Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

 

I don't think it's a very useful definition then. (Also, typical GGer dogwhistle, which makes me even more hesitant to use the word.)

Its one of those words that are a victim of their ability be used as a bludgeon in discourse. It has too much emotive weight/baggage even though in and of itself is really a neutral concept (the problem is always how it's used and censorship is used every day in a wide variety of forms).

 

 

Quite so.

 

 

It also comes down to consistency. If Obsidian had wanted to develop a game that was as inoffensive as possible then that would have been fine. From what I can see they didn't develop the game with that in mind as the game does feature dark content. 

 

 

...Since when is "dark content" offensive?  :facepalm:

 

 

Occult concepts are very offensive to certain religious groups.  Violence is offensive to some people as well.

 

And, ironically enough, gay people are offensive to some people.

 

I would never want any of this stuff censored, just pointing it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think it's a very useful definition then. (Also, typical GGer dogwhistle, which makes me even more hesitant to use the word.)

Its one of those words that are a victim of their ability be used as a bludgeon in discourse. It has too much emotive weight/baggage even though in and of itself is really a neutral concept (the problem is always how it's used and censorship is used every day in a wide variety of forms).

 

 

Quite so.

 

 

It also comes down to consistency. If Obsidian had wanted to develop a game that was as inoffensive as possible then that would have been fine. From what I can see they didn't develop the game with that in mind as the game does feature dark content. 

 

 

...Since when is "dark content" offensive?  :facepalm:

 

 

How can you not see that some people will find dark content offensive? There are people whom are easily shocked by elements such as those shown in PoE. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

It also comes down to consistency. If Obsidian had wanted to develop a game that was as inoffensive as possible then that would have been fine. From what I can see they didn't develop the game with that in mind as the game does feature dark content. 

 

 

...Since when is "dark content" offensive?  :facepalm:

 

 

How can you not see that some people will find dark content offensive? There are people whom are easily shocked by elements such as those shown in PoE. 

 

 

And I think brushing off concerns of transphobia with "well, the game also has 'dark content' in it, so your complaint is invalid!" is missing the point, to put it lightly. What matters is not whether sensitive subjects are present, but how they're handled.

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

It's all about intention isn't it?  If they remove it prior to release because they felt it wasn't appropriate for their game, then that's editing.  If they remove it after release because it offended someone, then that's censorship.

 

 

Frankly, judging by the fact that the dude couldn't even spell "light", I'd be astonished if it turned out backer submissions were even read at all, much less vetted for appropriateness.

 

 

And you might be right.

 

Regardless though, if they remove something solely on the grounds that it has offended or might offend someone, then it's censorship by definition.

 

Even if they did it pre-release, if they looked at that limerick, and said "this might offend someone, we should take it out," then that's censorship.  Once again, not good or bad, just fits the definition.

 

 

I don't think it's a very useful definition then. (Also, typical GGer dogwhistle, which makes me even more hesitant to use the word.)

 

 

It's not my definition though.  I'm getting it from Wikipedia, but many other sources define it similarly.

 

I know that people have given it a negative stigma, but I think a large part of that is people that reflexively argue that "that's not censorship!" whenever someone accuses something of being censored.  When in reality, it's definitely censorship, but it's not necessarily wrong.

 

 

Words don't have solid definitions, but instead their definition changes from speaker to speaker and from writer to writer.

 

Dictionaries and other word definition instances are invented to catalog those meanings and let people have some ability to have understanding what they speak or write to each other.

 

So when you say that you speak that act of censorship is bad then it would be recommendable to define what you include in that definition. If you borrow somebody else's definition you probably should mention if you have difference of opinion with it or parts of it.

 

But this case don't fit in Wikipedia's definition of censorship because the group of people that ask/demands removing that memorial don't hold any power over Obsidian, meaning that Obsidian is absolute free to decide will they keep memorial, remove or edit it. You could say that it is self censorship, which maybe the case if they don't self feel that it is inappropriate text but edit/remove it in anyway to please people (this is by Wikipedia's definition) or that Obsidian censors backer who submitted it, but that is in my opinion bit far fetched as it is additional content to Obsidian's art work and Obsidian has editorial rights over it, it would be same as claim that moderator here censor us, when they make us to follow forum's rules.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

It's all about intention isn't it?  If they remove it prior to release because they felt it wasn't appropriate for their game, then that's editing.  If they remove it after release because it offended someone, then that's censorship.

 

 

Frankly, judging by the fact that the dude couldn't even spell "light", I'd be astonished if it turned out backer submissions were even read at all, much less vetted for appropriateness.

 

 

And you might be right.

 

Regardless though, if they remove something solely on the grounds that it has offended or might offend someone, then it's censorship by definition.

 

Even if they did it pre-release, if they looked at that limerick, and said "this might offend someone, we should take it out," then that's censorship.  Once again, not good or bad, just fits the definition.

 

 

I don't think it's a very useful definition then. (Also, typical GGer dogwhistle, which makes me even more hesitant to use the word.)

 

 

It's not my definition though.  I'm getting it from Wikipedia, but many other sources define it similarly.

 

I know that people have given it a negative stigma, but I think a large part of that is people that reflexively argue that "that's not censorship!" whenever someone accuses something of being censored.  When in reality, it's definitely censorship, but it's not necessarily wrong.

 

 

Words don't have solid definitions, but instead their definition changes from speaker to speaker and from writer to writer.

 

Dictionaries and other word definition instances are invented to catalog those meanings and let people have some ability to have understanding what they speak or write to each other.

 

So when you say that you speak that act of censorship is bad then it would be recommendable to define what you include in that definition. If you borrow somebody else's definition you probably should mention if you have difference of opinion with it or parts of it.

 

But this case don't fit in Wikipedia's definition of censorship because the group of people that ask/demands removing that memorial don't hold any power over Obsidian, meaning that Obsidian is absolute free to decide will they keep memorial, remove or edit it. You could say that it is self censorship, which maybe the case if they don't self feel that it is inappropriate text but edit/remove it in anyway to please people (this is by Wikipedia's definition) or that Obsidian censors backer who submitted it, but that is in my opinion bit far fetched as it is additional content to Obsidian's art work and Obsidian has editorial rights over it, it would be same as claim that moderator here censor us, when they make us to follow forum's rules.

 

 

This really sounds like a recipe for a lot of meaningless arguments about semantics.

 

It's totally fine to give a word a more specific definition in a certain context, and indeed academics do this all the time...but you NEED To define the word first before using it in a way that goes against the common (dictionary) definition.  If you just say "that's not censorship because of XYZ" but you are going off your own undisclosed personal definition, while the person you are arguing with is going off of the common definition...then what are you even arguing over?

 

A rose is a rose by any other name, but if I start calling a rose a tulip and insisting that tulips are red, then that would be confusing wouldn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

It also comes down to consistency. If Obsidian had wanted to develop a game that was as inoffensive as possible then that would have been fine. From what I can see they didn't develop the game with that in mind as the game does feature dark content. 

 

 

...Since when is "dark content" offensive?  :facepalm:

 

 

How can you not see that some people will find dark content offensive? There are people whom are easily shocked by elements such as those shown in PoE. 

 

 

And I think brushing off concerns of transphobia with "well, the game also has 'dark content' in it, so your complaint is invalid!" is missing the point, to put it lightly. What matters is not whether sensitive subjects are present, but how they're handled.

 

 

Don't strawman my argument. Reread what I wrote and understand that removing the "offensive" joke because of it being offensive to some would be inconsistent with the direction Obsidian took. The [PoE] world features elements that can be seen as offensive, and that is completely fine because the world being represented is not an idyllic world by any means. I don't believe in censoring or otherwise tailoring fictional worlds until they no longer feature nasty elements from the real world.

That stated, this joke is not an example of that. It's a joke in lyrical form.   

People are trying to make it into a uniquely offensive example and thus make it completely fine to remove it. It's a joke and there is no proof whatsoever that it has anything to do with transphobia. Different people can and will interpret that joke differently. People are reading far too much into a simple joke about an obviously silly person. 

 

Also I never claimed the critiscm being raised is invalid. I do however think it is entirely overblown. That people are trying to fight a social justice fight that simply isn't there and that this joke found in a video game is being targeted unnecessarily. 

Ingame characters, literary works etc. can be racist, bigoted, prejudiced and ignorant because they were written to showcase that within that fictional world. There is nothing wrong with that and it doesn't nessecarily showcase the author's views. 

Misconstruing this joke, and indirectly Obsidian, as being tansphobic is borderline smearing and will require far more evidence, than what has been presented thus far, for me to buy into it.  

Edited by ChipMHazard
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Words don't have solid definitions, but instead their definition changes from speaker to speaker and from writer to writer.

 

Dictionaries and other word definition instances are invented to catalog those meanings and let people have some ability to have understanding what they speak or write to each other.

 

So when you say that you speak that act of censorship is bad then it would be recommendable to define what you include in that definition. If you borrow somebody else's definition you probably should mention if you have difference of opinion with it or parts of it.

 

But this case don't fit in Wikipedia's definition of censorship because the group of people that ask/demands removing that memorial don't hold any power over Obsidian, meaning that Obsidian is absolute free to decide will they keep memorial, remove or edit it. You could say that it is self censorship, which maybe the case if they don't self feel that it is inappropriate text but edit/remove it in anyway to please people (this is by Wikipedia's definition) or that Obsidian censors backer who submitted it, but that is in my opinion bit far fetched as it is additional content to Obsidian's art work and Obsidian has editorial rights over it, it would be same as claim that moderator here censor us, when they make us to follow forum's rules.

 

 

This really sounds like a recipe for a lot of meaningless arguments about semantics.

 

It's totally fine to give a word a more specific definition in a certain context, and indeed academics do this all the time...but you NEED To define the word first before using it in a way that goes against the common (dictionary) definition.  If you just say "that's not censorship because of XYZ" but you are going off your own undisclosed personal definition, while the person you are arguing with is going off of the common definition...then what are you even arguing over?

 

A rose is a rose by any other name, but if I start calling a rose a tulip and insisting that tulips are red, then that would be confusing wouldn't it?

 

 

If you read my post again you see that is what I said mostly.

 

In academic context one needs to define every term that they think is important for the academic work at question, even if you use most common definitions that there are, because it is important in academic work that there is as less room as possible for different interpretation of meaning of those terms.

 

Dictionaries are written by authors and those authors have their own world views that dictate them how they construct their work. There are studies done on dictionaries which so that they have bias towards major society culture and certain its sub cultures, causing it that they don't usually reflect well in how minority populations uses of words.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Words don't have solid definitions, but instead their definition changes from speaker to speaker and from writer to writer.

 

Dictionaries and other word definition instances are invented to catalog those meanings and let people have some ability to have understanding what they speak or write to each other.

 

So when you say that you speak that act of censorship is bad then it would be recommendable to define what you include in that definition. If you borrow somebody else's definition you probably should mention if you have difference of opinion with it or parts of it.

 

But this case don't fit in Wikipedia's definition of censorship because the group of people that ask/demands removing that memorial don't hold any power over Obsidian, meaning that Obsidian is absolute free to decide will they keep memorial, remove or edit it. You could say that it is self censorship, which maybe the case if they don't self feel that it is inappropriate text but edit/remove it in anyway to please people (this is by Wikipedia's definition) or that Obsidian censors backer who submitted it, but that is in my opinion bit far fetched as it is additional content to Obsidian's art work and Obsidian has editorial rights over it, it would be same as claim that moderator here censor us, when they make us to follow forum's rules.

 

 

This really sounds like a recipe for a lot of meaningless arguments about semantics.

 

It's totally fine to give a word a more specific definition in a certain context, and indeed academics do this all the time...but you NEED To define the word first before using it in a way that goes against the common (dictionary) definition.  If you just say "that's not censorship because of XYZ" but you are going off your own undisclosed personal definition, while the person you are arguing with is going off of the common definition...then what are you even arguing over?

 

A rose is a rose by any other name, but if I start calling a rose a tulip and insisting that tulips are red, then that would be confusing wouldn't it?

 

 

If you read my post again you see that is what I said mostly.

 

In academic context one needs to define every term that they think is important for the academic work at question, even if you use most common definitions that there are, because it is important in academic work that there is as less room as possible for different interpretation of meaning of those terms.

 

Dictionaries are written by authors and those authors have their own world views that dictate them how they construct their work. There are studies done on dictionaries which so that they have bias towards major society culture and certain its sub cultures, causing it that they don't usually reflect well in how minority populations uses of words.

 

 

Ah I see, my fault...my eyes are strained so I think I'm missing things lol :).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

People are trying to make it into a uniquely offensive example and thus make it completely fine to remove it. It's a joke and there is no proof whatsoever that it has anything to do with transphobia. Different people can and will interpret that joke differently. 

 

 

...And you don't think that trans people may be better suited to judging whether a transphobic joke is indeed transphobic or not?

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

People are trying to make it into a uniquely offensive example and thus make it completely fine to remove it. It's a joke and there is no proof whatsoever that it has anything to do with transphobia. Different people can and will interpret that joke differently. 

 

 

...And you don't think that trans people may be better suited to judging whether a transphobic joke is indeed transphobic or not?

 

 

I would agree with this.

 

But I would also think that a priest is well qualified to determine what is offensive to religious people, a 45 year old soccer mom is well qualified to determine what's offensive to mothers, yet I wouldn't want them removing offensive content everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, a few hours pass and this thread spirals.

 

This isn't about semantics.  That's not a helpful rabbit hole to go down.

 

This is a no brainer.  A backer (not even a writer for the game) put in problematic content that somehow got by the vetting.  The solution is simple: remove the epitaph.  It adds nothing to the game.  Obsidian's artistic voice isn't being censored by its removal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, a few hours pass and this thread spirals.

 

This isn't about semantics.  That's not a helpful rabbit hole to go down.

 

This is a no brainer.  A backer (not even a writer for the game) put in problematic content that somehow got by the vetting.  The solution is simple: remove the epitaph.  It adds nothing to the game.  Obsidian's artistic voice isn't being censored by its removal.

 

I am offended by presence of witchcraft and other occult elements in the game.  Can I get those removed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

People are trying to make it into a uniquely offensive example and thus make it completely fine to remove it. It's a joke and there is no proof whatsoever that it has anything to do with transphobia. Different people can and will interpret that joke differently. 

 

 

...And you don't think that trans people may be better suited to judging whether a transphobic joke is indeed transphobic or not?

 

 

So what if some do find it offensive? Do you speak for all those [transgender] that don't? This is just another silly fallacy. 

Alot of people find alot of different things offensive. That doesn't mean that forms of media has to conform to their wishes. 

Edited by ChipMHazard
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

People are trying to make it into a uniquely offensive example and thus make it completely fine to remove it. It's a joke and there is no proof whatsoever that it has anything to do with transphobia. Different people can and will interpret that joke differently. 

 

 

...And you don't think that trans people may be better suited to judging whether a transphobic joke is indeed transphobic or not?

 

 

I would agree with this.

 

But I would also think that a priest is well qualified to determine what is offensive to religious people, a 45 year old soccer mom is well qualified to determine what's offensive to mothers, yet I wouldn't want them removing offensive content everywhere.

 

 

Except, y'know, when priests or soccer moms voice their concerns over content being offensive to their peer group, the internet hate mob doesn't descend on them and dig through their facebook photos to mock them for not being feminine enough, which is a thing that happened to the person who complained about the limerick. Or so I've heard.

 

But, y'know, transphobia totally isn't real.

Edited by aluminiumtrioxid
  • Like 1

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

People are trying to make it into a uniquely offensive example and thus make it completely fine to remove it. It's a joke and there is no proof whatsoever that it has anything to do with transphobia. Different people can and will interpret that joke differently. 

 

 

...And you don't think that trans people may be better suited to judging whether a transphobic joke is indeed transphobic or not?

 

 

I would agree with this.

 

But I would also think that a priest is well qualified to determine what is offensive to religious people, a 45 year old soccer mom is well qualified to determine what's offensive to mothers, yet I wouldn't want them removing offensive content everywhere.

 

 

Except, y'know, when priests or soccer moms voice their concerns over content being offensive to their peer group, the internet hate mob doesn't descend on them and dig through their facebook photos to mock them for not being feminine enough, which is a thing that happened to the person who complained about the limerick. Or so I've heard.

 

 

What does that have to do with anything?  I mean, it sucks sure, I don't endorse it, but it's completely irrelevant to whether the joke should be removed or not isn't it?

 

I mean, Jack Thompson was harassed, did that give any credence to his argument?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People are trying to make it into a uniquely offensive example and thus make it completely fine to remove it. It's a joke and there is no proof whatsoever that it has anything to do with transphobia. Different people can and will interpret that joke differently. 

 

 

...And you don't think that trans people may be better suited to judging whether a transphobic joke is indeed transphobic or not?

 

 

I would agree with this.

 

But I would also think that a priest is well qualified to determine what is offensive to religious people, a 45 year old soccer mom is well qualified to determine what's offensive to mothers, yet I wouldn't want them removing offensive content everywhere.

 

 

Except, y'know, when priests or soccer moms voice their concerns over content being offensive to their peer group, the internet hate mob doesn't descend on them and dig through their facebook photos to mock them for not being feminine enough, which is a thing that happened to the person who complained about the limerick. Or so I've heard.

 

 

What does that have to do with anything?  I mean, it sucks sure, I don't endorse it, but it's completely irrelevant to whether the joke should be removed or not isn't it?

 

 

It's a very specific gendered sort of harrassment that kind of proves her point (ie. transphobia generally being a thing), which is where the difference from, say, Jack Thompson lies.

  • Like 1

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wow, a few hours pass and this thread spirals.

 

This isn't about semantics.  That's not a helpful rabbit hole to go down.

 

This is a no brainer.  A backer (not even a writer for the game) put in problematic content that somehow got by the vetting.  The solution is simple: remove the epitaph.  It adds nothing to the game.  Obsidian's artistic voice isn't being censored by its removal.

 

I am offended by presence of witchcraft and other occult elements in the game.  Can I get those removed?

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.  Look up "false equivalency."

 

Maybe try to see something from someone else's shoes instead of just dismissing outright?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

People are trying to make it into a uniquely offensive example and thus make it completely fine to remove it. It's a joke and there is no proof whatsoever that it has anything to do with transphobia. Different people can and will interpret that joke differently. 

 

 

...And you don't think that trans people may be better suited to judging whether a transphobic joke is indeed transphobic or not?

 

 

I would agree with this.

 

But I would also think that a priest is well qualified to determine what is offensive to religious people, a 45 year old soccer mom is well qualified to determine what's offensive to mothers, yet I wouldn't want them removing offensive content everywhere.

 

 

Except, y'know, when priests or soccer moms voice their concerns over content being offensive to their peer group, the internet hate mob doesn't descend on them and dig through their facebook photos to mock them for not being feminine enough, which is a thing that happened to the person who complained about the limerick. Or so I've heard.

 

But, y'know, transphobia totally isn't real.

 

 

So what? What does that have to do with this discussion and the validity of your complaint? Stop throwing around fallacies as if there was a clearing sale. 

Be mad at those that harassed the person whom originally raised his/her opinion. This discussion has nothing to do with that. 

Edited by ChipMHazard
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

People are trying to make it into a uniquely offensive example and thus make it completely fine to remove it. It's a joke and there is no proof whatsoever that it has anything to do with transphobia. Different people can and will interpret that joke differently. 

 

 

...And you don't think that trans people may be better suited to judging whether a transphobic joke is indeed transphobic or not?

 

 

I would agree with this.

 

But I would also think that a priest is well qualified to determine what is offensive to religious people, a 45 year old soccer mom is well qualified to determine what's offensive to mothers, yet I wouldn't want them removing offensive content everywhere.

 

 

Except, y'know, when priests or soccer moms voice their concerns over content being offensive to their peer group, the internet hate mob doesn't descend on them and dig through their facebook photos to mock them for not being feminine enough, which is a thing that happened to the person who complained about the limerick. Or so I've heard.

 

But, y'know, transphobia totally isn't real.

 

Which hate mob are we talking about? The one that sends death threats to people and attempt character assassinations? Or the hate mob that sends death threats to people and attempt character assassinations?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wow, a few hours pass and this thread spirals.

 

This isn't about semantics.  That's not a helpful rabbit hole to go down.

 

This is a no brainer.  A backer (not even a writer for the game) put in problematic content that somehow got by the vetting.  The solution is simple: remove the epitaph.  It adds nothing to the game.  Obsidian's artistic voice isn't being censored by its removal.

 

I am offended by presence of witchcraft and other occult elements in the game.  Can I get those removed?

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.  Look up "false equivalency."

 

Maybe try to see something from someone else's shoes instead of just dismissing outright?

 

 

Isn't that what I'm doing?

Instead of just seeing it from the trans communities point of view, I'm trying to see the removal of offensive material from a general point of view and be fair to everyone.

 

My question is why is one person being offended more valid than another person being offended?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So what if some do find it offensive? Do you speak for all those [transgender] that don't? This is just another silly fallacy. 

Alot of people find alot of different things offensive. That doesn't mean that forms of media has to conform to their wishes. 

 

 

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

Also, you should be legally forbidden from ever using the word "fallacy" until you learn what they are and why is it useful to have a working knowledge of them  :rolleyes:

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People are trying to make it into a uniquely offensive example and thus make it completely fine to remove it. It's a joke and there is no proof whatsoever that it has anything to do with transphobia. Different people can and will interpret that joke differently. 

 

 

...And you don't think that trans people may be better suited to judging whether a transphobic joke is indeed transphobic or not?

 

 

I would agree with this.

 

But I would also think that a priest is well qualified to determine what is offensive to religious people, a 45 year old soccer mom is well qualified to determine what's offensive to mothers, yet I wouldn't want them removing offensive content everywhere.

 

 

Except, y'know, when priests or soccer moms voice their concerns over content being offensive to their peer group, the internet hate mob doesn't descend on them and dig through their facebook photos to mock them for not being feminine enough, which is a thing that happened to the person who complained about the limerick. Or so I've heard.

 

 

What does that have to do with anything?  I mean, it sucks sure, I don't endorse it, but it's completely irrelevant to whether the joke should be removed or not isn't it?

 

 

It's a very specific gendered sort of harrassment that kind of proves her point (ie. transphobia generally being a thing), which is where the difference from, say, Jack Thompson lies.

 

 

Okay so how about this.

 

I'm Jewish, the stereotypes that modern Jewish jokes are based on essentially formed arguments that led to the murder of 6 million Jews.  IE Jews are greedy, Jews have lots of money, Jews are deceptive etc. etc.

 

Yet I would not want them to be censored because I know that a joke is not the same as actual hate speech.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...