Criticism as a defense against Criticism

[Ihateregistering1]

I'm seeing a disturbing trend lately.

Person X criticises a piece of media. Person Y criticises the criticism. Person X treats the criticism of their criticism as an attempt to stop them from criticising, in much the same way that person Y sees the original criticism as an attempt to hinder game developers.

Do you see it too, or am I just going crazy?
Do you believe criticism should be free from criticism?
Do you agree whole heartedly?
etc.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume this is related to this argument, which I've seen in one form or another a dozen times:
Person X: "This game should have had more ____________ (insert sex/ethnicity/religion/sexuality etc.) characters in it".
Person Y: "It's easy for you to criticize developers for not trying something new and different, because you don't bear any risk for them trying new things".
Person X: "So what? You're saying I can't criticize something?"

I won't open up that can of worms, but the point is that criticism is not off-limits just because it's criticism. For example, I could say "the depiction of plasma weaponry in Witcher 3 was atrocious", and you can rightfully point out that my criticism is wrong because there are no plasma weapons in Witcher 3 (unless there's some really cool easter egg I haven't found yet).

 

[sageoftruth]

I do see this a lot alright, often mixed up with total misunderstanding of "freedom of speech" and whatever as well. I vaguely remember it happening a lot when that PC RPG game came out where one of the female characters had ridiculously huge boobs and some games sites criticised it for objectifying women, being juvenile, blah blah, and then a load of people who I guess really like massive tits in their games started complaining about how this was censoring artists or creators or whatever as though free speech only worked one way.

It does seem to be more often a two step process as opposed to the 3 step one the OP seems to believe exists.

I guess it's more something I see on internet discussions, but I do kind of get what the OP means too. You especially see it on sites like Reddit where your comments get downvoted, which many people basically treat as a form of censorship. I couldn't count on two hands the number of times I've seen a comment where someone is complaining that a community is censoring their opinions on X or Y topic because their comment got downvoted for it. Ironically, a huge number of these complaints get heavily upvoted.

I'm surprised that downvotes would be viewed as a form of censorship. A comment with a slew of downvotes can be a magnet for viewers with an adequate amount of morbid curiosity. Of course, it can also cause people to assume that you're saying something dumb before they even read your comment. Still, in my case, that usually gets resolved after I've done the reading.

 

[K12]

Yes this happens a lot but the alternative happens too. i.e. people try and censor stuff and people try and harrass people into silence so like it's a balance thing.

It's just a distraction technique... and an annoying effective one a lot of the time.

Criticism is important and counter-criticism is just as important. Discussions are better than sermons.

 

[Fox12]

Person A: I'm gonna be an asshole! And if anyone doesn't like what I say, then they have thin skin and need to get over it!

Person B: *Carefully explains why person A is wrong. Then calls them a stupid asshole*

Person A: *Feelings Hurt* Hey, I can say whatever I want, something something free speech.

I like to call this the onision effect.

Spoiler

Don't voice your opinion if you don't want criticism. Freedom of expression isn't freedom FROM expression.

 

[Strazdas]

COnsidering that i wrote harassment im fairly sure i meant harassment. Yes, quite a few people cry harassment when they encounter an opinion that does not align with theirs. they then proceed to dox people to try and shut them up.

Yes I'm aware you wrote harassment. I agreed with you. I then made an addition of my own, which is to point out all the people who cry and moan "censorship" when they encounter opinions that differ from theirs, usually in the form of disapproval of their own opinions.

well i definitely cannot speak for anyone but myself, but i cry censorship when someone tries to censor other peoples opinions. Altrough i do agree that there are people that cry censorship when they are told that they are wrong. but i saw the harassment cries far more often.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

COnsidering that i wrote harassment im fairly sure i meant harassment. Yes, quite a few people cry harassment when they encounter an opinion that does not align with theirs. they then proceed to dox people to try and shut them up.

Yes I'm aware you wrote harassment. I agreed with you. I then made an addition of my own, which is to point out all the people who cry and moan "censorship" when they encounter opinions that differ from theirs, usually in the form of disapproval of their own opinions.

well i definitely cannot speak for anyone but myself, but i cry censorship when someone tries to censor other peoples opinions. Altrough i do agree that there are people that cry censorship when they are told that they are wrong. but i saw the harassment cries far more often.

Well now there's an argument with impact. You have judged your own cries of censorship as valid. Well then if you agree with your own opinion how can anyone criticize that as an argument.

If it isn't obvious I'm joking about the fact that pretty much anyone would say that about their own arguments thus your judgement of the accuracy of your own arguments is meaningless

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah I think that's it. I didn't really follow it very closely, I just remember it being brought up once or twice in Jimquisition. I guess it might have been a brawler, I just saw a small bit of footage and I guess I thought it was an RPG based on that and the aesthetic.

It's possible you're crossing this with another game, which was an RPG. There was one where the cover artwork had the female character more exposed than the male. Divinity: Original Sin, that was it. The art was changed and the artist didn't take it well. He railed against "forced self-censorship"--the idea that it's a horrible thing that the people who opt to publish or commission your work can set limits upon it if you wish to be paid--which is one of those things anyone who has ever lived in civilisation should scratch their head at.

Yeah, bummer. And if I were to show up for work without pants, I wouldn't get paid, either. My continued employment is contingent on self-censorship. Such cultural marxism in action.

Anyway, I believe the game was also featured on Jimquisition, and it was billed as a cRPG (which is now on consoles).

OT, but still related: Like with the notion of censorship, the validity of criticism depends on what's being said. A friend of mine just blocked someone for a comment which used three words, all of which are negative terms to describe a woman. After he was blocked, the guy declared she couldn't take criticism. And if the comment had been more than three insults, he might have an argument. This is something I've noticed a lot. Snarl words called "criticism." Insults, strawmen, outright fabrications.

 

[FalloutJack]

I'm seeing a disturbing trend lately.

Person X criticises a piece of media. Person Y criticises the criticism. Person X treats the criticism of their criticism as an attempt to stop them from criticising, in much the same way that person Y sees the original criticism as an attempt to hinder game developers.

Do you see it too, or am I just going crazy?
Do you believe criticism should be free from criticism?
Do you agree whole heartedly?
etc.

This isn't a disturbing trend. It's human nature straight from the early days of anything complicated enough to judge an opinion on with articulate speech. (History of the World: Part One does not count.) Still, to answer in order...

{1} Yes, of course I see it. Some people have to be taken with a grain of salt.

{2} No, of course not. The alternative is believing what anybody says, even if it's a shitty opinion, at face value. People have scathingly criticized really good things, hurting the reputation of the really good thing. This is not right.

{3} I think that if this is any kind of evil, it's a necessary one. Some people just blatently lie for their own personal interests or are actually incompetent at the job. Can we really give that a free ride? I think not.

 

[stormtrooper9091]

I think this thread illustrates your point perfectly, OP. People just like criticizing everything like they're entitled to it. In their mind it's insightful, purposeful and what have you but it eventually leads nowhere.

Kinda like every topic on social issues ever

 

[Strazdas]

Well now there's an argument with impact. You have judged your own cries of censorship as valid. Well then if you agree with your own opinion how can anyone criticize that as an argument.

If it isn't obvious I'm joking about the fact that pretty much anyone would say that about their own arguments thus your judgement of the accuracy of your own arguments is meaningless

Indeed i did. I judged them such because they are describing what is actually an act of censorship. You can criticize my opinions of course, however such criticism can also be pointless and wrong as well. not all criticism is good criticism (which is not to say we should ban bad criticism, just recognize it).

Yes, many people think their own arguments are the best arguments. this is why verification, proof and facts wins the day.

 

[stormtrooper9091]

verification, proof and facts have never been flimsier. In this day and age, anyone can cite any dicey source of anything as "fact" and get away with it not knowing if it is even true or not. Everyone lies and makes stuff up for clicks and buzz and then people who pretend to be intellectuals cite them and whatever argument that was brewing has become pointless, and I've seen that happen many times.

Suppose that I'm criticizing someone nonsense a media personality said in May this year. But no, it was not May this year, it was actually March and THAT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND CHANGES THE WHOLE ARGUMENT. And this is why I don't really bother anymore.

Another example is the classic trump card by all SJWs. Someone points out the pointlessness and tokenism of a thing, the only reply involves insecurity, lack of progressive thinking and other totally stupid crap.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I'm seeing a disturbing trend lately.

Person X criticises a piece of media. Person Y criticises the criticism. Person X treats the criticism of their criticism as an attempt to stop them from criticising, in much the same way that person Y sees the original criticism as an attempt to hinder game developers.

Do you see it too, or am I just going crazy?
Do you believe criticism should be free from criticism?
Do you agree whole heartedly?
etc.

1. - It's something of a constant with people, so, yes.

2. - Why on earth should criticism be free from criticism? You're free to criticize in the first place so it follows, if we're to remain in any way logically consistent, that the criticism itself isn't immune to further criticism.

Just don't cry "harassment" because someone disagrees with you or otherwise make demands to "BAN THIS SICK FILTH" and we probably still won't see eye to eye, but we'd otherwise get on fine.

3. - Do I agree with what...? With criticism in general? Y-yes? What? WHAT DOES IT MEAN!?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Well now there's an argument with impact. You have judged your own cries of censorship as valid. Well then if you agree with your own opinion how can anyone criticize that as an argument.

If it isn't obvious I'm joking about the fact that pretty much anyone would say that about their own arguments thus your judgement of the accuracy of your own arguments is meaningless

Indeed i did. I judged them such because they are describing what is actually an act of censorship. You can criticize my opinions of course, however such criticism can also be pointless and wrong as well. not all criticism is good criticism (which is not to say we should ban bad criticism, just recognize it).

Yes, many people think their own arguments are the best arguments. this is why verification, proof and facts wins the day.

I'm just wondering if you get that what amounts to "I'm right because I'm right" looks a bit bad unless it was intended as a joke

 

[Strazdas]

Well now there's an argument with impact. You have judged your own cries of censorship as valid. Well then if you agree with your own opinion how can anyone criticize that as an argument.

If it isn't obvious I'm joking about the fact that pretty much anyone would say that about their own arguments thus your judgement of the accuracy of your own arguments is meaningless

Indeed i did. I judged them such because they are describing what is actually an act of censorship. You can criticize my opinions of course, however such criticism can also be pointless and wrong as well. not all criticism is good criticism (which is not to say we should ban bad criticism, just recognize it).

Yes, many people think their own arguments are the best arguments. this is why verification, proof and facts wins the day.

I'm just wondering if you get that what amounts to "I'm right because I'm right" looks a bit bad unless it was intended as a joke

more like im right because there are multiple proven cases of me being right that i didnt bother to cite because this is a forum discussion where i merely expressed my opinion and not a philosophy research paper. I think you just want me to be wrong and are going to intentionally misinterpret my position in hopes to get me confused.

 

[Schadrach]

It's possible you're crossing this with another game, which was an RPG. There was one where the cover artwork had the female character more exposed than the male. Divinity: Original Sin, that was it. The art was changed and the artist didn't take it well. He railed against "forced self-censorship"--the idea that it's a horrible thing that the people who opt to publish or commission your work can set limits upon it if you wish to be paid--which is one of those things anyone who has ever lived in civilisation should scratch their head at.

Our kickstarter campaign for Divinity: Original Sin has gotten quite some criticism on its original poster art. Apparently it was deemed to be sexistic and women unfriendly by the way the female protagonist was portrayed: with a bare belly. A bare belly was for some enough a trigger to send our company enough hate and threatening mails to persuade my boss to ask me to change the cover. I did, but did so reluctantly. Disagreeing wholeheartedly with the claim of the artwork being sexistic, the better half of me decided to meet "offended-by-design" people somewhere in the middle.

That's the original and modified art, and the artist's comment about being less than thrilled to change it. Note the bit about "hate and threatening mails" which are something of a consistent theme in these sort of situations (when shaming doesn't work alone, threats and doxxing usually follow in short order).

This wasn't "boss asked me to change it because he didn't like it", it was "boss told me to change it because we were getting threats." Here's the irony: if it were a bunch of people sending Wu threats demanding that she change Rev 60 to meet someone's arbitrary standards, it would be seen as a transmisogynistic attack on her for daring to be a trans woman in the gaming industry and many of the same people treating the D:OS thing as no big deal would see it entirely differently.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Well now there's an argument with impact. You have judged your own cries of censorship as valid. Well then if you agree with your own opinion how can anyone criticize that as an argument.

If it isn't obvious I'm joking about the fact that pretty much anyone would say that about their own arguments thus your judgement of the accuracy of your own arguments is meaningless

Indeed i did. I judged them such because they are describing what is actually an act of censorship. You can criticize my opinions of course, however such criticism can also be pointless and wrong as well. not all criticism is good criticism (which is not to say we should ban bad criticism, just recognize it).

Yes, many people think their own arguments are the best arguments. this is why verification, proof and facts wins the day.

I'm just wondering if you get that what amounts to "I'm right because I'm right" looks a bit bad unless it was intended as a joke

more like im right because there are multiple proven cases of me being right that i didnt bother to cite because this is a forum discussion where i merely expressed my opinion and not a philosophy research paper. I think you just want me to be wrong and are going to intentionally misinterpret my position in hopes to get me confused.

"Multiple cases where I'm right as determined by me" is pretty much equivalent to "I'm right because I'm right"

You can think that all you want but it's silly to do so. I'm pointing out the absurdity of thinking that declaring yourself right as determined by yourself is supposed to somehow be convincing to anyone and not just evidence of not understanding other people

 

[Strazdas]

Well now there's an argument with impact. You have judged your own cries of censorship as valid. Well then if you agree with your own opinion how can anyone criticize that as an argument.

If it isn't obvious I'm joking about the fact that pretty much anyone would say that about their own arguments thus your judgement of the accuracy of your own arguments is meaningless

Indeed i did. I judged them such because they are describing what is actually an act of censorship. You can criticize my opinions of course, however such criticism can also be pointless and wrong as well. not all criticism is good criticism (which is not to say we should ban bad criticism, just recognize it).

Yes, many people think their own arguments are the best arguments. this is why verification, proof and facts wins the day.

I'm just wondering if you get that what amounts to "I'm right because I'm right" looks a bit bad unless it was intended as a joke

more like im right because there are multiple proven cases of me being right that i didnt bother to cite because this is a forum discussion where i merely expressed my opinion and not a philosophy research paper. I think you just want me to be wrong and are going to intentionally misinterpret my position in hopes to get me confused.

"Multiple cases where I'm right as determined by me" is pretty much equivalent to "I'm right because I'm right"

You can think that all you want but it's silly to do so. I'm pointing out the absurdity of thinking that declaring yourself right as determined by yourself is supposed to somehow be convincing to anyone and not just evidence of not understanding other people

Sigh, why do i even try when dictionaries and facts are just "wrong opinions" to some people. Its like saying somone claiming the earth is round is absurd because he is saying he is right as determined by him.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Well now there's an argument with impact. You have judged your own cries of censorship as valid. Well then if you agree with your own opinion how can anyone criticize that as an argument.

If it isn't obvious I'm joking about the fact that pretty much anyone would say that about their own arguments thus your judgement of the accuracy of your own arguments is meaningless

Indeed i did. I judged them such because they are describing what is actually an act of censorship. You can criticize my opinions of course, however such criticism can also be pointless and wrong as well. not all criticism is good criticism (which is not to say we should ban bad criticism, just recognize it).

Yes, many people think their own arguments are the best arguments. this is why verification, proof and facts wins the day.

I'm just wondering if you get that what amounts to "I'm right because I'm right" looks a bit bad unless it was intended as a joke

more like im right because there are multiple proven cases of me being right that i didnt bother to cite because this is a forum discussion where i merely expressed my opinion and not a philosophy research paper. I think you just want me to be wrong and are going to intentionally misinterpret my position in hopes to get me confused.

"Multiple cases where I'm right as determined by me" is pretty much equivalent to "I'm right because I'm right"

You can think that all you want but it's silly to do so. I'm pointing out the absurdity of thinking that declaring yourself right as determined by yourself is supposed to somehow be convincing to anyone and not just evidence of not understanding other people

Sigh, why do i even try when dictionaries and facts are just "wrong opinions" to some people. Its like saying somone claiming the earth is round is absurd because he is saying he is right as determined by him.

I didn't call anything a wrong opinion so that's a bizarre way to start.

The problem is you didn't show you were correct by definition... you just said you had been correct. Maybe you take things at face value but no reasonable person is going to believe you when they can hardly verify your claim.