fieldy409 said:
Heh. The irony of this situation was just spelled out to me and I'm ashamed of myself or not catching it.
The complaints are about a perceived lack of Metroid elements, which given how few those are, and how this isn't something conceptional unfun by gamer standards, really means a visible lack of Samus. Gamers are upset about not just the lack of a female lead presented, but the apparent expulsion of the one that was there.
That really needs repeating: gamers are upset about the removal of a female gaming icon from her franchise.
And their reward for this step away from the woman hating stereotype is to be called Entitled Babies on Destructoid.
I don't know if that's bitterness that gaming fans caught this before the normal SJW crowd, or just that no matter the argument, gamers are always going to be wrong about it.
The complaints are about a perceived lack of Metroid elements, which given how few those are, and how this isn't something conceptional unfun by gamer standards, really means a visible lack of Samus. Gamers are upset about not just the lack of a female lead presented, but the apparent expulsion of the one that was there.
That really needs repeating: gamers are upset about the removal of a female gaming icon from her franchise.
And their reward for this step away from the woman hating stereotype is to be called Entitled Babies on Destructoid.
I don't know if that's bitterness that gaming fans caught this before the normal SJW crowd, or just that no matter the argument, gamers are always going to be wrong about it.
Because people claim only governments are capable of censorship. That any other non government organisations, groups or movements that attempt to blacklist, shut down and silence media and opinions they disagree with aren't censoring.Secondhand Revenant said:
People claimed it wasn't censorship when Target Australia chose to stop selling GTA5 after pressure from a group using half truths and outright lies. But would it be censorship if you could legally buy GTA but nobody would sell it to you because every retailer followed Targets example?