Censorship! Vile, disgusting CENSORSHIP!

[Don Incognito]

Thus far, I've seen you compare boycotts/petitions/complaints to getting punched, getting punched by Mike fucking Tyson, and getting smited by a demon. I'm sure I've missed one or two others.

No, no you haven't, you've seen me compare threats to more extreme threats in order to make a point.
Again, go back and read the full exchange, it's not a hard thing to do.

I've read the full exchange, John, more than once. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Because threatening physical force is not at all the same thing as threatening to use speech and the free market.

 

[Don Incognito]

Because threatening physical force is not at all the same thing as threatening to use speech and the free market.

I don't believe you have read the exchange seeing as in another post I wrote "they might not be in the same ball park but they're playing the same sport."
A threat is a threat and the people who are concerned about self censorship aren't going to be any less concerned because "well the threats could have been worse."

I swear to god, you people will do anything to avoid seeing things from another's point of view.

Goodness me.

How is it "playing the same sport"? One is the free market. One is literally a crime. I honestly don't understand what it is you want, what it is you are trying to say.

Moreover, I asked several posts ago for someone to please explain to me what "self-censorship" actually is. Could you help me out here?

 

[Don Incognito]

Goodness me.

How is it "playing the same sport"? One is the free market. One is literally a crime. I honestly don't understand what it is you want, what it is you are trying to say.

A threat is a threat. You might deem the threat of a PR smear as just part of the free market but other people might not.

See, this reads like: You might deem the threat of plummeting to your death from a tall building as just part of gravity but other people might not.

It IS a part of the free market. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not. That's the way the free market works.

Well like I said in another post, I would only consider something self-censorship if someone changes their work when they don't want to in order to apease outside forces. If they feel forced or pressured into changing something against their will.
Something I don't know has ever happened in the video game industry, but people will percieve what they will.

So developer/artist/musician/writer/whatever may or may not change their product based on market forces at their discretion. So, "self-censorship" isn't censorship at all, then. So who gives a crap?

 

[Don Incognito]

snip

I didn't say no one should have a problem with the free market. Often times, the results of the market suck. Them's the breaks.


And I agree, not every outside force is a market force. Mike Tyson threatening to punch you in the face, for instance, is not a market force.

However, if petitions/boycotts/criticism are not market forces, then what are they?

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Wait wait wait! Are you saying gamers can be hypocrites if it means they get the games they want?!
Oh fuck! And here I thought us gamers were moral paragons of honesty, truth, justice and the politically correct not-specific nation of origin way!

 

[Don Incognito]

However, if petitions/boycotts/criticism are not market forces, then what are they?

Does it matter? I mean you're misrepresenting what I've said again but that doesn't really matter.
You acknowledge that the free market (or facets of it) can be nasty, so even if the things that were making people nervous or concerned about self-censorship were part of the free market it wouldn't matter. That's no reason for people to be entirely accepting of them.

You will also note that, based on your definition, I also find the very concept of "self-censorship" laughable on its face. There's no "force" being applied.

What exactly would your solution to this dire situation be?

 

[DrOswald]

Sorry for the wall of text and any typos.

P.S. Incidentally, I see hard vs soft censorship as the primary difference between Jack Thompson and Anita, and that difference is why I respect Anita and not Jack Thompson.

There's absolutely no way I'm ever going to have time to properly respond to this, but I wanted to sincerely say thank you for the thought and effort you put into that. I don't know if we're universally in agreement (I'd have to give it a second, even more careful read), but we're certainly in agreement on a great many points.

Thanks for taking the time to read it! I totally understand that you probably cannot respond, I practically wrote an essay, so don't feel bad. But do keep in mind that I am no writer, and I probably failed to communicate all the subtleties of my position. And even if we are not in complete agreement, I am glad we could talk about it. Thanks for listening.

 

[Don Incognito]

You will also note that, based on your definition, I also find the very concept of "self-censorship" laughable on its face. There's no "force" being applied.

So market forces aren't forces anymore? Hell my definition centers around the perception of force being applied so yeah, don't be silly.

I phrased that poorly, I apologize. What I meant by "force" in that context is that there is no threat to the developer/artist/writer etc. outside of just normal economics. That is not censorship. "Self-censorship" is, at best, an extremely poorly-worded concept, as censorship doesn't enter into the equation in anyway whatsoever.

 

[Don Incognito]

I phrased that poorly, I apologize. What I meant by "force" in that context is that there is no threat to the developer/artist/writer etc. outside of just normal economics.

How does the fact it's part of normal economics make it any less of a threat?
Have you seen the movie Barbershop 2? Was the guy who was saying "sell me your shop or I'll set up a better and cheaper one across the road and drive you out of business" not making a threat?

No, it's a threat within the context of normal economics, which amounts to welp, tough shit, that's the way it works.

That is not censorship. "Self-censorship" is, at best, an extremely poorly-worded concept, as censorship doesn't enter into the equation in anyway whatsoever.

Well wikipedia thinks it's a thing. Their definition differs from mine in that they say that pressure from an outside group isn't needed but you know, each to their own.

The day I give a damn about what wikipedia says about something is the day I just plain give up on life.

 

[Halla Burrica]

As someone who likes Metroid (as in, I played Metroid Prime 3 and thought it was a fantastic game and later tried to play Other M and found it to be even shittier than I thought it was going to be), I find this ubelieveably stupid. I was admittedly disappointed that after almost 5 years, they were giving us a multiplayer thingamajig, but that is in no way close to a decent justification to try and ban something. Don't like it? Fine! Criticize their decision, give the developers feedback and tell them what you think. Don't buy the game if you don't support their idea, that could actually be constructive feedback. But if you actually think not liking something removes its right to exist, you do in fact think you are entitled and should remove your head from your own ass so you don't choke. Only stuck-up babies think they can just cry and everything will be changed to suit their liking, regardless of what others or even those who spend actual resources and work hard to make this game believe(hell, my 4-year old cousin has made more sensible decisions than these people just have).