Censorship! Vile, disgusting CENSORSHIP!

[CaitSeith]

Just a bunch of crybabies doing a tantrun for a game they haven't even played.

Isn't like that all the game controversies lately?

 

[Rad Party God]

Just a bunch of crybabies doing a tantrun for a game they haven't even played.

Isn't like that all the game controversies lately?

*Sigh* You're absolutely right :/

 

[Redd the Sock]

Compared to what normally gets caught in the self censorship debate it seems more benign because I don't think anyone is really trying to stop an idea, while the pulling of that Pillars of Eternity poem, GTA from a couple of targets, Hatred from Steam, stopping a few comic covers, or even comedian's jokes have roots in being fearful of certain ideas. This idea can not proliferate so it must e stopped before it can. I realize some people are about to try and defend that mindset, but I've lived too long to have not seen it applied by others. Too many periods where you couldn't include gay people or have anything anti religion lest you bring down the church on you, or political periods were it was okay to get someone fired if they went against the political norm. Hell, I've seen things like games and comics fight hard for the right to go against the moral majority or the religious right to o long to see it replaced by moral majority of the hyper sensitive left.

I know what you're trying to say, Redd, and I object (powerfully) to said forms of overt censorship as well. However, there is a very tangible line between saying "This is horrible" and "This must be removed from existence". And too often I see people arguing here and elsewhere that this line does not exist, and simply by criticizing something you are creating an atmosphere of "self censorship" which is perilous, has a chilling effect on art, etc, etc.

For example, I have no problem with the argument "This PoE poem is transphobic! Boo!". I don't AGREE with it. But I don't find it to be a "problematic argument", or a call for an idea to be killed.

What I *am* seeing quite frequently is statements that arguments such as "This PoE poem is transphobic! Boo!" represent a pernicious and dangerous ideology that must be drummed from the industry if it has any hope of survival. That, to me, registers as the "let's kill this idea" moral panic you are describing. I have heard quite literal arguments along the lines of "We must stop these people, lest their crazy values influence our hobby/way of life".

I don't have easy answers here either, but a question does run through my mind when this kind of things comes up: if not to try and see it done less or have it undone, why are you criticizing it in the way you are? Take as the opposite side of things: we all rag on Twilight, but how many treat even its existence as some kind of issue. We make a wisecrack and move on to something we enjoy while still acknowledging it having a right to exist. Most of us don't even go that far not giving something clearly not trying to please us specifically any attention. My mother finds South Park offensive (hell she finds Big Bang Theory offensive) but that's where it stops. Compare that to some of the stinks I mentioned above which had language and attitudes more in the "how dare something I find offensive exist, I must let the world know about that."

I don't think it's intentional. But I do think a lot of criticisms get made without though to how they'll be taken by people that have heard too many criticisms of the things they like from outside groups for being too violent, too anti-christian, too left leaning etc. such that sexism and trans issues now become the new morality boogeymen. Just another group of people here to say nothing but how upset they are that others aren't doing what they like and approve of. The tap dancing about the meaning of words while ignoring intent only adds to the problem.

I mean, I'd like to know what I'm missing, but I am at the point of asking (as an example) why complain about Hatred if not that you don't want a game with that message to get out, and to hope that negative backlash will get it stopped? A governmetal ban would at least be honest.

 

[Shiftygiant]

Take note of the likes to dislikes ratio on that video. (I run a browser plugin that hides Youtube comments, but I'm guessing they're not exactly flattering either.)

They're so angry it's almost funny

 

[BarryMcCociner]

Demanding a game be cancelled is fucking stupid.

I don't care if someone makes a game where all you do is stomp on babies heads, it has a right to exist. Period. Purchasing the baby stomp game is optional, if you don't want it you're under no obligation to even look at it.

Same goes here, if you don't want this game, guess what? You don't have to buy it. In fact, if enough people don't buy it Nintendo will probably realize you want an old Metroid just like you used to get.

That being said, making a Metroid without Samus is fucking stupid and what the fuck are you doing, Nintendo? Do you really expect me to give you my money?

 

[Nazulu]

I don't even know how anyone takes Nintendo seriously enough to become aggressive over something so insignificant as this. My personal feelings aside -

They haven't taken direct control over the material so I do not see it as any form of censorship.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I don't have easy answers here either, but a question does run through my mind when this kind of things comes up: if not to try and see it done less or have it undone, why are you criticizing it in the way you are?

Some people criticize because they want things they enjoy to be better. As per your example, I could care less about criticizing Twilight, but I will cheerfully criticize...say...The Walking Dead. I have something of an investment in it, so I rain criticism on it in the hopes it will improve (or to vent my spleen).

I've never campaigned for something to not exist (actually that's not entirely true, I did campaign for the original ME3 ending to no longer exist, those fuckers), but I can imagine scenarios where I could make arguments of that nature. Who hasn't bemoaned an unnecessary sequel, or listened to a terrible song, or watched an episode of a television show three seasons past its best before date and wondered "Why does this still exist"?

I mean, I'd like to know what I'm missing, but I am at the point of asking (as an example) why complain about Hatred if not that you don't want a game with that message to get out, and to hope that negative backlash will get it stopped? A governmetal ban would at least be honest.

I didn't complain about Hatred, because I think Hatred is just begging for me to complain about it and I don't want to indulge them, but if I were, I'd probably say "Why do we need this Jack Thompson Baiting Bullshit? I'm pretty sure you guys can do better work than this".

 

[Something Amyss]

Oh, and before anyone points out that the people behind the petition are merely issuing demands and have no ability to actually enforce their will upon Nintendo, I feel it would be remiss of me not to point out that such actions are sure to lead to Nintendo applying the dreaded self-censorship, which is almost as bad as having their factories burnt down by rioting petitioners.

I heard that the dreaded self-censorship is actually the worst kind. Though, in fairness, I did hear it from someone who was willingly practicing it by posting on a moderated message board.

Wait. You're posting on a moderated message board! Self-censorship!

If Nintendo did change the game because of that petition, wouldn't that just be them listening to their consumers (or potential consumers?)

When it was Hatred, it was censorship. When it was GTA, it was censorship. When it was ME3, it was censorship. When Anita SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED says "consider," it's censorship. I can't speak for Zhukov, though I'm pretty sure he's my podmate, but I think that might be the point.

There has, over the last year or so, been a very concerted effort to cry "censorship!" when it comes to [things I like] and to cry "free market!" when it comes to [things I don't like]. A group effort by a bunch of folks who seem to abhor censorship in all its forms, except when it's their right to censor. Even if that means the same tactics.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Ever since Mass Effect 3, it seems that some have latched on to how enough outrage can get them seemingly anything they want. (even if it's just attention)

This is basically going to be the norm, methinks, until companies stop paying them any mind at all, or something big flops disastrously as a result of their nagging.

 

[KungFuJazzHands]

How do you censor something that doesn't exist yet?

This isn't censorship, it's simply a bunch of whiny manchildren having a fit.

 

[Battenberg]

Nothing. The people who don't lie Nintendo don't care enough to do anything about anything they do.

I can confirm this is accurate, I wouldn't even have clicked on this thread if 'Nintendo' had been in the title.

Seriously though this whole free speech thing is just a big ridiculous minefield. Saying everyone has the right to express their opinion includes every person and every opinion otherwise it is not truly free speech. That means you support someone's right to say homophobia is bad but also their right to say racism is good. It means people are free to say all kinds of cruel or unkind things to someone for little, or even zero reason. Hell it even means you have to support someone else's right to say free speech shouldn't be allowed.

In this case people are expressing disapproval of a game. Free speech means these people have that right just as Nintendo have the right to make the game anyway. Nobody is restricting anybody else's freedom of expression so I see no issue here. That remains true even if Nintendo choose not to make the game based on the disapproval of others. Self censorship is nothing but an inflammatory way to describe someone else's choice to not express something.

 

[Don Incognito]

I often see this term "self-censorship" thrown around, and I haven't the faintest idea what it actually means, or how it is censorship. Can one of you fine Escapists enlighten me?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Because the latter featured tens of thousands of people not only publishing their criticism, but directing their criticism directly at Obsidian, demanding change and actively labeling the entire company transphobic etc. unless the demands were met.

The equivilent would be if people not only criticised Ready at Dawn for the abundant QTEs, but also directly demanded Ready at Dawn remove them from the game under penalty of having tens of thousands of people publically label them as an incompetant developer who's workers don't know how to code.

I've heard media criticism delivered in that form many, many times. Directors are called incompetent, writers are called hacks, developers are called greedy or stupid or overtly malicious, out to separate gamers from their hard earned money with their sinister code. Google some of the criticism thrown at Michael Bay on a daily basis. Is that censorship? Are we collectively censoring Michael Bay?

"I don't like your hat, it's ugly."
"I don't like your hat, it's ugly, take it off or I'll punch you in the face."
Frankly I'm at my wits end as to how you're not getting this, are you an alien?

Just to be clear, you've now created three comparison points for "this poem is transphobic".

1. Punches in the face
2. Kill your family
3. Statutory Rape

I'm assuming the latter cases were intended to be hyperbolic for comedic effect, but you've gone to the "punch in the face" well twice now, once having it delivered by a former heavyweight champion of the world. Going by your above comparison, are you arguing that, for instance, calling George Lucas a hack online is functionally equivalent to having Mike Tyson punch him in the face? Or are you suggesting there must be a certain critical mass of such criticism first? How much? 10,000 people calling him a hack? I'm sure there were at least that many, he eventually felt motivated to sell the IP after all.

Let's make something clear...I'm aware that people will occasionally weaponize criticism in an attempt to get their way, rather than just issuing it and then carrying on with their lives. What I'd like you to do is give me real-world examples of such criticism in the gaming industry, and then explain to me how the developer's hand was forced. I can, offhand, think of petitions to...

1. Change the end of ME3
2. Change the end of FO3
3. Remove a poem from POE (which was, amusingly, changed to a more caustic and targeted poem)

I'm not sure about petitions or high pressure tactics used in situations like removing always-online from games, or criticizing day one DLC, but it's quite possible. Those are typically endorsed/forgiven on the grounds that they are "pro-consumer".

Now I can already hear you screaming at me, calling me names, telling me I have no reading comprehension, etc, etc, because I'm not attending to your "tens of thousands of people saying change the poem or else we'll label you transphobic in the greater community" example. I do have a few questions though.

1. Can you substantiate that "tens of thousands of people" made that specific threat?
2. How many people does it take before you cross this threshold from "just putting your criticism out there" and "forcing someone" (i.e. having Tyson punch them in the face). One? Ten? Tens of thousands?
3. If it is more than one, how does the volume of criticism effect the intent of the criticism? If I'm a lone person and my criticism is functionally "stop doing X, X is terrible", and 10,000 other people happen to feel the same way, does that change my criticism from innocent to pernicious? Or was it always pernicious?
4. Do my reasons for wanting something to stop matter?

Before the usual suspects come out of the woodwork to call me a modern day Hitler and ask how my book burning is going, I should state that I thought the PoE poem protest was very, very silly. I am, however, very much in favor of freedom of expression, even when that expression leads to condemnatory criticism. And even if that condemnatory criticism is widespread. While I appreciate you are attempting to elucidate a concern about using a hysterical degree of public pressure to railroad a creator into an unwanted change, I think that leads into some extremely murky territory. Particularly when you're trying to draw parallels to physical violence. There is a bogeyman being erected on these forums called "self censorship", and this abiding belief among some that making a change in reaction to insistent criticism is automatically detestable. We like to jump on the PoE poem example because it was such a dubious criticism, but what if it hadn't been? What if it had been a more salient criticism? I'm sure for the people making it, it was, but what if it was something that had near unanimous endorsement? Wouldn't we still be involved in the same "forcing" of the creator?

If we're going to be wandering around pointing fingers and saying "That's acceptable criticism" and "that's unacceptable criticism, and basically violence", I'd like some pretty ironclad data supporting the argument. Otherwise we're in...what's the popular colloquialism? "Feels before realz" territory. And since we're about NOT KILLING IDEAS around these parts, and rightfully so, I think that's a fair position to take.

Of course it's early and I'm rambling, less than half of this likely makes sense, and you're just going to get mad anyway, but we'll see.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm not reading all that, if you don't get it now you never will.
I think you're an alien.

Here's a distilled form of the argument for you, maybe you'll prefer it.

Meh, people will always try and use rhetoric in order to prevent criticism or discredit those who might criticise.

 

[Zhukov]

Literally all I've done is try to encourage Zhukov to be more empathetic towards those who fear self-censorship and illustrate why they might feel the way they do,

Fair enough.

Admittedly, I missed that angle in you initial post.

Unfortunately I still find your thought process to be questionable.

But in reaction to the potentially transphobic joke in Pillars of Eternity, people did flood Obsidian's twitter and email demanding that it be changed.

If I were to Tweet into the void "Game X sucks because Y, they should have changed it!" I would be merely critcising, apparently.
However, if I were to Tweet "@DeveloperX Game X sucks because Y, you should have changed it!" I am fostering self-censorship.

So the difference between lamentable censorship and legit criticism is in whether or not it is addressed directly at the creator?

See there's a big difference between just making criticism (the former) and demanding your criticism be acted upon or else (the latter). And it's entirely understandable that some people would be concerned by the latter and not the former.

So if I say, "I wish this game was different, I hope the change the sequel", I am merely criticizing.
If I say "I demand the sequel be made differently!", I am bringing about self-censorship?

So the difference between censorship and criticism lies in how one phrases one's remarks?

See, those both seem like awfully fine distinctions to me.