Something has been censored. Let's get to those two obligatory statements.

[Dragonlayer]

I love that the only reason this thread exists is for the two sides from the Games Industry Discussion forum to passive-aggressively snark each other to death in their never-ending war over semantics.

And by "love", I of course mean "am horribly depressed".

Still, odd that Steven Universe is being cleansed of its "inappropriate" material in the UK of all places, I'd have thought we were pretty tolerant when it came to cartoons in this day and age.

I think you've pretty much encapsulated the last year of vaguely controversial threads.

Well done.

I too am surprised that they'd alter the material, but, then, it's Cameron's UK. Porking your bacon is acceptable; cartoons kissing is not.

I'm deeply ashamed the Escapist has fallen so low that I can so neatly summarize an entire year's worth of user content. And while I applaud your zinger, I'm still not sure there's that much of a moral minority for this kind of thing to appeal to. I don't doubt there are homophobes of course, but enough for the cartoon folks to start censoring stuff?

 

[Something Amyss]

If you're under a contractual obligation not to publish elsewhere or not to self-publish, then yes. Because contracts have state backing.

That's a pretty bizarre line for me.

It's still an opt-in scenario. Which, by the way, is technically censorship in the sense that posting here is censorship because we've agreed to terms of use.But as it pertains to any serious discussion on an issue that needs to be fixed? I disagree.

When you agree to produce content for someone that meets certain criteria, then you are obligated to meet those criteria. Depending on the nature of the agreement, that could include them shelving your product, asking you to edit it, or even editing it on your behalf.

Your work, your art, is only truly yours until you enter into some sort of business relationship, unless that relationship still gives you creative control. Artists should/do understand this going in. You have signed away some of your rights as a creator for money. That the government can then enforce this does not make it an issue.

As far as a baseline?

But hey, in the interests of clarity, let's all play a little mental game.

Can I just briefly summarise the issue that is of concern to me, or are the questions strictly necessary?

Censorship can take many forms. It even includes the dreaded "self-censorship," which most of us do all the time. It's part of living in society. We--most of us, anyway--understand that the things we say and do have repercussions beyond us.

The problem should come in when we are denied any venue to speak/publish/whatever. For this to truly be an issue, it should not be something you yourself have opted into, unless that was done under duress or otherwise illegally. For these intents and purposes, even if you want your book to come out, you're not being censored if the book you signed an exclusivity deal over ends up being shelved rather than published. If you of your own free will sign something giving them that kind of control, the editor and publisher is within an acceptable right to not publish it.

Such a situation is worsened if it is legally punishable. This is why people focus on governments, because few other bodies have the capacity to do this.

As perhaps an example more relevant to this site would go, if the Freedonia ratings board refuses certification of a video game, thus legally preventing its sale (Freedonia has laws explicitly forbidding the sale of unrated games, you see), that's censorship. If a game company decides not to sell their game in Freedonia, that's their choice. But it ain't, for these intents and purposes, censorship.

The former is a scenario that should not happen. The latter may be a scenario I don't want to happen, but that's a different story.

By the way, you should have the legal right to protest such a decision, boycott the company that does it, etc. This is frequently called "bullying" or "censorship" when done to a body someone likes, but "free market" and "free speech" when done to a body they don't. Which always disappoints me, because I can agree with Westboro Baptist or Phil Robertson or Chick Fil-a's right to hate me all they want, and we've got people arguing whether or not their recreational toys are being censored based not on principle but on whether or not they personally like the people/politics involved.

If you would still like those questions answered, I can do that. But I think this establishes a more concrete idea of what I'm talking about than those situations can.

[
"Overt" does not mean "overly", which is what you seem to be confusing the term with.

It's clear from their context they mean "openly, explicitly," which falls into the definition of overtly.

 

[NiPah]

I see a few people in this thread saying BY DEFINITION a lot, insisting on using strict definitions/technical definitions of a word, which I think can derail a conversation about these kinds of things, because these definitions are often too broad to be of any real use, as others in this thread have stated. Even though not all censorship could be considered bad/immoral, the word itself has a negative bias attached to it, which needs to be taken into account when discussing these issues.

It's not strict definitions or technical definitions, it's the definition of the word and when someone is misusing it they're incorrect. They're not bringing up the negative bias or the impact different types of censorship have, they're downright misusing a word and should be corrected.

Honestly I don't give a shit if some people think the definition is too broad, that's the definition, just because some people have a misunderstanding of what it means doesn't mean someone is derailing the conversation when they correct their inaccuracy.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

I see a few people in this thread saying BY DEFINITION a lot, insisting on using strict definitions/technical definitions of a word, which I think can derail a conversation about these kinds of things, because these definitions are often too broad to be of any real use, as others in this thread have stated. Even though not all censorship could be considered bad/immoral, the word itself has a negative bias attached to it, which needs to be taken into account when discussing these issues.

It's not strict definitions or technical definitions, it's the definition of the word and when someone is misusing it they're incorrect. They're not bringing up the negative bias or the impact different types of censorship have, they're downright misusing a word and should be corrected.

Honestly I don't give a shit if some people think the definition is too broad, that's the definition, just because some people have a misunderstanding of what it means doesn't mean someone is derailing the conversation when they correct their inaccuracy.

Language evolves, definitions of words change over time based on common usage and other factors. Many atheists insist that atheism means a lack of theism, so all agnostics are atheists, but this ignores how the word has been used and what the word has come to mean. Sure, you're using the technical definition of censorship (don't deny that's what you're doing), but you are ignoring other factors such as the context of the word. Language isn't as strict as you think it is.

 

[NiPah]

You know the Steven Universe thing?

Yes, I do.

Well, it's time to hear those dumb statements people make that show they don't understand what censorship actually is.

You know the ones:

"It's only censorship when the government does it."

When this statement was first originated, it was usually followed up with "Because the people would never censor each other, they're not total idiots."

"Nobody is trying to take your "X" away."

This is bullshit and even the people who are saying it know it's a paper thin shield at best.

BarryMcCoiner, I believe in specificity of language. I think we need to define censorship very strictly in order for the word to have any meaning, because if we don't, it simply means, "A bad thing bad people do which is bad because it's bad;" circular reasoning which robs the term of any use as a condemnatory. If you want to use the word to criticize Cartoon Network, then you really are going to define the term as you want it to be used, to establish why it is a bad thing for a private company to have the right to decide what content it wants to air, and why a creator who uses that network as a platform should have greater say over what the network will air than the network itself does.

Now, to be clear, I disagree with the choice to not show the lesbian scene. Lesbianism is not something kids need to be protected from, and to hell with any parents who disagree. But Cartoon Network is within its rights to do as they have done.

I'm not following this, are you saying this is not censorship until he establishes why this is a bad thing ect. ect.? I could be wrong but he just said he's tired of people not calling this censorship (which it is). That has nothing to do with censorship, unless I missed that caveat in the dictionary.

Also that's the exact opposite of specificity of language, that's changing the definition of a word on a whim due to perceived public opinion.

 

[inmunitas]

I see a few people in this thread saying BY DEFINITION a lot, insisting on using strict definitions/technical definitions of a word, which I think can derail a conversation about these kinds of things, because these definitions are often too broad to be of any real use, as others in this thread have stated. Even though not all censorship could be considered bad/immoral, the word itself has a negative bias attached to it, which needs to be taken into account when discussing these issues.

It's not strict definitions or technical definitions, it's the definition of the word and when someone is misusing it they're incorrect. They're not bringing up the negative bias or the impact different types of censorship have, they're downright misusing a word and should be corrected.

Honestly I don't give a shit if some people think the definition is too broad, that's the definition, just because some people have a misunderstanding of what it means doesn't mean someone is derailing the conversation when they correct their inaccuracy.

Language evolves, definitions of words change over time based on common usage and other factors.

Yes, and dictionaries also evolve and update to reflect that, so your point is moot.

 

[NiPah]

Spoiler

I see a few people in this thread saying BY DEFINITION a lot, insisting on using strict definitions/technical definitions of a word, which I think can derail a conversation about these kinds of things, because these definitions are often too broad to be of any real use, as others in this thread have stated. Even though not all censorship could be considered bad/immoral, the word itself has a negative bias attached to it, which needs to be taken into account when discussing these issues.

It's not strict definitions or technical definitions, it's the definition of the word and when someone is misusing it they're incorrect. They're not bringing up the negative bias or the impact different types of censorship have, they're downright misusing a word and should be corrected.

Honestly I don't give a shit if some people think the definition is too broad, that's the definition, just because some people have a misunderstanding of what it means doesn't mean someone is derailing the conversation when they correct their inaccuracy.

Language evolves, definitions of words change over time based on common usage and other factors. Many atheists insist that atheism means a lack of theism, so all agnostics are atheists, but this ignores how the word has been used and what the word has come to mean. Sure, you're using the technical definition of censorship (don't deny that's what you're doing), but you are ignoring other factors such as the context of the word. Language isn't as strict as you think it is.

I'm using the definition and correcting people when they're misusing the word, I'm not getting into the context because that has no impact on the definition. Language does evolve over time, that's why the Oxford dictionary added over 1,000 new words last year, I'm not going to follow the whims of some people I don't even agree with.

Looking at the dictionary (because it's pretty handy when you want to know what a word means)
Athism:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Agnostic:
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
So you've proved that some people (likely with ulterior motives) misuse a word, kindof like the people saying this isn't censorship, both great examples of the misinformed spreading misinformation.

 

[Worgen]

This isn't censorship, it's just a localization. Everybody knows only the government can censor, this is just a decission taken by a private corporation in order to avoid alienating half of its fanbase.

Anyways, none of this matters. Nobody would've watched that episode anyways (Wow, the amount of arguments I'll be able to recycle for this thread from R&P and GiD is astonishingly long)

Actually steven universe is pretty popular. The weirdest thing about it is that the show already has identified several "lesbian" couples in it. (I don't think the gems really have genders so much) So what the English version cut out is rather strange. I wonder how they handled several other scenes like this edited one.

 

[JimB]

Are you saying this is not censorship until he establishes why this is a bad thing, etc, etc?

I am saying that if he wants the word to serve to condemn Cartoon Network's choice for localizing the program and to condemn anyone who disagrees with him, then he needs to provide a definition for the word that clearly lays out how Cartoon Network is in the moral wrong and why. Without that, all he's saying is, "Censorship is bad because censorship is bad, and people who disagree are stupid because censorship is bad." In a discussion about the definition of words, you gotta lay out the groundwork.

Also, that's the exact opposite of specificity of language; that's changing the definition of a word on a whim due to perceived public opinion.

Words do not have objective meanings, at least in countries in which there is no government agency defining words for us. They are defined by popular use, which means they are inherently subjective. There is nothing wrong with him explaining the concept he's using the word "censorship" to describe, nor with me saying I reject many definitions as being broad to the point of uselessness, so long as we both express clearly and in good faith what definitions we're working with and why.

 

[verdant monkai]

You realise this is just making the show less sexual right? IT's for kids people. KIDS.

Just because its homosexuality doesn't mean it should be praised and given a platform. People seem to forget its just a sexual preference, and seem to want to make it some all encompassing lifestyle. When I was a kid I didn't want to see anything kiss anything else I hated love stories. Kids don't want to see anything related to love they want to see adventures and shit.

As soon as a show gains internet popularity it attracts all the monsters of the internet, people who demand anything but white males, people who make bizarre porn and people who draw the characters soiling themselves.

Just because you want a show to be more progressive shouldn't give you the right to expose children to adult content of any nature gay or straight.

 

[NiPah]

Are you saying this is not censorship until he establishes why this is a bad thing, etc, etc?

I am saying that if he wants the word to serve to condemn Cartoon Network's choice for localizing the program and to condemn anyone who disagrees with him, then he needs to provide a definition for the word that clearly lays out how Cartoon Network is in the moral wrong and why. Without that, all he's saying is, "Censorship is bad because censorship is bad, and people who disagree are stupid because censorship is bad." In a discussion about the definition of words, you gotta lay out the groundwork.

He never mentioned condemnation, just that a lot of people are going to post who don't understand what censorship is, and that their arguments will be weak.
Honestly I'd agree, your post showed a lack of understanding what censorship is and had a weak argument to back up why we should change the established definition.

Also, that's the exact opposite of specificity of language; that's changing the definition of a word on a whim due to perceived public opinion.

Words do not have objective meanings, at least in countries in which there is no government agency defining words for us. They are defined by popular use, which means they are inherently subjective. There is nothing wrong with him explaining the concept he's using the word "censorship" to describe, nor with me saying I reject many definitions as being broad to the point of uselessness, so long as we both express clearly and in good faith what definitions we're working with and why.

He's using the established definition as found in the English dictionary and you're changing the definition on a whim to fit your ulterior motives. You made up a definition that isn't even a definition but a statement of intent and impact, it is a useless and irrelevant. You speak of specificity of language, this is nothing of the sort.

 

[Areloch]

I guess people forget that words have specific definitions so that when someone uses a word, everyone can understand what that word is supposed to mean?

If we're just going to handwave definitions out of convenience, then comprehending what someone is saying gets a LOT harder if they just decide to randomly use a word inappropriately and everyone else is supposed to 'keep up'.

I'd imagine no one in this thread would comply if I decided that the definition for 'sailboat' was "a thing that sails through the air". And if I kept using MY definition of the word regardless of everyone else's understanding of what sailboat meant, no one would have any idea what I'm talking about.

So in the interests of ensuring people can actually communicate properly, settling on a definition for a word is important. If everyone settings on a NEW definition, then hey, cool. But an agreed upon definition is critical for being able to actually communicate, and if a definition is to change, a compelling reason needs to be put forward besides "a few people on the internet used it that way".

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

You can't take the Gay out of Steven Universe, that's like....75% of the show [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEJvCQ7QZEo]. Remove the overlaying lesbian tones and all you're left with is various inter-cut reaction shots of Steven making a face.

That's the most baffling thing about this whole business. This isn't the only display of '''''queer behaviour''''' in the show and it's not even the most overt or sexualised. Pretty much any time fusion is shown, it's usually somewhat sexualised (Exhibits A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwb2y51L4oE&ab_channel=CartoonNetwork] and B [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7aZ5pdtsLw&ab_channel=Amethyst7776]). I think the reason Ruby and Sapphire's relationship isn't hit with the same sort of shit is because Ruby has a masculine enough character design to be passed off as 'male', while Sapphire is feminine, so the whole thing is mistaken for something more traditionally heterosexual, dumb as that is.

 

[K12]

Saying "This isn't technically censorship" is not equivalent to saying "this is nothing to worry about".

The reason people feel the need to make the distinction is that too many people use this argument:

1) All censorship is a breach of freedom of expression/ freedom of speech and therefore is bad.
2) This situation is a type of censorship.
3) Therefore this is bad.

People use this argument to make it seem like accepted the decision in question means that they have to be against the concept of freedom of speech (or similar) and it often doesn't fit. The first and second points are using censorship differently. The first use is making the expression of certain ideas illegal, it is an attempt to suppress an idea or piece of information outright. The second colloquial type is preventing someone from saying or doing something in a given context, this doesn't prevent them from expressing their idea it only means they can't express in the place/time/way they are currently doing it.

This can be good or bad depending on the context and different people will reach different conclusions. Banning someone from giving a lecture about how the holocaust never happened would totally acceptable censorship but a store refusing to stock Harry Potter because it encourages witchcraft is bad... it's their right to do it but it's a fucking stupid decision.

Unfortunately I don't know whether I consider this situation is acceptable or not because the OP seems to assume that everyone already knows.

 

[JimB]

He never mentioned condemnation, just that a lot of people are going to post who don't understand what censorship is, and that their arguments will be weak.

When BarryMcCociner talks about dumb people spouting bullshit, he is clearly angry that people would have the temerity to disagree with him; and since his post does not attempt to clarify to the people who disagree with him what his meaning is, he is not interested in actually helping anyone understand. He's just mad and wants to tell people how dumb they are. I do not think I am overstepping my bounds to say his anger implies condemnation of everything he's discussing.

He's using the established definition as found in the English dictionary and you're changing the definition on a whim to fit your ulterior motives.

Yes, I am. Thank you for reminding me that I am doing the thing I already explicitly said I am doing. Although the part of the post where I explained what I am doing is actually quoted in your post, I had indeed forgotten that it is exactly what I am doing.

You made up a definition that isn't even a definition but a statement of intent and impact; it is useless and irrelevant.

No, I did not. I have not defined the word one bit; I have only laid out the criteria by which I think we must define the word in order for it to continue to be useful in labeling behavior which needs to be decried. The closest I have come to defining it is giving my understanding of how BarryMcCociner is using the word.

 

[JimB]

Just because its homosexuality doesn't mean it should be praised and given a platform. People seem to forget it's just a sexual preference.

But of course heterosexuality isn't a sexual preference, which is why no children's show ever displays evidence of heterosexual behavior.

Just because you want a show to be more progressive shouldn't give you the right to expose children to adult content of any nature, gay or straight.

Yes, dancing is so very adult. That's why the ending dance scene of every episode of Mickey Mouse Playhouse is mosaic-censored.

I mean Jesus Christ, dude. It's two women slowly dancing. You make it sound like Ruby and Sapphire are elbow-deep in each other's pussies.

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

You realise this is just making the show less sexual right? IT's for kids people. KIDS.

Just because its homosexuality doesn't mean it should be praised and given a platform. People seem to forget its just a sexual preference, and seem to want to make it some all encompassing lifestyle. When I was a kid I didn't want to see anything kiss anything else I hated love stories. Kids don't want to see anything related to love they want to see adventures and shit.

As soon as a show gains internet popularity it attracts all the monsters of the internet, people who demand anything but white males, people who make bizarre porn and people who draw the characters soiling themselves.

Just because you want a show to be more progressive shouldn't give you the right to expose children to adult content of any nature gay or straight.

The thing is, that scene isn't any more 'sexualised' than some [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwb2y51L4oE&ab_channel=CartoonNetwork] other [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7aZ5pdtsLw&ab_channel=Amethyst7776] scenes [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXshZPANfRM&ab_channel=CupKayes] earlier in the series and don't really recall those scenes getting the axe. Frankly, those scenes are about as close to 'sexualised' as the show gets and none of it is particularly 'explicit' or 'adult'.

Also, as an aside: just because there's homosexuality present, doesn't mean it's being 'given a platform' or praised. The show treats homosexual relationships the same way it treats heterosexual ones, and is more concerned with teaching lessons about having healthy relationships with people and never once does the show praise one type over any other.

EDIT:

I mean Jesus Christ, dude. It's two women slowly dancing. You make it sound like Ruby and Sapphire are elbow-deep in each other's pussies.

That is easily the most majestic thing I've read in this thread.

 

[JimB]

I mean Jesus Christ, dude. It's two women slowly dancing. You make it sound like Ruby and Sapphire are elbow-deep in each other's pussies.

That is easily the most majestic thing I've read in this thread.

Just in this thread? Tsk, that's disappointing. I had my sights aimed a bit higher, honestly. I was going for "most majestic thing you've ever heard not spoken by Queen Elizabeth."

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

I mean Jesus Christ, dude. It's two women slowly dancing. You make it sound like Ruby and Sapphire are elbow-deep in each other's pussies.

That is easily the most majestic thing I've read in this thread.

Just in this thread? Tsk, that's disappointing. I had my sights aimed a bit higher, honestly. I was going for "most majestic thing you've ever heard not spoken by Queen Elizabeth."

Nah, sorry. You would have had to have said something like 'Ruby and Sapphire crushing so much alien rock puss they end up neck deep in clunge-gravel'.

 

[JimB]

I mean Jesus Christ, dude. It's two women slowly dancing. You make it sound like Ruby and Sapphire are elbow-deep in each other's pussies.

That is easily the most majestic thing I've read in this thread.

Just in this thread? Tsk, that's disappointing. I had my sights aimed a bit higher, honestly. I was going for "most majestic thing you've ever heard not spoken by Queen Elizabeth."

Nah, sorry. You would have had to have said something like 'Ruby and Sapphire crushing so much alien rock puss they end up neck deep in clunge-gravel.'

Oh, see, there's the problem, then. I don't know enough about precious gemstones to guess what material or quality they have that would be equivalent to vaginal lubricant. Failure of knowledge on my part, really.