The Big Picture: Don't Censor Me!

[Urh]

...but it shouldn't define you to the point where criticism of a thing you like is taken as criticism of you.

So what would Bob have to say to people who instantly consider any criticism of their opinions or arguments or reasoning (no matter how valid) to be a personal attack, and instantly call upon people to shout said critics down with personal slurs? I disagree with Bob's idea of people growing thicker skins not being a solution. It would certainly be a step in the right direction.

The increased tendency for people to circlejerk one another in internet communities has made them far less open to new or opposing ideas that challenge theirs, making discourse that much more difficult. Instead of arguments being a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition, they've become little more than contradiction. Discussion between people with opposing viewpoints is ultimately futile when just one person isn't open to the possibility that they might be wrong. If there's one thing that I think everybody needs to know is that the right to one's opinion comes with the responsibility of intellectual integrity - i.e. you're entitled to your opinions, but it is up to you to defend them when they are under scrutiny, and you have to own up to your mistakes.

 

[The Deadpool]

I have to be with Bob on this one, just because you have the right to free speech, that doesn't mean you have the right to a platform to speak it from.

There is a difference between LEGAL and MORAL.

If you are trying to reach the truth, silencing any argument that contradicts yours, while legal, is dishonest, and thus immoral. And, depending on your argument, harmful.

I mean, imagine if during the civil rights movement a bunch of rich, conservative people convinced news outlets to NOT report the exploits of Martin Luther King. I mean, it's legal. News outlets can report whatever they want. But would it be "right"?

However, there are still forms of censorship that happen outside of government issued censorship. The DDOS attacks against certain people, the copyright claims pulling videos down from youtube, or calling in threats of violence to prevent speakers from speaking. These are going into someone else's house and preventing them from using their own platform to speak on.

That pretty much falls under what I said only a paragraph later. It's using bribery to silence someone, and so censorship.

Now if it was the case that maybe a news outlet themselves didn't want to report on MLK, as in they weren't being bribed or anything, the owner just didn't want to report it, there would be nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't say it's right, but it's not silencing anyone. The news outlet simply isn't conveying messages that they don't want to convey, because the moment that they are deciding what to report, it is now their mouth they are speaking with, and so they get to decide what to say. It becomes wrong when someone is telling them what or what not to say.

Right. But let's say I am ungodly rich and I don't want the message to go out, so I buy every major publication and tell them not to report it.

It's legal. But is it honest? Is it just? Is it RIGHT?

I mean, I have the right to do it. And I SHOULD have the right to do it. But should I not be condemned for exercising said right?

The laws cannot (or I should say "should not") cover every immoral act. It doesn't make the action any less immoral.

 

[jthwilliams]

Right. But let's say I am ungodly rich and I don't want the message to go out, so I buy every major publication and tell them not to report it.

It's legal. But is it honest? Is it just? Is it RIGHT?

I mean, I have the right to do it. And I SHOULD have the right to do it. But should I not be condemned for exercising said right?

The laws cannot (or I should say "should not") cover every immoral act. It doesn't make the action any less immoral.

Should you have a right to do it? Under many accepted ethical models, I don't think you should have that ability. Legally, you don't at least not in America. At least that is how I understand our laws around monopoly, but even if those laws did not exist, I would question if this is an action that you "should" have the right to do.

 

[klaynexas3]

Right. But let's say I am ungodly rich and I don't want the message to go out, so I buy every major publication and tell them not to report it.

It's legal. But is it honest? Is it just? Is it RIGHT?

I mean, I have the right to do it. And I SHOULD have the right to do it. But should I not be condemned for exercising said right?

The laws cannot (or I should say "should not") cover every immoral act. It doesn't make the action any less immoral.

Did I not just state that would be censorship? What do you want from me, a poem?

 

[The Deadpool]

Right. But let's say I am ungodly rich and I don't want the message to go out, so I buy every major publication and tell them not to report it.

It's legal. But is it honest? Is it just? Is it RIGHT?

I mean, I have the right to do it. And I SHOULD have the right to do it. But should I not be condemned for exercising said right?

The laws cannot (or I should say "should not") cover every immoral act. It doesn't make the action any less immoral.

Should you have a right to do it? Under many accepted ethical models, I don't think you should have that ability. Legally, you don't at least not in America. At least that is how I understand our laws around monopoly, but even if those laws did not exist, I would question if this is an action that you "should" have the right to do.

The method of influence isn't the point, it's just the idea. The same could happen if the owners of every major publication were just friends who agreed on a subject and decided to silence opposition to said subject.

Legal, but dishonest.

Did I not just state that would be censorship? What do you want from me, a poem?

Would it kill you to write me one? Geez!

I'm just pointing out, even without bribery, there are other (legal) ways to influence people that could be dishonest or even harmful.

It's not ALWAYS dishonest or harmful. But it could be.

 

[jthwilliams]

Did I not just state that would be censorship? What do you want from me, a poem?

Would it kill you to write me one? Geez!

Would you settle for a sort of Haiku?

- If Censorship is
- Power used to hurt others
- is power evil?

 

[sexy=sexist]

I am honestly kinda shocked Bob would come down as the Parental Advisory, MPAA, and the bloody Comic code as not being censorship.

Maybe Bob's next video can be about Fredric Wertham and how nothing bad came out of that.

 

[ryukage_sama]

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.

You're pointing out the opposite side of Bob's point of "don't take it personally". It is possible some of the time for some people to protect the sensibilities of other people. However, I'm firmly believe that everyone has the right to label things "good" or "bad". The notion that it is somehow morally wrong or even socially inconsiderate to describe a film/song/book/video game/board game/food/clothing/etc. as "bad" simply because somebody else likes that thing is ridiculous. I've met many people who feel that we shouldn't say something is "bad" because others will disagree. Heck, I met a guy who told me he didn't know how to discuss a film (J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek") with me because he liked the director and had never talked about it with anyone who disliked it. We need to discuss things critically. Whether plans, strategies or policies are good or bad, and why. Whether works of art are good or bad, and why. Of course it's subjective, but it can be discussed openly. Siskel and Ebert disagreed all the time whether a film was good or bad, sometimes ardently, but they got along fine and treated each other with respect. While I feel its morally wrong and intellectual petty to sling insults at those I disagree with, I think it's a mistake to teach people to blunt one's arguments for or against a thing for fear of offending the sensibilities of someone who likes that thing. We ought to encourage people to be more rational rather than being less critical of things that don't have feelings.

 

[carnex]

I wonder where did he get the definition of censorship. Nowhere I looked ever restricted itself to government. Censorship is act of removal of content from a piece of work or prevention of publishing of that work by person that has power to do so. And by that very act that person becomes censor.

And censorship isn't necessary bad. Scientific publications have censors in form of review boards to stop nonsense from being published. And , yes, they are censors, and they as practicing censorship whether they prevent total nonsense from being published or a publication that has valid research and valid conclusions made but goes against the established majority.

So, yea, I can censor in space I have power to, and I practice that power in accordance to proclaimed rules of engagement and very few have a problem with it. But I wouldn't be caught dead removing, for example, religious texts just because I'm opposed to big religious organizations in forms they came today.

 

[Darkmantle]

I wonder where did he get the definition of censorship. Nowhere I looked ever restricted itself to government. Censorship is act of removal of content from a piece of work or prevention of publishing of that work by person that has power to do so. And by that very act that person becomes censor.

And censorship isn't necessary bad. Scientific publications have censors in form of review boards to stop nonsense from being published. And , yes, they are censors, and they as practicing censorship whether they prevent total nonsense from being published or a publication that has valid research and valid conclusions made but goes against the established majority.

So, yea, I can censor in space I have power to, and I practice that power in accordance to proclaimed rules of engagement and very few have a problem with it. But I wouldn't be caught dead removing, for example, religious texts just because I'm opposed to big religious organizations in forms they came today.

You will find people of his persuasion frequently change the definitions of words to make their positions sound better.

Just as nothing in the definition of racism says you can't be racist against white people, but I hear it all the time, and the absurd term "reverse-racism" is a testament of how many people bought into the false definition.

So too now with censorship it seems.

 

[carnex]

You will find people of his persuasion frequently change the definitions of words to make their positions sound better.

Just as nothing in the definition of racism says you can't be racist against white people, but I hear it all the time, and the absurd term "reverse-racism" is a testament of how many people bought into the false definition.

So too now with censorship it seems.

I figured as much but I just had to get it of my chest. And I didn't even go into other avenues of censorship like shaming and self-censorship (that often have causation links).

If we could only stick to meanings of the words, we could have a discussion without claiming that someone whop disagrees with you has a pathological state of mind that really needs attention by professional.

 

[Kameburger]

You know what, Bob is actually right about this. And I think it is the highest form of self reflection that I think I have seen in Bob's recent body of work including his twitter accounts and blogs. People screaming from the rafters and telling people to shut up is not contributing positively to either side. And I agree with the idea that disagreeing with someone doesn't equate to trying to "silence" them. Through out this whole gamergate thing Movie Bob has trotted out some of the most extreme language of any of the soap box megaphone brigade, at some points being an outspoken proponent of bullying. But this was a refreshingly sober moment where I agree with him.

Although everytime I hear him speak I think back to this article.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/1/7136343/gamergate-and-the-politicization-of-absolutely-everything

Iyengar and Westwood's conclusion is stark. "Partisans discriminate against opposing partisans, and do so to a degree that exceeds discrimination based on race," they write. Think about that for a moment: at least under certain experimental conditions, our political identities now trump our racial identities.

Great read.

 

[EternallyBored]

I wonder where did he get the definition of censorship. Nowhere I looked ever restricted itself to government. Censorship is act of removal of content from a piece of work or prevention of publishing of that work by person that has power to do so. And by that very act that person becomes censor.

And censorship isn't necessary bad. Scientific publications have censors in form of review boards to stop nonsense from being published. And , yes, they are censors, and they as practicing censorship whether they prevent total nonsense from being published or a publication that has valid research and valid conclusions made but goes against the established majority.

So, yea, I can censor in space I have power to, and I practice that power in accordance to proclaimed rules of engagement and very few have a problem with it. But I wouldn't be caught dead removing, for example, religious texts just because I'm opposed to big religious organizations in forms they came today.

You will find people of his persuasion frequently change the definitions of words to make their positions sound better.

Just as nothing in the definition of racism says you can't be racist against white people, but I hear it all the time, and the absurd term "reverse-racism" is a testament of how many people bought into the false definition.

So too now with censorship it seems.

I think you're a bit confused on where the concept of "reverse-racism' comes from. It wasn't coined and spread by people who though racism couldn't happen against White people.

"Reverse-racism", (in America at least) was coined by conservative pundits as a way to talk about what they saw as a turn in American culture where White people were chastised as the only acceptable target for racist jokes and remarks. It was very much a term used by people who believed racism could happen to White people, and tried to use the term to separate it from base racism.

People that use the concept of racism not being able to apply to White people tend to think reverse-racism is just as dumb as you apparently do.

 

[No_Rush]

Not a bad essay, if fairly jejune. Yes, what happened to the Dixie Chicks isn't government censorship. (Bob's wrong, by the way: censorship can occur in non-governmental environments, and what he's talking about is "government censorship." But in this day and age of pixels and print (and, frankly, since the 19th Century), there are few entities outside the state ubiquitous enough to effectively censor anything, leaving government censorship as the only game in town. Thus, even constitutional law textbooks generally point out the difference and then continue to use "censorship" as a stand-in for the government type.)

Ironically, however, Bob actually misses the big picture. Formal censorship isn't the only, or even the principle, threat to free speech available to modern governments, and it is the other tools of institutional pressure that should--or could--worry gamers when someone like Sarkeesian starts peddling feminist criticism of games. You see, Bob's simplistic dichotomy, government censorship vs. capitalist market pressure, ignores the fact that our government has significant spending power, making the government a major market participant, as well as overwhelming and discretionary regulatory power. Thus, while the government doesn't censor speech, it can heavily favor the speech of one side of a debate, while practically starving the other side for oxygen.

It's easiest to see how this plays out in academia, an industry in which the federal government holds both regulatory and financial power. Intellectually, most of academia is a monoculture, with easily four-fifths of academics fitting within various substrata in a single ideological band. But government can alter the debate in other ways, through the choice of who to prosecute for regulatory infractions, or as was the case with the IRS, who to scrutinize for financial purposes. It doesn't take much to induce fear, or at the very least acquiescence, from companies that then decide that it's easier to make the games approved by the bien pensant than fight for a "principle" about which the companies don't care much anyway.

Bob's argument--well, this is just what the market wants!--is convenient, but simply untrue. Sarkeesian's audience is not, ultimately, gamers. It's decision makers and thought leaders. She'd be perfectly happy appearing before, say, a congressional committee looking into "female depictions in video games," and those hearings would be very unpleasant--but not optional--for games company executives. True, it won't be "censorship" that turns the industry into the same predictable, boring monoculture that rules Hollywood or the Ivy League. Some of us find the subtler forms of coercion just as objectionable, however.

 

[wAriot]

It's one thing to tell someone "well, I'd prefer if your book/movie/game/song was more like this and had more of this", and it's another to rally a group of people big enough and start shouting, messaging, making TV show appearances and whatnot trying to convince everyone else that yes, it IS a bad thing and it should stop being produced.
Okay, maybe it isn't "censorship".
It's still harassment, and it's still fucking wrong.

Edit

Although everytime I hear him speak I think back to this article.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/1/7136343/gamergate-and-the-politicization-of-absolutely-everything

That was great but also incredibly depressing. As someone who doesn't align with any political party (specially since I believe that once you become a politician, you automatically are/will become corrupt), it really saddens me when I see someone dismissing others' opinions just because they are from the "right" or the "left" wing.

 

[Rellik San]

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.

You're pointing out the opposite side of Bob's point of "don't take it personally". It is possible some of the time for some people to protect the sensibilities of other people. However, I'm firmly believe that everyone has the right to label things "good" or "bad". The notion that it is somehow morally wrong or even socially inconsiderate to describe a film/song/book/video game/board game/food/clothing/etc. as "bad" simply because somebody else likes that thing is ridiculous. I've met many people who feel that we shouldn't say something is "bad" because others will disagree. Heck, I met a guy who told me he didn't know how to discuss a film (J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek") with me because he liked the director and had never talked about it with anyone who disliked it. We need to discuss things critically. Whether plans, strategies or policies are good or bad, and why. Whether works of art are good or bad, and why. Of course it's subjective, but it can be discussed openly. Siskel and Ebert disagreed all the time whether a film was good or bad, sometimes ardently, but they got along fine and treated each other with respect. While I feel its morally wrong and intellectual petty to sling insults at those I disagree with, I think it's a mistake to teach people to blunt one's arguments for or against a thing for fear of offending the sensibilities of someone who likes that thing. We ought to encourage people to be more rational rather than being less critical of things that don't have feelings.

But I'm not saying don't say something is bad, by all means be critical, but there is a vast difference between "This is bad, this doesn't work because... had you considered trying... instead?" and (this isn't aimed at Anita, just more the amorphous mass we call Tumblr) "This is bad, because I find it personally offensive, if you like it, you're a bad person and should feel bad," one is a discussion and the kind of thing I'm trying to promote, the other, which is often how people phrase things, not just when talking about video games either, but movies or books or any media or art, isn't a discussion, it's an accusatory statement that's closed minded and not promoting discussion.

I mean I think lot's of things are bad and I can tell you why I think so, acknowledge as either a critical flaw in the work (Why aren't those scientists in Prometheus very scientific?) or if it's just a case of personal opinion (The aesthetic of Braid is really off putting to me), people seem less and less able to separate themselves from their opinions or criticise something they like (I love Tenchi Muyo, but sometimes the plot makes confusing jumps without context). It's not so much a case of blunting ones argument I'm asking, I'm asking people to actually argue and debate instead of just shriek vitriol because you didn't like something and think anyone who does like it is a big meany poopy face and should shut up.

 

[F.Dubois]

I was sooo prepared of agreeing with the points made in this video after hearing the first half, then kinda lost me with "you have no right to a megaphone" which sounds all well and good until you realize he doesn't mean talk-radio or the telly but youtube comment sections, facebook and online forums i.e. the places we all freely and willingly congregate to exchange ideas. He then in my opinion crashed and burned it with don't be offended by what you enjoy being criticized.

That is just patently absurd. For example my wife and I loved to play The Last of Us, we enjoyed the characters and the story together. The flamebaity articles and blog posts calling it misogynistic if not outright stating it (some of them did however) at least heavily implied that people who did not perceive the women-hating message in the game had internalized misogyny (my wife) or have been blinded by their privilege (myself). I encourage everyone to re-read these "critiques" of the game and honestly proclaim that the "if you don't see it also, you are part of the problem" portions are anything but mean spirited attempts to coax out a reaction of the reader by attacking their state of mind rather than the substance of the game.

 

[Wolf Hagen]

As someone from a Nation, with a pretty heavy past (and a still slightly cencory present), it always kinda amuses me, when U.S. americans spout about censorship (no, I don't mean Bob, he has the spot on right Idea).

With a few exeptions, it is mostly just house rules, that get enforced.
Remember Kids: All Censorship is state buisness.

Deleted comment: Houserules.
Rejected Art: Houserules.
Under house arrest for calling your mom a stupid b***h for not giving you what you wanted: Houserules.
Under house arrest (by the state) because you are not yet worth beeing put in Jail, cause you're a notorious shoplifter: Houserules (or better said law).
Under house arrest (by the state) for stating, that the president is a balless d**khead: Censorship
Some Store not selling an uncut game for their own reasons: Houserules
A state stating, that a company is not allowed to sell an uncensored game, because of resons: Censorship (Australia and Germany are still the big two in this. ;P)

And even this comparison between Houserules and Censorship, starts to feel shaky, as soon as we try to pin it to states.

The right to free speach is given in almost every country by their equivalent of the constitution, and that no Censorship gets made, wich is true for a good majority of the world right now.
But then again, they may have certain rules....
Try to do the classical Nazi greeting (or anything Nazi related in a non historical context) in Germany or Austria: Jail.
Kiss your same Gender partner in Russia: A fine that just is a sentence to jail (where talking about the roughly equivalent of 12000 US$), because you corrupted the children.
Try to sell a game with gore in Germany (or Australia back then): Salesban, because you could corrupt the children.

Children seem to be the "get out of jail free card" for most states, that try to enforce their house rules, despite stating, that they don't censor. Kind of a weird factor or even determining, if it is censoring, since there is defenatly a law against it.

So be glad U.S. America, you might have some troubling past with unions and other topics, but you could always say that your President is a d**khead and after a certain time, even kiss bis Steve in puplic, without the police chasing you down for what you did.

 

[gridsleep]

If you're force-fed in Blipvert fashion too many images of that fat naked cartoon jerk and you snap and start throwing Molotov cocktails at the studio, would that be considered censorship? Or free speech?

Voltaire. That's all I'm going to add. Voltaire. If you're too dumb to be able to look it up, you shouldn't have been given access to a computer and the Internet.

 

[nayuan01]

Can't we just all agree that #gamergate was a stupid idea to begin with, it's bad for the gaming community, it reflects poorly upon gamers as a whole, and it affects gaming's credibility as a legitimate entertainment medium and just move along?

I like that Bob has taken the time to discuss this "heavy stuff" in detail because it is indispensable. Our hobby has grown in influence and credibility in the entertainment spectrum to the point that it has earned a place among movies, music, and even art (to some respect).

This is a big deal! Think about it, gaming was just a "hobby" and it is a relatively young medium. To gain so much influence and credibility with the "big boys" in such a short amount of time (it's billion of dollars in sales also helped it gain such respect), is huge! As any medium who is growing from "niche" to "mainstream" before it, gaming is also going through certain growing pains. I believe #gamergate is an example of such pains and we, as a community, must accept that: (a) if we want to be respected in the medium with the "big boys", we need to grow up (i.e., we need to mature); and (b) as a community, we should not discriminate (the more gamers the merrier, why shun them out?).

Thank you Bob for putting some real-world context in this debate and forcing gamers to mature during this process.