The Big Picture: Don't Censor Me!

[Strazdas]

ok so i watched your video again and i remmebered that i shouldnt have.

censorship from government is whats in constitution, does not mean it does not exist outside of it. but you are correct about the dixie chicks.

its also ironic you bring up Jack Thomson, considering you are actively supporting the modern version of him

as far as criticism of something you like versus criticism of something you are. im pretty sure "all of you are mysoginystic basement dwelling neckbeards that shouldnt exist" is the latter.

but hey, at least you got to call yourself a whale penis.

Now if only you yourself acted the way you want us to act. you know the whole insulting groups of people on twitter thing.

It's not Capitalism that people are mad at. It's Monopolies. Capitalism doesn't exist unless there is competition, and though you might think MSNBC was the competition for FOX News it actually isn't. FOX has a monopoly on Conservative news coverage, and MSNBC has a pretty solid monopoly on the Liberal end. Even Hollywood tries not to compete by carving up the Calender and doing everything to collude to ensure that major films don't compete.

Monopolies are the end goal of capitalism (the best way to make money is to control whole market) so yes, being mad at monopolies IS being mad at capitalism. No, there is absolutely no need for competition for capitalism to exists. it seems you have missed out on some economic theory.

 

[medv4380]

It's not Capitalism that people are mad at. It's Monopolies. Capitalism doesn't exist unless there is competition, and though you might think MSNBC was the competition for FOX News it actually isn't. FOX has a monopoly on Conservative news coverage, and MSNBC has a pretty solid monopoly on the Liberal end. Even Hollywood tries not to compete by carving up the Calender and doing everything to collude to ensure that major films don't compete.

Monopolies are the end goal of capitalism (the best way to make money is to control whole market) so yes, being mad at monopolies IS being mad at capitalism. No, there is absolutely no need for competition for capitalism to exists. it seems you have missed out on some economic theory.

Seems your education is lacking.

Capitalism as defined by Adam Smith requires competition. A true capitalist market has the maximum number of entities competing so that if a new one arises one old one will be forced out.

It seems like your education in economics is ether Asian based capitalism where Monopolies are the goal, or Corporate Capitalism which is much the same. Monopolies, corporate or otherwise, are little more than communism.

 

[the7ofswords]

Bob proves that he does not understand the difference between censorship and illegal censorship or the difference between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Article Five of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the procedure for amending it, thus any amendments become part of the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights (as the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) is part of the Constitution by definition.

Yes, very good Tweedledum, but its just part of it and not the first part of it, it is the last part of it, Bob seems to have forgotten that there is a ton of shit in the constitution before you get to the bill or rights. And just like there is more to the constitution then the bill of rights there is more types of censorship than Illegal censorship. Bob seems to have confused parts of things with the whole thing.

Ah yes ... name-calling, That always makes your case for you.

You did not in any way refute what I said. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. In addition, you made a further error. You stated that the Bill of Rights was the last part of the Constitution. No it isn't. There are 17 more Amendments after the Bill of Rights. These are also part of the Constitution.

So when someone says the Constitution guarantees a right of Free Speech, they are correct. It's in the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution.

You are correct, however, that there are more kinds of censorship than government censorship. Bob's playing around with definitions in a very ham-handed way.

 

[sexy=sexist]

No matter how you slice it when you are using your power and influence to memory hole other arguments in what you say is a open forum to talk, and you do this not on there merit, but because they disagree with you. I can only assume you do it because you know your argument won't stand up in the marketplace of ideas or maybe even outside of a echochamber.

Somehow even bringing up that maybe some of this stuff should be looked at will get you called all sorts of names and accused of harassing women. Many gaming sites are using that context to censor discussion. I kinda want to know why.

Well first off they could be trying to hide there unethical practice in all this. However I don't think that is all of it.
You see I don't think gamergate is really the movement so much as people upset about the real movement. I think what we have here is the Democratic Teaparty that is calling itself anti-gamergate.

 

[J Tyran]

Free speech and censorship certainly two items most people don't seem to get.
I love it when a dev/publisher decides to tone down e.g. the violence for e.g. a German release in order to avoid endangering their bottom line by an 18+ rating or even getting on the index (list of restricted media e.g. no advertisement and no display) destroying all hope to make any meaningful income.
You can bet someone will call it censorship. Take a guess: It isn?t.
The same is true for the people in a BBS. I?ve seen in more times than I can count that a moderator steps in after people got out of line that someone demanded their right for free speech.
Again: No, it doesn?t apply.

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?

So you are saying it is okay for magazines to hide their affiliations and conflicting interest from the user base continuing lying to them in order to help creating the bottom line of the industry?
I beg to differ.

I think I need to set the record straight. It seems that my definition of "gamergate" (which is based on the references made by the media regarding the death threats made to Anita Sarkeesian) is completely different to the gamergate movement to which you are referring to. It seems that I've been misinformed as to what gamergate really is.

As far as the "gamergate" to which I was referring to, I believe that a vocal niche of the gaming community screaming, hollering and even threatening a dissenting voice for criticizing sexism and misogyny in games is: (a) harmful to the image of gaming and gamers as w hole; (b) it reflects poorly upon the gaming industry and those who comprise it; and (c) places our hobby as "immature" in comparison to the likes of movies, music and art as an entertainment medium.

Originally Gamergate started about the conflicting interest, the other side screamed "misogyny" because a women was involved in the accusations. It had nothing to do with sexism and Anita Sarkeesian at first, the SJWs played the "misogyny" card and it quickly degenerated as all the trolls and hatefull people started throwing shit like badly trained monkeys.

 

[The Deadpool]

Sure, empirically that is true. You have a factual ability to speak and that ability is factually limited by the circumstances. But that isn't a freedom - a freedom is something you are not just able to do, but specifically allowed or entitled to do according to a set of rules, which can be moral or legal. If it were otherwise, we'd just call it the ability to speak and could forget about the term "freedom" altogether.

Morality and legality place LIMITS on free speech, generally for the sake of security, privacy or property. But they are just that, LIMITS on free speech.

Do I get to call you an idiot if you say something I find obviously wrong?

That, as with all things, is a matter of context.

Let's look at current events: During this whole Sarkeesian crap there has been a lot of harassment. And while a lot has been said about the narrative that implies everyone on side a) is the kind of terrible, scum of the earth, dirtbags who'd send people death threats or worse, there has been no argument over the fact that the people who DID make said threats are in fact terrible, scum of the earth, dirtbags. That has been totally acceptable.

I mean, Godwin's law is brought up because Hitler and his part have become such an ubiquitous short hand for "terrible, and irredeemably awful human beings whose opinions are worthless." And there has been little push back against that characterization.

Not all insults are immoral. As to which are which, well that depends on situation. And may change with time. Moral today can be immoral tomorrow and vice versa...

 

[Darknacht]

You did not in any way refute what I said. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. In addition, you made a further error. You stated that the Bill of Rights was the last part of the Constitution. No it isn't. There are 17 more Amendments after the Bill of Rights. These are also part of the Constitution.

Yes sorry, I meant that the bill of rights is part of the last part of the constitution, the amendments, not that they where at the very end. But that still does not make The bill of rights the first thing in the constitution.
My original statement was that Bob is confusing parts of things for the entire thing. He thinks that censorship is only illegal censorship and he thinks that the constitution starts at the first amendment. Hopefully that is now clear to you, if not try reading it a few more times.

 

[Strazdas]

It's not Capitalism that people are mad at. It's Monopolies. Capitalism doesn't exist unless there is competition, and though you might think MSNBC was the competition for FOX News it actually isn't. FOX has a monopoly on Conservative news coverage, and MSNBC has a pretty solid monopoly on the Liberal end. Even Hollywood tries not to compete by carving up the Calender and doing everything to collude to ensure that major films don't compete.

Monopolies are the end goal of capitalism (the best way to make money is to control whole market) so yes, being mad at monopolies IS being mad at capitalism. No, there is absolutely no need for competition for capitalism to exists. it seems you have missed out on some economic theory.

Seems your education is lacking.

Capitalism as defined by Adam Smith requires competition. A true capitalist market has the maximum number of entities competing so that if a new one arises one old one will be forced out.

It seems like your education in economics is ether Asian based capitalism where Monopolies are the goal, or Corporate Capitalism which is much the same. Monopolies, corporate or otherwise, are little more than communism.

No. Capitalism as defined by Adam Smith requires capital and personal property. Free market is only one of the 4 times of market under capitalism. When it comes to ISPs in US, they are all in Oligopoly or Monopoly state.
While Adam Smith did not define it as such (probably due to lack of foresight into the future) Monopolies are the logical endgoals of competition, because the best way to compete is to not allow anyone else to even begin eating at your sales.

and its extremely funny that you claim my education is lacking when you just compared monopolies to communism.

 

[Kwame Digital]

So collective social shunning by those that wield the most power in a community, i.e "Game Journalists", from effectively every website is not censorship? Sometimes I wonder about you Bob.

1st censorship can take many forms, its not just the state that can remove your ability to express your ideas. Just because it's not the legal definition of censorship doesn't mean its still not the socially agreed upon construct that we all abide by, especially on the internet. Take Jim's video on The Slaughtering Grounds, no their ability to speak their mind was not taken away but the attempt at removing ones thoughts on a public forum is still very much taboo. What is and is not censorship is evolving everyday, especially on the internet were such conduct is considered a cardinal sin.

2nd What if a group of influential people within a community come together and agree to ban and censor all ideas they disagree with to the full extent of their abilities. This includes threats, doxing, attempts to get problem individuals fired from their jobs, appealing to administrators on multiple social media outlets for them to be banned, false DMCA claims and outright ostracization from a community by using the previous methods to sow fear within the hearts of those who wish to speak freely. That is the spirit of censorship and what the 1st Amendment was fighting against.

3rd from what I'm seeing, based on your video, #gamergate has validity. If a consumer base has issue with the actions or implied actions of a company they can "shout [them] down in the public square in the market place of ideas". Hell everything he says from 3:50-4:45 is in full support of #gamergate. So are you saying companies like Gawker getting their ads pulled are not being censored because I completely agree. After all #gamergate is a consumer revolt.

The last piece states that its Capitalism, that the group with the most money gets the final say. hmm thats weird because from my understanding its the consumer base who will always have the most money because their the ones making it and investing it in these wealthy corporations.

 

[Ishigami]

I think I need to set the record straight. It seems that my definition of "gamergate" (which is based on the references made by the media regarding the death threats made to Anita Sarkeesian) is completely different to the gamergate movement to which you are referring to. It seems that I've been misinformed as to what gamergate really is.

As far as the "gamergate" to which I was referring to, I believe that a vocal niche of the gaming community screaming, hollering and even threatening a dissenting voice for criticizing sexism and misogyny in games is: (a) harmful to the image of gaming and gamers as w hole; (b) it reflects poorly upon the gaming industry and those who comprise it; and (c) places our hobby as "immature" in comparison to the likes of movies, music and art as an entertainment medium.

Thats not GamerGate.

 

[the7ofswords]

You did not in any way refute what I said. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. In addition, you made a further error. You stated that the Bill of Rights was the last part of the Constitution. No it isn't. There are 17 more Amendments after the Bill of Rights. These are also part of the Constitution.

Yes sorry, I meant that the bill of rights is part of the last part of the constitution, the amendments, not that they where at the very end. But that still does not make The bill of rights the first thing in the constitution.
My original statement was that Bob is confusing parts of things for the entire thing. He thinks that censorship is only illegal censorship and he thinks that the constitution starts at the first amendment. Hopefully that is now clear to you, if not try reading it a few more times.

Fair enough.

(Went back and re-watched the video, and yes, Bob makes the mistake of saying Freedom of Speech is the "First thing in the Constitution" ... though I expect he meant to phrase that differently, it was definitely a mistake.)

 

[nondescript]

This is more voting with ones wallet than censorship. Like it or not, a lot of the country genre is Republican, so going oversea and saying, "We're ashamed to be American" rubbed conservative Republicans the wrong way. And these guys were their main source of income.

Several artists have come met this in Country alone. Garth Brooks got the same treatment when he tried branching into rock under an alias. Taylor Swift is experiencing a similar shunning.