The Big Picture: Don't Censor Me!

Dr. Crawver

Doesn't know why he has premium
Nov 20, 2009
1,100
0
0
josh4president said:
So is it me or is Big Picture basically just Bob's blog now?
When was it ever not?

Seriously, go watch the first episode. He basically says upfront that's what it is. A space the escapist gave him to muse on whatever takes his fancy in a given week. There is literally nothing other than that.
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
1,976
347
88
Country
US
The most ironic part, I think, are the people who will describe the ME3 ending protest people as "entitled", but see "I don't like this characters outfit and I'm going to call you and all your customers sexist bigots until you change it" as entirely justified.

Since you brought up a certain right wing moral panic boogeyman from the past, I'm going to point out that there are two ways moral panics try to enforce their vision on the rest of us.

If they can get leverage with lawmakers and it's not openly and outright unconstitutional, then they try to force their vision into law.
If they cannot, they try to create a climate where no one would dare transgress their preferences in the first place.

One of those is capital-C censorship, the other is de facto censorship by threat of destroying their ability to continue creating. To not see that implied threat, is to not see the implied threat in a classic protection racket.

In the case of video games, politicized reviews combined with the sort of political hegemony that seems to be present among the largest review sites can functionally serve that role thanks to Metacritic and its influence on developer compensation. Since giving every Metacritic employee one in the head and one in the chest, then burning the servers, quenching them in holy water, embedding them in a concrete block and sinking it to the bottom of the ocean is probably out of the question...
 

Pebkio

The Purple Mage
Nov 9, 2009
780
0
0
The "don't take it personally" thing is fine until SOMEONE tries to say that if I don't personally feel effected by perceived sexism in a video game... than I am the MOST susceptible to sexism.

Also, yeah, I'm super angry about capitalism. Making the foundation of everything we do or even COULD do *greed* is a good way to corrupt every social movement we start. And if it's not corrupted, then it's immediately discredited in the minds of the majority as being "costly" or "a waste of time" because it doesn't actually exist for profit.
 

varmintx

New member
Oct 6, 2011
149
0
0
medv4380 said:
It's not Capitalism that people are mad at. It's Monopolies.
Speaking of which, screw the lighter stuff, Bob should talk about net neutrality next week.
 

Redd the Sock

New member
Apr 14, 2010
1,088
0
0
Well, this one will be hell before I get home.

I do agree with most of it, though this starts in a problematic area. Terminology changes over time, especially in efforts to re-brand something without actually changing it (ie calling comic books graphic novels fooled no one but the people trying to change the name.) Hence I'm more inclined to look at the more general intent of the activity or product that whatever titles it has. Call yourself a sandwich artist all you want, to me you're a counter person at a fast food place.

Hence I find any form of attempts to silence speech troubling, even if capitalistically allowed. You say we value free speech so much, but we don't get an understanding why: specifically that a stronger government would be formed if it couldn't silence dissenters trying to tel them they were screwing up, becoming corrupt, or missing something important. It's the general equivalency to why we (at one point) vilified "yes men" and "brown nosers" as problematic people that only serve to prop up an ego, not get pragmatic things done. Yes running a government is harder that way, but it's better and keeps you honest and stronger in the long run for it.

Sadly we don't take this value into our lives and far FAR too many people are willing to use any tool at their disposal to silence an opinion because they know there will never be a law against it for no other reason than they don't want to hear it. Sticking with the Dixie Chicks (and avoiding current controversies) a lot of people couldn't just let some shitty singers have an opinion that was poorly worded and probably worse thought out and leave it be, they couldn't even just follow their own heart and stop buying their CDs. They had to punish them. They had to quiet them. And that took a mob. What didn't happen, any real attempt to provide a counterargument. Face it, their minds never changed about Bush, and they probable had a lot less respect for people that could only voice disagreement in a mob. I know I did.

Of course, that's much of the problem, it isn't just geeks that internalize. People internalize their beliefs and politics so yes, they get just as mad because Peach or Bayonetta are somehow projections of all women and their place in society, not just overused character designs in their minds. Same goes if something doesn't hold the "correct" political, social, or religious values. The problem is, that's what art exists to do, challenge those views. Forgive the term, but if the current SJW ideals of avoiding offending comments had existed 30 - 50 years ago, we might not have been able to make things saying interracial marriage is okay, being gay is natural, and sex outside of marriage won't condem you to hell. People fought against those, and still do because they didn't want their worldview challenged, and today, not much has changed even with the new worldview more in prominence.

I mean, honestly, did people really think that the two "racist" autobots in Transformers 2 were making some sweeping statement about blacks, or did people not like the reminder that a section of culture still based in said stereotype exists in hip hop radio. Do we as geeks not like TBBT because is isn't funny, or because we don't like being the butt of the joke for things we all know we fall victim to from time to time. Did people really care about the Duck Dynasty guy's anti- gay marriage comments, or were they afraid they might spread if not silenced. We have the right to stand up to speech we don't like, but few possess the common sense to know when to do so, and come off at best crazy, and at worst, like they really hate free speech with it's used against them. No one wants to hear why they shouldn't be offended by something and that they're overreacting and reading too much into something, and if they can't speak, or their speech gets invalidated as being "unsensitive" then at least Jack Thonpsom was honest, whereas the person claiming offense just won't listen or given in until they get their way and what was said is silenced.

And that is censorship.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Does this mean that people will stop saying that it's censorship for an advertiser to pull their ads from a website due to the toxic nature of the articles written on said site?
 

FBH

New member
Nov 11, 2014
1
0
0
I realize Bob is trying to use an example that won't piss conservatives off and that by disagreeing with his political instincts will make the more left wing of us think about it, but I think he's fallen into a really weird moral trap here if he's going to effectively go "Welp if someone can in effect buy the media and prevent any opposing views from airing if they have sufficient cash, that's just capitalism."

No, sorry. That's 1) still the kind of censorship people mean when they say censorship and 2) still not okay in a democratic society that wants to stay actually democratic.

The reason it's okay for a hypothetical internet personality to close the comments section of their youtube is not because free speech doesn't to some extent give you the right to a platform of your choice. If we were to have a situation where some powerful, but private political group owned all the newspapers and prevented certain views from being aired (say, a political party or a giant cyberpunk megacorp) then we would clearly not have free speech in any meaningful sense.

The difference is that the relationship between the sides in an internet fight is far more equal than the relationship between normal person and large company, or even normal income person and billionaire. Not being able to make a response into the comments of a YT video or blog post is not going to reduce your exposure enough to actually prevent you from gaining the audience you might want.

That's a whole lot different from a bunch of rich guys (or one) getting together and going "We're going to use our money to effectively destroy anyone who airs views we don't like."

Sorry Bob, but that's still censorship under any definition that matters.
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
I'd call out the government bit. It's generally censorship when an authority makes a change to your output that is beyond your control... for instance, if The Escapist blocked out parts of your video. That is censorship, but I'd imagine it would have been difficult to argue that point without discussing the selective removal of discussion and commentary that many forums participate in.

You see, I'm a firm supporter of many of the things you say (bar when you slip into nonsense on Twitter, because Twitter), and I follow your output. I also believe in the things I do not out of totalitarian ideology, but because the argument has been made and I make my decision based on what I perceive to be the most beneficial outcome. Because of this, I'm not afraid to have a discussion online. However, many do not share this confidence, and will selectively remove dissenting voices from comments (which is different from disallowing comments in the first place). Unfortunately, this seems to be currently as prevalent from the guys on "our side" - because if we're being honest, these videos have been thinly veiled jabs at gamergate - as it is on "their side".

I wonder what your opinions are on the concept of censorship as a way of maintaining competitive balance in arguments... if one side censors, and the other does not, the censoring side seems to have a majority voice?
 

Skatologist

Choke On Your Nazi Cookies
Jan 25, 2014
628
0
21
Huh, a fairly calm, middle of the road video from Bob. I did enjoy the portion where he said that the fight for what should be protected under speech was probably endless. A person heavily inspired by Bob and the content of this site in general actually made a video a few days prior on the subject too, granted it is a bit more blatant and hostile. I guess I can share it:

 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,082
1,849
118
Country
USA
The Deadpool said:
The distinction between ACTUAL definition of "censorship" and this "practical" definition is nonexistent.

Censorship by the government without just cause is ILLEGAL.

Censorship by people just shouting out the opposition is totally legal, but it is still IMMORAL. It is dishonest, and sometimes just as harmful as the illegal kind depending on WHAT is being drowned out.
Agreed. If the Dixie Chicks were jack asses, say so. Stating, hey everyone, lets mess with their backers to get them silenced, even if it is legal, is censorship. When a bunch of jack asses show up to a speech to shout down someone they don't like, they are not spreading information or countering it: they're attempting to make it not heard in the first place. Legal maybe (or not: disturbance of peace, violation of someone Else's civil rights) but bad for society and the promotion of diverse ideas.

Sorry Bob. You got this one waaaaay wrong. I still treasure hearing you though.
 

dharmaBum0

New member
Mar 17, 2012
41
0
0
I kinda wish Bob had convinced the Escapists web folks to disable comments on this video. It would've made a point, and it would've been funny!
 

Liberkhaos

New member
Mar 14, 2014
8
0
0
In all honesty, I was expecting a bit more of a "freedom of speech does not mean say whatever you want without facing the consequences" kind of episode.

Also, it's very hard to focus when "Blame Canada" is stuck in one's head the whole time. Thanks for that Mr Chipman!!!
 

deth2munkies

New member
Jan 28, 2009
1,066
0
0
Actually free speech rights were not originally in the Constitution, they were the first AMENDMENT to the Constitution as a part of the first 10 AKA the "Bill of Rights" that ended up being a political compromise to get the Constitution ratified in the first place.

The first part of the Constitution is the Preamble:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That said, Censorship is not solely government action. It IS the only action that is prohibited under the First Amendment, but that doesn't mean that only things that violate the First Amendment are censorship. This is especially true accepting your modern parlance definition because people describe bad words as being "censored" on network television.

What you're really saying is that the First Amendment doesn't protect your right to not be criticized or drowned out or to use the platform of your choice. This is absolutely correct, but I wouldn't conflate it with the colloquial definition of censorship.
 

C.S.Strowbridge

New member
Jul 22, 2010
330
0
0
Rellik San said:
Windknight said:
canadamus_prime said:
So in other words "Censorship" is another one of those buzzwords that people keep using without actually knowing what they mean. I'll add it to the ever growing list.
It has a certain weight and negative aura to it, so its great for making something sound worse than it is.

'she wants game creators to put more thought into how they design and create certain elements' sounds reasonable, and harder to argue with. 'she wants to censor videogames' is much more villainous and much more easier to argue against.
The problem is... when the person making it phrases the point as: "This is bad, games shouldn't do this, because this reinforces negative..." it's didactic, confrontational and puts people on the defensive. (I was having this conversation with a friend of mine last night), saying "Well I think this didn't work, but if they tweaked it a little and gave it a little more thought, it could have been more like... ...and that'd have been awesome."

It's the old carrot and stick metaphor, it's "you catch more flies with..." it's stuff we're taught from a very young age. But then there is of course the problem, no one cares what the well reasoned people think, they don't grab headlines or drive up view counts... and without those, the people saying those things don't get paid (that's not to say their intent is disingenuous, just their presentation). But that's a wider cultural issue.
Two points.

1.) Sometimes games do things that are bad, that they shouldn't do, and that reinforces negative stereotypes. You need to point out the problems and say why they are problems before you can suggest solutions. No one is going to fix a problem if they don't think there is a problem.
2.) You actually catch more flies with balsamic vinegar than with honey.

Anita Sarkeesian says before every video that you can like these games and still admit there are problems. However, many people ignore this part of the video, because they need to be attacked by outside forces in order to have an identity. That's the most important lesson to learn from GamerGate. There are some people who need an outside enemy to have an identity. These people will never be satisfied.
 

SilverUchiha

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,604
0
0
Sigh... here's my thing against censorship (or, the more broad term being anything that offends anyone else but either can't be legally censored and has to just be shoved aside or ignored).

Regardless of the opinion being spewed out of said person's mouth or megaphone, it's still wrong to try and silence them whether your a company, government entity, or a regular person. My opinion is that all sides should be heard, no matter how wrong they are. Not because the sides that are wrong have and validity. It's so you know how and why they're wrong and how to then counter their logic with your own. It also alerts people who aren't directly in the argument what the different sides are and who is on them IF all sides of the argument can be represented and/or acknowledged. That way a true discussion on whatever an issue is can really be had with all parts of the discussion being represented to some capacity.

Also, the Dixie Chicks thing really doesn't feel like censorship at all. Just them doing something their fans/core demographic doesn't like and then getting ostracized for it. Not really a great example. A better example would have been when the former social media guy for Nintendo got in trouble for sympathizing with consumers about region lock on twitter and getting banned for those comments. Under your definition, Nintendo is doing censorship. But for the most part, they kind of basically are, just not in the legal-sense of it. Ironically, a move made even stupider with recent comments from Iwata on the same fucking subject. lol
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Hmm, this was a good video on the subject. Correctly explaining what negative censorship is seen as and explaining what we have rights to and what we don't.

Good video, Bob. Credit where it's due. It somehow makes me feel a lot better that you recognize our right to disagree with you in the same video you're explaining this.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
A'right, how about this, before we get all warm and fuzzy and people start patting themselves on the back for semantic superiority of not using that word "censorship" outside of a strict context of government media crackdowns:

What people are "mis"-describing as censorship, if one insists on taking that way, happens far more often, requires far fewer people to bring about, and is, arguably, worse.

I may not be "censored" if I'm trying to run for office on a genuinely grassroots campaign, accepting money from actual people who are capable of actually voting, while my opponent enjoys the support of a super-PAC that offers five television advertisements alleging I tortured animals in fifth grade for every folksy issue ad I can squeeze onto local radio. But if I can't be heard over the noise, the semantic propriety means approximately jack shit.

If I post a review on YouTube and a big company throws a DMCA takedown at me, and they have a big legal team that can keep the court case running for years while my Youtube blacklisting means I don't have the money to pay my electric bill, maybe I haven't been "censored", but I'm still screwed six ways from Sunday.

If I have the whole big, wide, wonderful, supposedly free and open Internet to shout my beliefs- but my blog site decides to take me offline (and possibly take my only proof of my writing with it), and discussion board moderators quietly agree that the subject I want to address is flat-out verboten even if my broaching of it is otherwise entirely within their terms of use- what does my "non-censorship" matter if even people who want to hear my ideas can't find them?

Taking issue with someone saying someone has been "censored" seems to me a lot like taking issue with someone using "theoretical" interchangeably with "hypothetical": Yeah, there will be individual cases where it's misguided, as in the latter case when they're suggesting Gravity or Evolution is "just a theory". But a lot of the time, it's just going to be a smug and entirely unearned presumption of one's intellectual superiority on the basis of semantics, a dodge to undermine an argument without having the honesty to actually address the underlying issue. Don't do it.