Perhaps the more useful question than is this censorship is, does it matter? People seem to conflate the idea of freedom of speech with censorship. What it really comes down to is that we can't stop you from saying whatever you are going to say. That does not mean I have to listen or that any private media has to promote what you say.
The Big Picture: Don't Censor Me!
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think you've misread his point. I think he was more commenting that there is less discussion of geeka obscura and more "issue of the day" style discussion lately.Under_your_bed said:
As an aside: Ainsley Hariott as SHODAN would make System Shock 2 far scarier. "Ready, Steady, Cook you insignificant mortal."
Right? I would love to see Bob do an episode talking about how the vast majority of things that people dub as sexist/racist as a sort of gut instinct aren't actually sexist/racist, and that crying foul at the slightest hint of any stereotype hurts creativity more than it helps any demographic.Cpt. Slow 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.
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.
I guess I could have been clearer, "If you think you're right then debate, if you think you're wrong then change your views" but it's never really about think right? From ones own perspective, one is either right, or one becomes convinced that they're wrong.Rellik San said:
Additionally, facts should be the final decider in what is right and wrong. Unfortunately, facts can be large, unwieldy things, so I know expecting that to work is idealism at its worst.
Additionally, I can't stand the "It's a bunch of shades of grey" mentality. Why? Why does it have to be shades of grey? It really doesn't, and things really don't always fall somewhere in the middle. Sometimes, a side that seems "extreme" is actually the one that's right. If you look for truth wherever it might fall, you're more likely to find it then if you look for truth only in the middle.
I enjoyed the hyperbole wand. It made me laugh.
I also enjoyed the "figure out what's right through endless discussion" bit. Though I think that would work better only if people listened more. Meh.
If I could snap my fingers and change the face of internet discourse in one way, it would be to make everyone stop mis-sing the word censorship. Unfortunately I doubt this video, as good as it is, will change anything.
Based on furry fandom I now expect to eventually see a bunch of female whales get excited over a dork....
Dealing with the rest of the video I wonder if any of this was aimed at Obama's video that was aimed at the FCC.
Dealing with the rest of the video I wonder if any of this was aimed at Obama's video that was aimed at the FCC.
You see that's were Bob was saying you get into the technical and practical definitions of the word. Under the technical dictionary definition, yes you could call that censorship, but under the practical common use (and when I say "common use" I mean use by anyone who understands that an opinion expressed against something they don't like is not censorship) definition, it really isn't. Sure it was an unjust backlash against an unpopular opinion, but can't really be called censorship.the7ofswords said:
And I don't know about Anita, but certainly anyone who's calling for the re-examination of popular culture and the tropes therein, and suggesting that a few changes need to be made is not calling for censorship.
Monopolies are a part of capitalism. The magical land of perfect competition, leading to producers competing for the patronage of consumers has never existed. What part the government plays in this is up for debate, but it happens with or without them.medv4380 said:
I didn't think this week was that heavy, unless I'm just used to The Big Picture when it shifts into taking a stand on something.
My captcha simply reads: stand up guy. Given that the show is based on Bob being allowed his soap box to stand on, it's quite fitting.
My captcha simply reads: stand up guy. Given that the show is based on Bob being allowed his soap box to stand on, it's quite fitting.
Except you're wrong, free speech and you need to grow a thicker skin IS the correct application of free speech, at least online. And I will fight tooth and nail against any prat with an agenda who comes along attempting to change that.
I liked this episode because censorship is one of those words that gets bandied around all the time by asshats looking for an excuse to keep being asshats, but I do disagree with Bob on a couple details.
I would argue that what happened to the Dixie Chicks was censorship of a kind. Censorship does not have to necessarily come from the government (though thank you for pointing out that technical and colloquial definitions are not the same). While government bans are the biggest specter of censorship, anyone with power over how opinions are distributed can censor people. The problem with the Dixie Chicks wasn't that they were just shouted down, it's that their opponents blocked every outlet they could use for spreading their opinion. They didn't just disagree until people stopped listening, they stopped the Dixie Chicks from being able to say anything or respond. That is censorship.
Blocking comments on Youtube is also a form of censorship, though admittedly a minor and inconsequential one, as is deleting negative reviews on your game, banning people from a forum for disagreeing, filing a false DMCA on Youtube videos you disagree with, or otherwise stopping an opinion from being stated at all rather than addressing the opinion itself. That isn't just the technical definition, it is what the common definition means and how the word should be used.
That said, asking game developers to be more inclusive or less misogynistic is not censorship. Disliking something because it is offensive or problematic and asking that it be changed is not censorship. Calling out asshats for being asshats is not censorship and that seems to be when the word is pulled out the most, so good episode and thanks for bringing up a topic that really needs to be discussed more.
I would argue that what happened to the Dixie Chicks was censorship of a kind. Censorship does not have to necessarily come from the government (though thank you for pointing out that technical and colloquial definitions are not the same). While government bans are the biggest specter of censorship, anyone with power over how opinions are distributed can censor people. The problem with the Dixie Chicks wasn't that they were just shouted down, it's that their opponents blocked every outlet they could use for spreading their opinion. They didn't just disagree until people stopped listening, they stopped the Dixie Chicks from being able to say anything or respond. That is censorship.
Blocking comments on Youtube is also a form of censorship, though admittedly a minor and inconsequential one, as is deleting negative reviews on your game, banning people from a forum for disagreeing, filing a false DMCA on Youtube videos you disagree with, or otherwise stopping an opinion from being stated at all rather than addressing the opinion itself. That isn't just the technical definition, it is what the common definition means and how the word should be used.
That said, asking game developers to be more inclusive or less misogynistic is not censorship. Disliking something because it is offensive or problematic and asking that it be changed is not censorship. Calling out asshats for being asshats is not censorship and that seems to be when the word is pulled out the most, so good episode and thanks for bringing up a topic that really needs to be discussed more.
Capitalism can exist regardless of the existence of competition. Monopolies are a natural result of unhindered capitalism, which is why we invented anti-monopoly laws.medv4380 said:
OT: Good episode Bob.
When was it ever not?josh4president said:
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.