Jimquisition: Editing Versus Censorship. Like the video but I wonder...

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

This might be really paranoid and stupid but can we really be sure it was done by the artist willingly?

Can we, outsiders of these companies, ever really know for sure whether the minds that created whatever content wanted to make changes or were forced to by their bosses? Motivated purely by what they feel would sell the most? It wouldnt surprise me either if artists were told to support the changes with their social media or else lose their job.

Maybe im just being paranoid.

Well, unless they have the creative staff locked in cells and forbid them any outside communication with humanity on pain of death or torture, yeah I think we can probably take them at their word. I mean if you are just the kind of person who never believes anything anyone says, and always assumes there is some ulterior motive...well...then nothing anyone says will convince you otherwise. But I mean, if the people who made it come out and say why they did it, we really have no reason to assume it was some "edict from on high".

I believe there can be consequences to what you say in something that is recorded on the internet where people can use it as evidence that you said it. As opposed to spoken words that dissapear in the wind. Companies often consider their employees to be representing them all the time. With these things like comic book artist they usually have a lot of followers who can see their social media and will happily forward anything that could be construed as offensive back to the employers. A pro footballer might be demoted from captain of the team or something, if he took to his twitter screaming "THIS IS BULLSHIT I AM THE BEST CHOICE FOR THIS" its not something that wont have consequences, visible to the public or kept quiet. He can if he wants, but the smart thing to do would be to take a press conference and act cool.

 

[Sanderpower]

Sterling chose his side of this debate a few months ago, so the weasel-worded justifications found in this video come as no surprise.

The problem with his reasoning is twofold:

(1) He views editing before and after the fact as equivalent. They aren't. One only of these can be, and often is, predicated on the reaction of the audience and the consequences thereof. The distinction is akin to a guilty parting showing remorse before or after getting caught. With high probability, remorse shown in the latter situation isn't genuine.

(2) He deliberately obfuscates the reasons for after-the-fact editing by suggesting it's all the same as long as the author's will is done. I actually agree with him that the DMC dialogue might have been modified for artistic considerations. It simply isn't a very good line. But do you know what wasn't artistically poor? The Batgirl cover.

To take an extreme case, consider the Charlie Hebdo massacres. If given a replay and supplied with the knowledge that they would be murdered for their efforts, it would be a reasonable course of action for the authors to decide not to publish their inflammatory cartoons. Not for artistic reasons, mind you, as they clearly believed them to be of good quality and in the spirit of their publication, but only because the external reactions of deranged lunatics produced very negative consequences. This is anything but the natural artistic process at work.

In short, you're full of it Jimmy. And you know it.

On point 2, the actual writers of the Batgirl comic were informed of the cover variant at the same time as everybody else. They didn't like it either and they wanted it to be changed. So the Batgirl comic is the exact opposite of censorship, because it's the WRITERS telling the artist what they want in there comic.

Second, the Charlie Hebdo massacre is censorship because that's taken to the extreme. Which is what censorship is! An author facing violent or legal threat for there artwork isn't editing, it's censorship. Changing the cover willingly because some people don't like it, but there is no legal or violent threat if you don't, isn't censorship, that's editing (for the most part). It really isn't a one thing or the other and it can pretty subjective. But rarely has social media resulted in somebody in the "nerd" industry to legitimately censor there work.

 

[LetalisK]

Like MarsAtlas says, there is always going to be that outside pressure. Sometimes that outside pressure keeps the closet racist from yelling "******!" at every black guy walking past. Sometimes that outside pressure keeps the closet homosexual closeted because he knows the negative reactions he will get. There is no unifying theory and it needs to be taken on a case by case basis.

 

[Pr0]

Today on The Revisionist Podcast, Jim Sterling tells you how things really happened.

 

[Signa]

Fully disagree here. The government doesn't have a monopoly on the definition of censoring something.

Government may not have a monopoly on censorship, but pretending that someone saying they were offended by something is them actively trying to censor someone is absolute nonsense.

Well, I consider the rest of your post absolute nonsense. It doesn't even attempt to explain definitively why my position is without any sense at all. It just spouts your feeling back at me as if they were fact. They are not.

I've already expressed my views in this thread. I'm not going to start repeating myself for you just because you're a day and half late to the thread.

 

[Sanderpower]

Fully disagree here. The government doesn't have a monopoly on the definition of censoring something.

Government may not have a monopoly on censorship, but pretending that someone saying they were offended by something is them actively trying to censor someone is absolute nonsense.

Well, I consider the rest of your post absolute nonsense. It doesn't even attempt to explain definitively why my position is without any sense at all. It just spouts your feeling back at me as if they were fact. They are not.

I've already expressed my views in this thread. I'm not going to start repeating myself for you just because you're a day and half late to the thread.

I think he did tell you. Somebody being offended by something doesn't mean it's censorship because it's not necessarily forcing an artist to remove something. Censorship becomes censorship when there is legal and/or violent threat towards your person if you do not remove or change something. IF people are outraged and demand that you do something, they can pout and moan all the want, but you can just ignore them and no actual harm would come to you. If you do any actual changes, then that's just you deciding to edit your work by your volition.

Even if there is social pressure for you to do something, you still have the agency and freedom to ignore that social pressure and do whatever you want. Social pressure isn't necessarily censorship, despite what some people on the internet say. While an artist should be freed from any violent or legal sanctions against there artistic expression, they are not in fact immune from criticism from society. Hell consumer protest is a great example of social pressure and criticism, yet we never call that censorship do we?

 

[Signa]

Fully disagree here. The government doesn't have a monopoly on the definition of censoring something.

Government may not have a monopoly on censorship, but pretending that someone saying they were offended by something is them actively trying to censor someone is absolute nonsense.

Well, I consider the rest of your post absolute nonsense. It doesn't even attempt to explain definitively why my position is without any sense at all. It just spouts your feeling back at me as if they were fact. They are not.

I've already expressed my views in this thread. I'm not going to start repeating myself for you just because you're a day and half late to the thread.

I think he did tell you. Somebody being offended by something doesn't mean it's censorship because it's not necessarily forcing an artist to remove something. Censorship becomes censorship when there is legal and/or violent threat towards your person if you do not remove or change something. IF people are outraged and demand that you do something, they can pout and moan all the want, but you can just ignore them and no actual harm would come to you. If you do any actual changes, then that's just you deciding to edit your work by your volition.

Even if there is social pressure for you to do something, you still have the agency and freedom to ignore that social pressure and do whatever you want. Social pressure isn't necessarily censorship, despite what some people on the internet say. While an artist should be freed from any violent or legal sanctions against there artistic expression, they are not in fact immune from criticism from society. Hell consumer protest is a great example of social pressure and criticism, yet we never call that censorship do we?

Well then he should have said that. I still disagree, but at least that's a reason why my feelings could be "nonsense." Pressure to self-censor is still censorship, even if it is voluntary. The degree of that pressure matters too.

 

[Therumancer]

Now I agree with everything he said, artists going back and changing their creations with editing is something they should be able to do and not censorship. Like that Batgirl picture, if the artist didnt want that to be a cover, fair enough. Jim said that the Artist stated he didnt want that cover to run. Yeah sure editing based on feedback isnt censorship.

But I have a niggling thought, Since I cant post this on YouTube because fuck Google+ Ill ask here. This might be really paranoid and stupid but can we really be sure it was done by the artist willingly?

Can we, outsiders of these companies, ever really know for sure whether the minds that created whatever content wanted to make changes or were forced to by their bosses? Motivated purely by what they feel would sell the most? It wouldnt surprise me either if artists were told to support the changes with their social media or else lose their job.

Maybe im just being paranoid.

Not a surprising position from Jim given his overall beliefs.

The thing one has to understand is that with something like the "Batgirl" cover a lot of effort went into it's creation, then it was of course given to a publisher, reviewed, and accepted. If the creative team really had an issue with this picture it would never have been made, or gone that far through the process. It became an issue when you had SJWs who do not read comics making a big stink about it. This is when the creator decided to change things. There is a difference between a bit of mild editing, changing a turn of phrase, or something like that in order to make something flow better, and removing something entirely, especially something that took the effort of say an entire piece of artwork intended for an alternate cover. While perhaps the artist might not have been threatened directly, it should be noted that out of control SJWs have been rampaging through society and for the most apart the authorities have not been willing to do much to stop them. We're at a point where people's careers can and have been ruined, and irritating these people can lead to them say digging into your background, outing every bad thing you've done since the age of six (nobody is 100% clean no matter what they think, everyone has at least said or done things that could be considered embarrassing) and then being unable to exist as any kind of public person at all. If there isn't any dirt, this is the internet where angry SJWs might engage in say photobombing everyone he knows with pictures of him having sex with dogs, or just make sure whatever he does lengthy messages "warning people" that he's a militant anti-feminist herald his arrival or whatever. Understand that right now we have cases where SJWs have literally been shutting down entire towns and cities when they disagree with something the police do when racism is being alleged. The movie industry had so little faith in the government being willing or able to protect it that it refused to show "The Interview" after Sony got itself hacked and doxxed all over the Internet, for which nothing was done. Right now there is some case of a guy fleeing the police, fighting with them, and getting beaten up pretty bad, that has a pastor threatening to start riots to shut down the city of Detroit in retaliation, and I mean even if that WAS racist (still waiting for the politics and full investigation to play out), there is such a thing as scale, and nobody seems to be interested in going after someone for threatening an entire city so what the heck are they going to do to protect an artist and his work?

One thing to understand is that when someone backs down to SJWs they are accused of censorship, and they get a lot of flak, but as a general rule the free speech crowd tends to be a lot more sane and rational so far. Nobody tends to actually DO anything to someone from backing down. Thus saying this artist "wanted this to happen" gives him a defense to use to deflect this criticism, and really if it doesn't, it really doesn't matter because having backed down to the SJWs he's fairly safe because the free speech crowd isn't likely to hack his life into a living hell. He's not afraid of the free speech crowd, any more than the SJW crowd is so far, and as such like for a lot of people it's pretty obvious what a scared person is going to do when these two forces converge on them... and let's be honest, that's what we're dealing with, a scared person. The SJW movement has been engaged in a lot of large scale intimidation across a variety of issues. It varies, but as I said, nobody wants to risk this crap falling down on them, it's better to not fight the battle. This isn't as big an issue, but again, understand we have guys literally threatening cities if they do not get what they want, before any ruling is made. "Take action against these police, or we will riot in Detroit and shut the city down" when nothing is done in response (no matter how it's stated the ultimatum is clear) it pretty much guarantees anything that's done is going to be tainted. What's more when it comes to SJWs a big part of the problem is also the scale, the crap that falls down on an artist is likely to be well beyond any damage a piece of artwork could possibly do even if it's everything they say. In Detroit even if the police were 100% out of line, one guy being put in the hospital isn't anything compared to pretty much saying your going to lead riots and protests that will put a lot more people in the hospital and shut down/damage the entire city. Not a great analogy, but it also guarantees that say when a picture is pulled and someone says "I wanted to do it" or investigations drop fleeing and resistant arrest charges, the scale of the threats make those things questionable. See even if the artist DID want to pull this work (which I doubt given that he created and submitted it) it doesn't matter anymore because the outrage makes it so that decision will always been questionable. In both cases had the SJWs been brought into line before anything was done, it might be different.

Rambling, and I'm not sure how many people will read this, but that's my thoughts. I do not think Jim really makes his case here, but that's just my opinion. What's more editing would mean that someone from the company (DC) decided to remove the picture, not the artist, DC has gone out of it's way to make it clear this is not and never has been an editorial decision.

The big question I of course ask here, and what everyone else should be asking, is who is protecting that artist? The fact that nobody is, is exactly why this is touchy. The government doesn't seem to be protecting people against SJWs, indeed it seems to support them right now. Is DC going to shield the guy even if he gets dragging through the mud in a way where some of it could stick to them? The problem here is that the guy is having this pulled due to these complaints when everyone realizes he's facing a storm that has torn down a lot of people.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The thing one has to understand is that with something like the "Batgirl" cover a lot of effort went into it's creation, then it was of course given to a publisher, reviewed, and accepted. If the creative team really had an issue with this picture it would never have been made, or gone that far through the process. It became an issue when you had SJWs who do not read comics making a big stink about it.

Several layers of people, maybe, but not the team working on the comic- according to the writer.
https://twitter.com/cameronMstewart/status/577639735788711936

Therumancer, you are correct. The creative team had an issue with this picture and thus, it was never actually produced.

The system works.

... btw, what was the rest of that rambling? SJWs taking over the world and bullying millions and billion dollar industries with Twitter again?

 

[Silence]

So, the problem is that you have to judge the things on an individual basis. The artist of Divinity: Original Sin felt that he was censored.

So that is not okay.

Source: http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/03/divinity-original-sin-dev-talks-boob-plates-sexism-and-moral-outrage/

The variant cover was, as far as I understand it, only a suggestion in the first place and DC published it too early. The artist probably had requested that it was not used anyway.

That is okay.

(There was even an interview on a reactionary site with a comic artist who shares these sentiments, but was calling bullshit on the censorship claim).

That's why Jim Sterlings video is correct on the technical scale, because all his examples are probably correct (like the DMC one, I don't think it was changed because of pressure. I never even heard of it.)

But he completely ignores the instances where someone was pressured to change something.

 

[Phasmal]

Source: http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/03/divinity-original-sin-dev-talks-boob-plates-sexism-and-moral-outrage/

Ok, sad that he felt he was censored, that's bad.
But still, ugh, the rest of that interview.
Women should have their own games and not change the games BOYS like?
Start our own franchises to prove something?

How about no.
Then it goes on to talk about how `gamers` are having their identity attacked- ugh. Which gamers?
That's just... ugh.

Still, in regards to him having to change his art, gaming as a whole is going to change, and while I feel there will always be a place for `boob plate` (insert massively sarcastic eyeroll here), people will still voice their dislike for it- I suppose it's up to companies how they respond to that.

 

[Gladion]

Source: http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/03/divinity-original-sin-dev-talks-boob-plates-sexism-and-moral-outrage/

Ok, sad that he felt he was censored, that's bad.
But still, ugh, the rest of that interview.
Women should have their own games and not change the games BOYS like?
Start our own franchises to prove something?

I especially love how these types of comments automatically assume that every male gamer must want boob plates everywhere they look. But I suppose that's to be expected from a man who thinks "representative female-targeted work of art" is Sex and the City.

Another beautiful tidbit from this interview:

you are forced to rethink your actions

What a cruel, cruel world we live in, truly.

 

[NPC009]

Source: http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/03/divinity-original-sin-dev-talks-boob-plates-sexism-and-moral-outrage/

Ok, sad that he felt he was censored, that's bad.
But still, ugh, the rest of that interview.
Women should have their own games and not change the games BOYS like?
Start our own franchises to prove something?

How about no.
Then it goes on to talk about how `gamers` are having their identity attacked- ugh. Which gamers?
That's just... ugh.

Still, in regards to him having to change his art, gaming as a whole is going to change, and while I feel there will always be a place for `boob plate` (insert massively sarcastic eyeroll here), people will still voice their dislike for it- I suppose it's up to companies how they respond to that.

Is it a bad thing that I'm laughing at this? I mean, he goes on about creativity and how it should be protected, but the result of his creativity is paint-by-numbers sexy female "armour".

I'm all for giving creators the freedom and means to create, but having editors around is a good thing. An outside perspective is extremely valuable to the creative process. I mean, think of what could have happened had Lucas had full creative control over Star Wars... Some ideas are bad and need to be nipped in the bud. Also, criticism provides challenges that fuel creativity. Artists know how to draw boobplates by now, but designing armour that's practical, fits the setting (weather and temperature exist in fantasy worlds, too!) and is visually pleasing, now that's a challenge that should be accepted more often.

 

[Phasmal]

I'm all for giving creators the freedom and means to create, but having editors around is a good thing. An outside perspective is extremely valuable to the creative process. I mean, think of what could have happened had Lucas had full creative control over Star Wars... Some ideas are bad and need to be nipped in the bud. Also, criticism provides challenges that fuel creativity. Artists know how to draw boobplates by now, but designing armour that's practical, fits the setting (weather and temperature exist in fantasy worlds, too!) and is visually pleasing, now that's a challenge that should be accepted more often.

Now you've made me wistful about what could have happened if Lucas had his creativity edited a bit more. (sigh)

Spoiler: I guess I'll just rewatch this for the hundredth time.

And also yes, well-done female armour is beautiful, and I find it tends to stick in my mind more rather than standard boob armour number 901 does. I enjoyed Dark Souls for this, you didn't have to worry about a bit of armour that is a suit of mail on a dude turning into a bikini when you equip it on a woman.

 

[kris40k]

Source: http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/03/divinity-original-sin-dev-talks-boob-plates-sexism-and-moral-outrage/

Ok, sad that he felt he was censored, that's bad.
But still, ugh, the rest of that interview.
Women should have their own games and not change the games BOYS like?
Start our own franchises to prove something?

How about no.
Then it goes on to talk about how `gamers` are having their identity attacked- ugh. Which gamers?
That's just... ugh.

Still, in regards to him having to change his art, gaming as a whole is going to change, and while I feel there will always be a place for `boob plate` (insert massively sarcastic eyeroll here), people will still voice their dislike for it- I suppose it's up to companies how they respond to that.

Yeah, Thierry's statement about social pressure (censorship/blackmail/etc.) really hits what I feel is a lot of the back and forth I see on these forums about censorship and the handwaving away of any disagreement due to technicalities (ex. "its not governmental..."). Pressure on someone can come from other directions than governmental forces and threat of legal punishment; what do you call it when a group of people demand you change something or they will go out of their way to actively destroy your business and/or career?

As far as "women finding their own games", I am of the opinion that "the answer is always more art; the corollary to that is the answer is never less art."[footnote]http://www.penny-arcade.com/news/post/2012/06/01/turnaround[/footnote] This mean creating more art, not tearing down or demand others change their art. If someone wants games like Depression Quest[footnote]Yes, I know Depression Quest is free, this is an example of a gametype.[/footnote], then buy those games, buy a million copies of them. People will make them and the types of games that you like will flourish. I personally am not a fan of visual novel styles of games, but I do not complain about them popping up all over the place. If people want to wear boobplates in D:OS, let them. But where I disagree is where people are demanding that the existence of games that they dislike or disagree with are a threat, that media is poisonous, toxic, and needs to be changed to match their sensibilities.

No. Make your own art, and leave others to theirs. Always more art, never less art.

That is where I believe people are coming from when they say make you own games. I know its what I mean when I say it.

 

[Phasmal]

As far as "women finding their own games", I am of the opinion that "the answer is always more art; the corollary to that is the answer is never less art."[footnote]http://www.penny-arcade.com/news/post/2012/06/01/turnaround[/footnote] This mean creating more art, not tearing down or demand others change their art. If someone wants games like Depression Quest[footnote]Yes, I know Depression Quest is free, this is an example of a gametype.[/footnote], then buy those games, buy a million copies of them. People will make them and the types of games that you like will flourish.

Okay, so here's my problem.
Triple A games as they are, I love them. I really do. I'm not looking for `women's games`- the games I own aren't `men's games`, because a man doesn't own them, I do. They're my games as much as anybody else's.
So the idea that if I want a tiny thing changed- such as the option to have a female character- that I have to wait for games like that to be made in order to not infringe on `other people's` games is absolute bullshit.

For instance, I'd be really interested in a GTA game that lets you choose a female protagonist (personally I feel it's long overdue), so the idea that I can't say that I want that and instead have to wait for someone to make a game exactly like that, that's dumb.

... And before someone says it, yes, I've played Saints Row. I kinda prefer it to GTA at the moment but I feel a female GTA protagonist could be just the thing to swing me back the other way.

EDIT: And also I own D:OS and I don't like boobplate, so surely I'm just as entitled to voice that as the boobplate people are?

 

[kris40k]

Okay, so here's my problem.
Triple A games as they are, I love them. I really do. I'm not looking for `women's games`- the games I own aren't `men's games`, because a man doesn't own them, I do. They're my games as much as anybody else's.
So the idea that if I want a tiny thing changed- such as the option to have a female character- that I have to wait for games like that to be made in order to not infringe on `other people's` games is absolute bullshit.

For instance, I'd be really interested in a GTA game that lets you choose a female protagonist (personally I feel it's long overdue), so the idea that I can't say that I want that and instead have to wait for someone to make a game exactly like that, that's dumb.

... And before someone says it, yes, I've played Saints Row. I kinda prefer it to GTA at the moment but I feel a female GTA protagonist could be just the thing to swing me back the other way.

EDIT: And also I own D:OS and I don't like boobplate, so surely I'm just as entitled to voice that as the boobplate people are?

The desire for changes, such as your example being able to play a female protagonist[footnote]which I personally agree with, any game where I can play a female protag, I do[/footnote], can be relayed to the developers in a constructive manner without attacking. You can tweet the dev's "Hey guys, how about adding an option for a female protagonist in the next installment?" instead of "Your development team are a bunch of misogynistic shitlords and if you don't change your game, we'll crucify you upon the cross of social media and anyone who so much as hints that they appreciate your work will meet the same fate!"[footnote]maybe over a 144 characters, but you get the drift[/footnote].

Otherwise, searching out and supporting those creators that are creating the games that you like, helps grow that. You can just look at the explosion of roguelikes, minecraft clones, and visual novels over the recent years as an example of "buy it and it will come."

So, TL;DR, constructive feedback is good, pillorying is bad.

 

[NPC009]

EDIT: And also I own D:OS and I don't like boobplate, so surely I'm just as entitled to voice that as the boobplate people are?

I'm sure someone, somewhere (hopefully not here) is going to tell you that no, you're not, because the game wasn't designed with you in mind. Which is a really weird, but insanely common way of reasoning, sadly. You'd think creators would think it's a good thing when they appeal to an unexpected audience...

Not that it should matter if anyone is the intended audience or not, once you're spending time and money on something, you're part of the audience and your opinion should hold some weight. If I'm complaining about silly female armour in some game it:
1) is because I feel the game is good enough to complain about. Companies shit out insane amounts of digital manure every year and I prefer not to bother with things that are shit. I'll save my criticism for good things that good be even better with some small adjustments.
b) has nothing to do with gender. Well, not mine anyway. I mean, boobs are cool and I certainly don't mind looking at a good pair, but you know what's nice? If they're attached to a person that's more than just her sex appeal. Besides, it's way sexier if you leave something to the imagination.