magnet
2821
By your definition, someone is censored every time a post is downvoted on Reddit or Stack Exchange, whenever Wikipedia is edited, or whenever a scientific paper fails peer review.
And yet that sort of crowdsourced censorship is exactly what makes those institutions so useful.
However the opposite, upvotes, encourage groupthink and stifle debate.
Just try and make a reasonable argument for non-personal attacks on /r/kotakuinaction for instance.
Novotes over upvotes and downvotes imho.
Timex
2823
Well, not quite, since all of those things are still available. They don’t get deleted.
This is all kind of in the weeds though, and I think we’re talking past each other. The type of censorship that we’re talking about here is having people actually trying to eliminate ideas from the public eye, through legal or violent means.
When someone presents bad, or even potentially damaging ideas (like, for instance, islamic fundamentalists preaching violence), the answer is not to make laws that try to stop them from saying those ideas. It’s certainly not to violently oppress them.
The answer is to combat those ideas rationally, and expose their faults for all to see. There’s no reason to be afraid of bad ideas, because they can’t stand up to scrutiny. But censoring them lends them credibility, because it implies that no strong argument can be made by those in power against the censored idea.
Are you 170 years old or lying?
Oh, and let’s discuss net neutrality, shall we?
What???
Timex
2825
As crazy as it seems, there were signs in London that said “No Black’s, No Irish” as recently as the 1960’s.
I’ll just mention that I hold Charlie Hebbo in a good deal of disdain. However, I’m a judgemental prick and I feel that way toward several organizations (and occasionally individuals). What’s more is that I’m self aware enough to know that there are some people who feel the same toward me and the rather public organization that I’m a small part of. None of us, however, deserve death for any of the slights we’ve inflicted upon others. From my point of view, it’s not anything so specific as being about freedom of speech and it certainly doesn’t strike me as censorship (I agree that’s something imposed by an authoritative body). Rather, it’s the simple right to be yourself - offensive and disgusting as anyone may be, they still have a right to be themselves without fear of death squads hunting them down. Therefore, I find myself begrudgingly in the same camp as Charlie Hebbo. I don’t like the association any more than they likely would, but je suis Charlie.
Oh, over 40 would do it. We had black and white minstrel shows on TV in the UK during the 80s, let alone the 70s, when it seemed, everyone in the UK was either a racist, a child molester, or both.
… there were still more than a few in the US back then, as well.
I’m excited for Timex to discover the disingenuous #GG attempt to bankrupt Gawker over Sam Biddle’s bullying tweet.
Just a fun fact:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/no-irish.htm
Probably not. Pretty much an urban legend. The sociology behind that kind of stuff is fascinating. To tie it back with #GG, one of the weirdest part of going between GGhazi and KIA is that both sides are CONVINCED they are the victims of doxxing. KIA adds the weird false flag theory because obviously they dox as SOP, but the sincere belief that they are the victim is universal.
Good thing racism is over now, eh, right? Otherwise them SJWs what that look down on you for your reactionary views and lack of formal education… they might be right. Can’t have that, can we, now?
I was more pointing to the state of the US prior to Civil Rights act of 1964 (there were plenty of signs directing segregation back then, of course), but I agree that’s an interesting article.
I agree. It’s a display of solidarity for freedom of the press and freedom of expression. Also censorship is generally bad but it has it’s place also, e.g. we censor (or try to) what we give to minors and indecent behaviour in public etc etc. Particularly toxic ideas are not outright censored but their distribution might be limited in some ways.
That is interesting! If there were any substance to the anti-irish stuff in the 20th century there would surely be artifacts and documentary evidence.
As for Starlight’s claims (mystery unannounced projects cancelled due to SJW (or ANY) outcry, no dogs or irish signs in the presumably 70’s or 80’s, conflation of criticism and censorship) I call bullshit.
LMN8R
2834
You…really don’t understand what censorship means, do you?
It’s not “censorship” to advocate for game developers to acknowledge their weaknesses and hope they improve in the future. It’s a request from a customer in hopes that they’ll appeal to customers better. Bioware has a large audience of women playing their games, yet they treat that audience as non-default, making them feel lesser. It’s simple common sense that they listen to feedback. No one is suggesting that people avoid buying Bioware games or that Bioware games shouldn’t exist because they unintentionally succumed to default selection bias.
It’s also not censorship to ask you to stop posting stupid, smug, vague bullshit when I have literally no idea what you’re talking about. You’re not entitled to have me listen to you when I don’t know what you’re saying. I didn’t know what you were saying, so I asked you to be direct or stop, because if you don’t stop, you’re totally wasting your time.
And if you’re so offended by that? Ignore me. Block my posts. I blocked playingwithknives months ago and my experience on this forum has been 100% improved. I don’t know if his posts are ever posting stupid crap, directly replying to me, replying to others, or anything else. I’m not censoring him, but I sure as hell don’t need to listen to him. You’re more then welcome to do the same to me if you’d like.
Mmm, I would agree with you. The problem I see is that both “SJW” and “GamerGater” are poorly defined terms (unlike Muslim, which is very precisely defined and thus it’s easier to argue about), so it might be the case that when people refer to either group they are referring just to the extremes you point out.
I personally think the whole GamerGate thing (not the harrassment, the “movement”) exploded because of divergent ideas on what “gamer culture” refers to.
Timex
2836
It’s funny that you have mistakenly seized upon me as some advocate of the gamergate movement.
- You’re in denial.
What???
Net. Neutrality.
Soapy - Yea, of course you think people are going to do things as they’re not willing to get into stupid piss fights by, er, provoking stupid piss fights, as you try and whitewash history to suit your bigotry - the fact is, The Troubles generated a lot of anti-Irish feeling, especially in places affected by the bombs.
(Where I grew up has a lot of commuters to London, which was bombed several times in The Troubles)
LM8TR - If you have the problem then feel free to run away from reading my posts, no obligation on me to restrain myself from pointing out the commercial effects here.
You’re no different from Soapy, afaik, trying to re-write your movement to suit what you’re saying, when the reality of it and the morass any game dev who ventures into it’s sights…to be doxxed, etc.
LMN8R
2838
You’re still being vague and unspecific.
What is my “movement”?
Do you even actually know what I’m suggesting? What specifically do you think I’m suggesting be done here?
What are the “commercial effects” of what I’m suggesting? And how exactly do you think what I’m suggesting will lead to those “commercial effects”?
What are you even talking about when you refer to “any game dev who ventures into its sights…to be doxxed”? What? How on earth will anything I’m suggesting lead to people being doxxed?
Here’s my absolute best guess at specifically what you’re trying to say:
It sounds like you think I’m saying that Bioware should be publicly called out and ridiculed for innocently falling for default selection bias, held hostage until they change their games. Once they change their games, it will lead to individual employees of Bioware getting doxxed. So because of that possibility, we should instead cower in fear to the terrorists manbabies behind such potential attacks (GamerGate), and don’t dare improve games to be more inclusive.
Or something like that?
You’re trying to avoid the very clear language I’ve used, and to blatantly and obviously lie about what I said.
Which is utterly unsurprising, of course.
Heck, at this point I’m fully expecting your buddies to have a go at me.
Starlight- I don’t even know, even to the point of approximating, what side you’re on, what point you’re trying to make, or who you’re angry at. Whatever the merits of your position, you have not used clear language.
I don’t think you need to worry about anyone “having a go” at you because I am fairly comfortable assuming that everyone else is in the same point. What would someone have a go at you about? Net neutrality?
