The Big Picture: Don't Censor Me!

[Canadamus Prime]

In my case I meant it as a metaphor for a large group of people rallying to express extreme overreaction to something.

My point is if you're going to use "torches and pitchforks" to mean an "angry, violent, mob" which in all reality is probably just going to be people arguing over the internet in the context of this forum, doesn't that seem a little extreme?

As in, in the sense that casually using censorship to refer to people not being given the right to a platform to speak on is extreme?

If you have a better verbal shorthand for "angry violent irrational mob" I'd love to hear it. In my original statement I was implying that the word "censorship" tends to rally the angry violent mobs. Well on the internet you can't really get violent, so angry mobs anyway.

 

[templar1138a]

I could see where you were going with the Dixie Chicks thing from the outset, and I agree. After all, for a couple years now I've been signing petitions urging advertisers to withdraw their funds from that ass-wipe, Rush Limbaugh. It'd be hypocritical for me to refer to what happened to the Dixie Chicks as censorship.

 

[Flatfrog]

Really enjoyed the video.

While it may not be censorship, what happened to the Dixie Chicks was really fucking wrong. I guess what I'm saying is, while I agree that it isn't censorship, using power in that way to silence a group whose opinions you disagree with is really fucking wrong.

Trying to silence any group whose opinions you do not agree with is really fucking wrong.

If you're right, then debate. If you aren't, then change your views. No where does silence have to come into play.

I don't know. I tend to be of the opinion that this falls under the classification of a boycott, and I don't think that's wrong. I think it's perfectly reasonable to decide that you don't want to support someone whose opinions you disagree with ethically or politically, and to try to persuade others to do so too.

I used this example when the Orson Scott Card furore happened: suppose I discovered a local cafe was owned by a neo-Nazi. I'd probably decide, even if I really liked their croissants, to stop eating there, and I'd probably want to share that information with others and persuade them not to shop there either. I don't think that is wrong.

A lot of people were offended by the Dixie Chicks' political stance and didn't like the idea of supporting them. They felt that listening to them was tacitly supporting their views. While I think that's a shame (and I was entirely opposed to the Iraq war myself so I was very much on their side) I think people have the right to spend their money how they like, and to exercise their power as consumers to persuade media outlets to do the same. I trust the general trend of popular opinion to even out the extremes on both sides of this. For every person who tried to silence the Chicks, there was someone else who wanted to support them - in the end it probably did more to strengthen their profile than anything else (I hadn't heard of them before they got in trouble)

 

[UberPubert]

If you have a better verbal shorthand for "angry violent irrational mob" I'd love to hear it. In my original statement I was implying that the word "censorship" tends to rally the angry violent mobs. Well on the internet you can't really get violent, so angry mobs anyway.

Do you have a better shorthand for people not being given a chance to speak or silenced on social platforms than "censorship"?

I just think if you're going to criticize the way people use language for not being the textbook definition, the least you could do is not use phrases that attribute armament and intent to violence to groups of people you think are overreacting to something over the internet.

 

[K12]

I basically agree that Censorship is a legal concept and not a social one however this argument does effectively mean that websites, newspapers, TV channels and any private media group will never ever be guilty of censorship when they exclude someone.

This sounds a little bit like an attempt to define an issue out of existence (for the record I don't think Bob is doing this, I just think that people will use/interpret it this way).

The issue is about exclusion or silencing opposition by intimidation or drowning them out. Whether or not it's censorship isn't really the point, it's whether it's justified.

The difference between legal Censorship and this latter kind of "Censorship" is really important to remember but the latter is still worth talking about.

Having said all that, I really like this video as a great take-down of the "you're Censoring me, therefore you are in the wrong" argument which relies on a false equivalence. The legal form of Censorship is (probably) always wrong but getting banned from a site for mouthing off about Quinn/ Sarkeesian/whoever-we've-moved-on-to-now isn't this.

The second form of Censorship can be right or wrong depending on the individual circumstances and you don't get any points by just crying "Censorship".

The ending part about there being no "one true solution" to the issue of free speech is spot on. It's something that Bob has said a couple of times and so few people seem to get. You don't ever "win" issues like these once and for all. You're weeding a garden not paving over it.

 

[RoonMian]

If this is in relation to calls for elements in games to be banned being called censorship well yes they already to do that in China, Germany and Australia frequently and it's textbook censorship.

No, Germany does not censor. Germany just has laws for youth protection and against incitement of popular hatred. One poses regulations, the other is a criminal offense. Both are not censorship.

Taken from the wiki

"Violence in video games is a controversial subject in Germany, and German localisations of violent games are often heavily cut by the publishers to permit a public release. Usually this entails a simple removal or reduction of depictions of blood and gore, but sometimes extends to cuts in the content or plot of the game, as was the case in games such as Counter-Strike and Grand Theft Auto."

Its voluntary censorship but its still censorship.

That is not true, the wiki is false in that instance. If publishers wouldn't cut the content the game could still be released in Germany no problem. They just wouldn't be able to advertise to minors and since minors are everywhere that would really hamper the marketing.

The only games that were outright banned in Germany were either games that do the incitement of popular hatred thing (though that is problematic because just having a swastika in the game used to trigger this by default but kinda understandable for people who don't think Call of Duty or Wolfenstein can discuss WW2 history in a meaningful or educational way with mecha jetpack Hitler etc.) or the uncut versions of games that actually already have a different version for the German market to prevent confusion.

It's stupid that Germany does its own special thing instead of just joining the PEGI system, yes. But it's still better than the ESRB just paying lip service to youth protection by not actually enforcing the ratings.

 

[daxterx2005]

I hate the people that say terrible awful things to people and then just go "heh, freedom of speech"

 

[OtherSideofSky]

That last bit is hilarious coming from a man with a long history of explicitly and specifically extending his criticisms of things he dislikes to criticisms of the people who enjoy and support them, either in the form of direct verbal attacks or insulting caricatures.

 

[Revolutionary]

So, while I enjoyed this video and agreed with 99% of it, I do have one nitpick. You specifically mentioned Sarkeesian (Sort of), and while I agree that most of what she and her fans do is not censorship, leading campaigns of false flagging by abusing digital copyright systems in order to remove YouTube videos or twitter accounts they don't like removed definitely crosses a line. I know it's not the exact kind of of government instituted Censorship talked about in this video, but it is a very direct, underhand way of dealing with criticism that those people didn't agree with which I feel crosses into censorship.

The difference between the Dixie Chicks thing and the Sarkeesian thing is that people used their respective soapboxes to try and and defame the Dixie Chicks in the court of public opinion, whereas in the Sarkessian case, her fans had already tried that, it didn't work, and so overzealous fans resorted to false DMCA claims. To me that is then censorship. I probably wouldn't even bring it up at all except this whole thing seems to be a really big deal right now.

Just my two cents.

 

[ngl42398]

You think the stuff he posts here is crazy? You should check his Twitter. Going by the stuff he puts there, he probably hates half the people on this site. I guarantee, if the Moviebob who wrote his Twitter made The Big Picture, The Big Picture wouldn't have lasted a week.

 

[Saviordd1]

Bob, I don't watch your show for opinions on the current "thing" going on. I come here for movies and comic stuff. If I wanted otherwise I'll head over to Jim.

 

[Kathinka]

If this is in relation to calls for elements in games to be banned being called censorship well yes they already to do that in China, Germany and Australia frequently and it's textbook censorship.

No, Germany does not censor. Germany just has laws for youth protection and against incitement of popular hatred. One poses regulations, the other is a criminal offense. Both are not censorship.

Taken from the wiki

"Violence in video games is a controversial subject in Germany, and German localisations of violent games are often heavily cut by the publishers to permit a public release. Usually this entails a simple removal or reduction of depictions of blood and gore, but sometimes extends to cuts in the content or plot of the game, as was the case in games such as Counter-Strike and Grand Theft Auto."

Its voluntary censorship but its still censorship.

It's also interesting to note that this only applies to minors. Adults of the age of 18+ can buy and play whatever they want.

 

[Rahkshi500]

Well at least at the end he pointed out that what he says goes both ways instead of being one-sided about this.

However, still some things he says I don't agree with, or at least to an extent I don't agree with. First would be that he seems clearly to be against the Golden Means Fallacy, as in the idea that the answer is always found in the middle between two opposing sides. While this fallacy does exist and has been used a lot, his insistence on going against it so much puts him as risk of falling into another fallacy, the False Dichotomy, because whether he likes it or not, sometimes the answers do come from the middle, or even come from a third or fourth option. I think he should at least be aware of that. Next would be his advice to his fellow nerds, geeks, dweebs, and fan-people; sure, he has a point of not to automatically assume that every piece of criticism is a personal attack on them, but by the same token, if people like certain things, it's pretty natural that they would want more of those things, so on the other hand, it's somewhat understandable why people would get defensive about it. At least he says that it goes both ways as well, and that the critics should also be mindful of that advice as well when it comes from the other side. Because whatever issues they might discuss may not always be a black-and-white thing, that sometimes what one may find problematic may not be as problematic as they think it is and it might be projection, that sometimes criticism can come from a place of bigotry as well, and that it says more about the critic than it does about the medium. That's why it's important for people to engage with each other in a discussion for why they disagree instead of trying to silence each other.

Good video.

 

[WuNanZi]

I don't believe anyone was defending Adam Orth's right to free speech when he told everyone to #dealwithit.

And while it is true that there is no /legal/ obligation for a private individual or corporation to allow free speech within forums/servers/communities they own, it is shady as ****. If the only argument you can put forward for a particular course for behaviour is that you wouldn't be arrested for it, you should start re-examining your actions.

Everytime I hear about Anita, I think about Jack Thompson. Except, this time, a good portion of the gaming media has taken the position Jack Thompson would advocate.

 

[Rellik San]

-snip-

Ahhhhh that makes a lot more sense, yeah you're right, if you're in the wrong, you shouldn't be afraid to change your views as new information comes available and you learn more on the subject, people are too defensive in this respect and will argue a point on principle so they don't appear "weak". It's a sad turn of events for sure.

I'll admit, sometimes evil is evil, sometimes good is good, but mostly I think shades of grey is the way of things, nothing is ever truly absolute, sometimes evil needs to be done for the sake of good and sometimes good serves only to propagate evil. It's an interesting discussion.

Anyway glad you didn't take that second part too seriously.

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.

1. But there is a difference between: "This isn't good, here's why and you guys should have done better and here's one idea on how..." and again, "this is just bad, why would you do this? This is just so bad, you guys should feel bad, it feels bad right? I hope it does."

2. Surely that's dependant on the species of fly in question?

I actually have no issue with Sarkeesian, I think her series could do a few things a little better, she could go into more details or again proffer more positives: "This game did this wrong... but it did do this right..." but again that ties into my, it doesn't get clicks and clicks get you paid point. I'm not a fan of hers, but what she says is interesting enough food for thought. You're right though, some people will never be satisfied without a cause to fight for, however peripheral and tangential that cause is.



As I said a friend of mine and I had this discussion last night and at the end she asked me: "Do you consider yourself a feminist or an equalist?" to which I responded initially with: "I'm none, I don't like those terms, they paint a target people will use to outright dismiss your argument without understanding it, if anything I'm a peoplist, people should just be cool to each other, if you don't like what they say, tell them why and why you think it's wrong, but don't attack, engage them instead."

 

[totheendofsin]

Ah the semantics argument, meant to turn discussion into a bunch of people arguing about the meaning of a single word

of course we can always just take a look at the context being used whenever someone uses a word to determine what that person means by it, but that would be crazy (here's a hint, I doubt very many people meant the government was censoring the Dixie Chicks when that shitshow went down)

 

[Something Amyss]

One of the things that kills me is how we're told to vote with our wallets, but if we do it to the wrong property, it's censorship.

Without any judgment on the Dixie Chicks, the people who purchased (or didn't purchase) their music were well within their rights to do it. But if we're using this as the mark of censorship in any meaningful sense, then we're basically saying consumer choice is censorship.

It's the old carrot and stick metaphor, it's "you catch more flies with..."

Your catch more flies with manure, and that's what's been smothered over Anita's arguments. Just the part where you frame it in the sense of "This is bad" is an indication that the manure is more appealing. The argument has already been rephrased, and this new phrasing is being held against her.

She might as well have come out with both fists swinging, because that was always how she was going to be framed.

"If it's a game you want to play, you'd better load the dice 'cause they'll do it anyway."

 

[sexy=sexist]

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.

I got to agree fully with this.

government censorship is just censorship but with the government. In my mind silencing the opposition so they can not be seen is censoring them.
If I open a blog to talk politics but turn off the microphones of everyone who disagrees with me this would not be government censorship, but it would be pretty shitty of me.

 

[Baresark]

Yep, for once Bob and I are on the same page. Censorship is what is shouted out when you want someone else to stop having an opposing opinion. Though I wouldn't blame capitalism so much as I would blame ignorance on the part of the news viewer. MSNBC and FOX are in the full swing practice of "singing to the choir". They aren't rich and therefore control a big section of the media, they say what roughly 1/2 of the country wants to hear (ie. that the other side is wrong) and that makes them rich. I am neither, so I'm willing to both entertain and bash the ideas of both sides. But the average television watching individual does not do this.

Part of being human is the psychological need to be consistent. Consistency is not a defacto state when it comes to opinions. You can love something and love something that is the opposite of said something. But people reject this and that is how party politics happens. Conservatism is a basic principle of the Republicans (that is a big fuckin' lie, but just run with me on this), so if you include hero worship of the military, full support of foreign intervention policies and just being basic dicks to everyone who isn't you into that, then you you have the Republican party. But people who get wooed by the idea that Republicans are Fiscal Conservatives (once again, bold faced lie), then feel the need to be consistent and support the other parts of what the whole group is about.

 

[inkheart_artist]

"The other side doesn't owe you a boom mic or soap box" omg, yes. I think the problem here is that people (in the US at least) seem to think that freedom of speech is supposed to mean you can put whatever you want out there and its somehow wrong if that message, whatever it may be, is tarnished or struck down. As if freedom of speech is an entitlement to say whatever the hell you want with total impunity.

When I think about it, I can hardly understand how this could become such a de facto belief with everyone having to live normal day to day life. How do you get from birth to adulthood unmolested from different opinions from your own and not develop the ability to just accept it as a fact of life that everyone doesn't always agree and that it doesn't mean you're a martyr or crusader for your cause on that merit alone?