One Book Shelf: Censorship Warfare

Recommended Videos

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
Ok, now that the dust has settled.

Secondhand Revenant said:
Right and your proof they find both just as objectionable and only target one due to money is...?

You *claiming* the others are equally objectionable isn't proof btw. That you think they are wouldn't prove that they do.
The bolded part is the point. They don't. Excuse me while I go find proof that DnD-esk things are misogynistic. Didn't think I'd need to since there's an entire trope about it, but oh well...

So if I pointed at every high fantasy thing they sell and point to the misogyny and cried out that it was too soon, that it was encroaching on irl problems, and that those problems tended to turn violent, would they pull them I wonder?

Yes because I am sooooo screwed over by not being able to buy this book I don't want.
Congratulations, the corporations love people like you.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me." -Martin Niemöller

Hope they don't decide to target something you actually care about, that'd be a real shame.


Except you were talking about people who object to businesses discriminating. You said it's because we agree with you that personal feelings should be left out. That's not true. Some of us believe in civil rights and don't worship money. I think your apparent inability to understand this just goes to show how hollow your claims of hypocrisy are. You aren't very good at putting yourself into the mindset of others
Chick-Fil-A never discriminated. They took a side but still served everyone, even walking water out to the protestors so they didn't get dehydrated and heat injuries. Your argument seems to be invalid.

MarsAtlas said:
Question: Why do you care about the business practices of a company that you, presumably, have no financial stake in? You have nothing to lose, after all, and, as far as I can tell, they have no obligation to you. Its somebody else's business, and that comes with the right to run their business into the ground or otherwise not maximize products if you wish to do so. Do you similarly criticize Mom & Pop shops for them making decisions about their business with their personal lifestyle in mind?
It was a supplemental argument for my primary. I don't think a moral high ground should be the reason for a business, who's only purpose in life is to make revenue, to institute a censor. Take a side? Sure, but not deem what is "appropriate" for us to consume. As an added barb I'll throw in a blurb from their own website...

"We continue to create and launch focused marketplaces in areas as diverse as comic books, green living resources, sports training resources, and game books, providing customers with instant access to thousands of selections in their area of interest. With each of our marketplaces, our goal is to bring all publishers' content together in one place. By giving customers a one-stop shopping point for their area of interest, we create a destination site for their interest area." http://www.onebookshelf.com/aboutus.html

Lolk

Something Amyss said:
A store not stocking something isn't banning. That's false equivocation.
The long definition of censorship would seem to disagree.

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is called self-censorship. Censorship may be direct or it may be indirect, in which case it is called soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel."


How often do they cover non-Magic card games? I can think of two articles offhand.
Well, let's see. There's magic, hearthstone, an entire tab dedicated to tabletop stuff, a guide to build a ship from a game out of legos, an irl keyblade that was made, "The Rock's" face being photoshoped on old board game boxes, psychological studies about lines, and an irl meteor exsploding over Bangkok. That's just on the front page today so excuse me if news bout an obscure card game might have a place on a gaming news site.

Can you show me some links to where you criticised them for this, then?

"card/roleplaying game"not stocked" is not a news story.
At every point I made.

But game distributer targeting specific games for censure is.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Sarge034 said:
At every point I made.
Except you didn't actually answer my question. I'm guessing because you didn't criticise those other groups.

Also, seriously? Comparing this to the Nazis? Come now.

Mars covered CFA, so I'm just going to touch this part I missed:

The long definition of censorship would seem to disagree.
The long definition of censorship cuts such a wide path as to make the word functionally useless. We are currently being censored by The Escapist and likely by ourselves right now. We censor ourselves all the time in the real world by choosing not to act on our impulses and whatnot. Society is censorship now.

I guess the question is: so what?
 

Bibilongstocking.

New member
Mar 4, 2015
4
0
0
I agree with censorship in this case, mainly because it isn't

"Tournament Of Rapists". What sick f*** would want something like that. I believe that culture should have limits that are set like they have been here in the court of public opinion. The game hasn't been banned, the company just decided to remove it because 'shock horror' people objected to it. I'm sure anyone who wants it can find it somewhere but I'm glad they made this decision and support it 100%. The only down side to this is that the people upset about this will go back to making death threats towards women who disagree with their POV.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
Right, but its completely transparent that they only removed it because of a customer complaint, rather than having scoured their catalogue for content the owner doesn't want on the site for personal reasons.
Full circle to my point about them needing to act consistently if someone takes offense at the items that actually make them money. If this was just consumer outrage then why hasn't every misogynistic high fantasy thing in the store been pulled? Unless I'm mistaken there's been plenty of outrage about that. And that's my issue with it, you want to pull something because you're a private business fine, but you damn well better act consistently or you're a fucking hypocrite.

But they didn't target a specific game.
See above, in the absence of consistent action any action taken should be viewed as targeted. It's illegal for everyone to j-walk, but we're only going to ticket those damn (insert race here). Games founded in misogyny and insensitivity to recent cultural issues will not be allowed here, unless they make us ass tons of money.
snippity snip sinp
There's no reason to go "OMG its just like Nazi Germany" because a business doesn't stock a product because they think doing so won't make as much money as not stocking it.
Then you miss the whole point of what I'm saying. I'm calling out the hypocrisy and censorship, we don't know the projections on revenue loss over this game but I do know that if it was a decision based on anything other than revenue then it was the wrong decision for a business to make because it would have been a moral decision at that point.

The quote had nothing to do with trying to liken this with Nazis, it's the idea behind it because so many people seem to be ok with this on the grounds that it doesn't affect them. Just showing how well that mindset turns out.

Just for the record, yes, they absolutely did discriminate, and not just towards customers. They openly and proudly participated in hiring and employment discrimination against queer folk wherever it was legal, and publically advocated against LGBT discrimination bans multiple times. They continue that to this day. They've also been sued multiple times for discriminating on the basis of gender and religion. [http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/08/chick-fil-as-history-of-workplace-discrimination.html]
Now you're changing the goal posts. They still serve everyone, which was the closest analog to this situation.

Something Amyss said:
Except you didn't actually answer my question. I'm guessing because you didn't criticise those other groups.
Because there was no question. You asked me to link everywhere I had criticized them, so instead of linking every post I made in this thread I simply said them all. Would you like to pose a question for a response?

Also, seriously? Comparing this to the Nazis? Come now.
It's not about the Nazis, it's about the mindset that "this doesn't affect me so I'm ok with it" which is rather prevalent in this thread. See the idea, not the names, come now.

The long definition of censorship cuts such a wide path as to make the word functionally useless. We are currently being censored by The Escapist and likely by ourselves right now. We censor ourselves all the time in the real world by choosing not to act on our impulses and whatnot. Society is censorship now.
To a degree, but that's irrelevant. Everyone who says this isn't censorship is incorrect, you just admitted as much. This goes above and beyond because they picked very specific item where many violated the same principles they quoted for targeting them. The lack of consistency makes this targeted.

I guess the question is: so what?
Find the meaning this time.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me." -Martin Niemöller