The currently nameless thread

+
The currently nameless thread

(DB: Posts moved across from another thread, hence it starts mid-conversation)

I must have missed something. What is politically correct(ed) here?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I must have missed something. What is politically correct(ed) here?

I suppose he means the general atmosphere around the games industry these days. You know, the SJW hypocrisy and other such stuff that are running rampant (and which so far have been pleasantly relatively absent in this board).
 
Last edited:
 
Last edited:
I'm so fed up of this politically correct BS, let them tell and design the story they want. Politically correctness is an enemy of freedom

Not only an enemy but some folks go as far was wanting to revise history texts to be "Politically Correct" rather then factual (or at least reasonably so) as they are now.
 
Last edited:
Yep, the same people trying to find excuse to ban games like "Hatred" because THEY don't think it's a game "that people should play".
bunch of "fascists with a smile".

Ties have been reported of the makers of the game to fascist polish organizations... and it's not like videogames, as much as movies or books don't have subtexts that can be read and they can clash with people's political views, and the game has some symbolic uses of references that do have a stench of fascism in them, like the choice of words for the internal monologue "genocide crusade" or how this very monologue seems to revolve around a misguided nostalgia or a belief that the world is decadent now and that people are "worms feeding on its carcass" (this is a symbol, the world is a dead carcass, hence it was better now... what makes it not be as good now?). Gamers are petitioning GOG and other distributors not to sell the game, but they aren't enforcing it with laws, force or anything and I think most won't withdraw support from these stores even if they decide to sell it. Can't people be outraged when, say, a sector of the catholic church wants to put a modern book preaching that women should be submissive to men (this happened in my country a couple of years ago), or a book that exalts Hitler or supposedly scientific research that "prooves" that some races are intellectualy inferior to others, and petition that bookstores don't give this book support, that they don't accept it on their shelves, without being called fascists? They're not instilling terror into anyone, they're not giving the fear of god to anyone, they're not using force, they're just saying "I will be deeply disappointed if you give a voice to this kind of hate speech". What about extreme-left university students that boycott speeches by conservative spokesmen that are invited to their universities? Are they also fascists? What if instead of 'Hatred' it was this crappy game called 'Ethnic cleansing' that was subjected to diverging opinions and polls on if it should or should not see a re-release in these stores? Would it be fascist if people wanted the people behind these stores to know how many people oppose this?

The irony that enforcers of "freedom of speech" have to deal with, is that they have to defend the right to speech of those that have proven that, when in power, they would not have the same deference to them. They can only hope that people be critical of all that, but since a lot of those speeches are mere mind-masturbation, serving the only purpose of self-justification and self-conviction, you can't just hope that everyone will be.

And there's also the case of those who claim to be censored when they demand that a politically sided anouncement be placed on a given media, a given tv channel, a given newspaper... who belongs to someone who decides the editorial orientation of said media.
 
Last edited:

I'm just trying to play devils' advocate as much as you are. In fact, if someone confronted me with some of the arguments that I have used I would have proposed alternatives like: "maybe the monologue is so childish, so cartoonish, that it's more appliable. Maybe misanthropy is less politiziced".

Where I'm trying to get is that a lot of people that are talking about censorship don't seem to know what actual censorship is.

[SARD EDIT: Busy censoring, don't mind me.]

If stores exercised their legitimate right to do whatever they pleased with the game, sell it or not, it wouldn't be a matter of censorship or not, especially in our day and age. How exactly would it impede the game's distribution if the developers were to find themselves alone in the distribution of the game? It's digital. They open channels for payment, give the e-mail accounts associated with the purchase the ability to download a DRM-free copy of the game and that's it. Is relegating something to obscurity censorship? Then maybe I should call censorship on game stores that decided they wouldn't bring more than a handful of copies of Muramasa, censorship in the name of popularity and consumption, because what colored this decission was that they chose in advance that people would not be interested in this game. Maybe we could say it's also censorship when they decide for us that they won't localize a game because they've already decided we wouldn't be interested.

Back to freedom of speech being proportional to people's economic power. I think I previously may have hinted out that this works in a way that if you can buy a media, a tv channel, a newspaper... you have more freedom of speech, and more reach than other people who can't. Okay, first, this may call for a less macro, more micro scale to look at it honestly. The owner or even the editorial of one of these doesn't do all the writing, right? They have journalists employed. What if one of these jornalists were to stumble upon important information that he or she feels has to be known by the readers, but this information, or the article that gets it through is critical of whatever the editorial upholds OR of an announcer? The editorial will most likely do one of these two or both: they buy the article so that it doesn't see the light of day anywhere and/or they fire this person and have the unsubmissiveness of this person forever condemn his or her employability.

I don't have the answer to this. I don't know what we should do with the game, I try to remain neutral, but I'm: 1) afraid that we may be opening a can of worms for anyone who wants to petition that future things like rapelay or rape simulators have the freedom of speech principle applied to them and 2) ultimately disappointed that it's all shock value.

I'm also disappointed that I see a lot of talented people (it may be more hurtful that they're talented) be so contaminated with toxic ideas like what my intuition tells me (I'm not playing saint either) this game includes that they don't see reality, because we are saying "hey, to each their own, if you want to believe these ideas are good, the free market should provide food for those". I see these talented people complain that nowadays in games it's all "women outsmarting men, racism is bad, minorities can't be the villain, homosexuality being portrayed as something good...", a problem that doesn't exist. But hey, they can't be whiny little bitches, because only "hippies" can be. Is this the PC we are talking so much about?

Are fictions that try to be myths for a more accepting era, and real stories that try to be more honest, that are stagnating society? Do you think that haters and discriminators don't shape scripts if writers of tv shows, movies, comics, videogames... see that what's resonating with audiences is not the ironic representation of them, but that they honestly believe what the characters are saying? I point to Judge Dredd as the way to do this (the reason behind "Democracy" was that young readers weren't getting the irony, but wouldn't it have been easier to say "let's give the public what they demand") and the evolution of Cartman in South Park (or SP in general) and Brian in Family Guy as how not to do this.

Or is this PC that is making society stagnant not behaving like what people think Tourette's syndrome is. So if the idea crosses someones' mind to make (or not, just conceive) a school shooting simulator or a rape simulator, they aparently have the moral imperative to realize this vision, because if not, they would be incurring in self-censorship and as we know, self-censorship is the worst kind. I'm not asking this game be banned, or any other, I'm raising the question "Is this what we do with freedom of speech? Is this all there is?".

But what do we make of people, gamers, who sign petitions of things like "don't bring GTAV to PC (even if I enjoyed it on consoles), that will teach PC gamers be such pirates" or "don't hire Anita Sarkeesian to take part in the making of Mirrors Edge 2"? It's at least immature. As are practices like SWATTING, this prank that "children 18+" have turned into an epidemic in USA.


We could even drift to the feminist issue


[OR WE COULD NOT]




And I'm not censoring,

[OH, I totally am!]

I don't have or want that power.

{doo dee doo dee doo..]

I'm disappointed and burnt out. That's all I am. And I am burnt our that I am the one who has to be PC when I try to talk some people out of toxic ideas like the glorification of school shootings out of fear that they may suffer a mental breakdown.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And this is where we were when I moved the posts....
@decatonkeil , @Maelcom404 - It's an interesting discussion, but alas it's moved to the point where, ironically or not given the topic, we WILL need to censor. Lay off the examples of racist, nazi, material please, even if it is just being used to make a point.
 
And this is where we were when I moved the posts....
@decatonkeil , @Maelcom404 - It's an interesting discussion, but alas it's moved to the point where, ironically or not given the topic, we WILL need to censor. Lay off the examples of racist, nazi, material please, even if it is just being used to make a point.

Okay, but in exchange you give this thread a name. Wait... you aren't giving it a name, right? That's diabolical!
 


Ogod. That was a wall of...of stuff.

I EDITED.

Lots. Sometimes just willy-nilly. I may have missed something. I may go back and put in pretty ponies.

Guys, that was an interesting discussion and it was conducted in a mature, informed fashion. I'm quite..quite proud of you.

But, yeah, we just HAVE to tip toe around that stuff here. Take it to PM? Archive it next time for when I figure out how to have a no-holds-barred forum somewhere. Somewhere else. Somewhere not run by a corporate entity vulneralbe to all sorts of things...

Sorry, guys.
 
No problem, you just do your moderator job :/
Our idea are still there, the thing you "missed" on my side was just link to make my point clearer, not a big deal anyway, all I had to say is said.
I don't think that wanting to hide or censor or ban things is the right thing to do, if someone say or do something you don't like or whatever, you have to confront them with your own opinion, not nitpick and get "magic arguments" out of your magic hat to have everyone lynch them, IMO it's acting like a coward, and it's what most of the people are doing nowadays with hatred or a lot of another form of media, politics, etc...
 
Last edited:
I don't know if I did a good job on editing, I didn't know what specifics were out of boundaries that couldn't be solved by just bringing it here to the off topic. But Sard did his job. Not going to evaluate the quality of it. But maybe he'll edit and tell us between brackets, in my reply, how proud he feels of the job he has done. :hai:

[DB: I'm proud of my little Sard, he did a wonderful job]

[Sard: Aaaaaaawwwwwwww. More popsicles!]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, but in exchange you give this thread a name. Wait... you aren't giving it a name, right? That's diabolical!

It was 1am, I was hoping Sard would think of a suitable one.

Anyway, forum rules and all that. We does has them. The main problem was linking to extreme material.
 
Last edited:
OK ... is this extreme enough?





[Sard Edit: Suuuuuure. Yes?]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To be honnest, it was a full season of hello kitty, just to prove that an overdose of pinkness is the reason why Fonzy isn't cool anymore.
It was too extreme, I admit it, I'm sorry.


Or you can just go on private message and we'll share love and cookies.

OK ... is this extreme enough?



Hey, hello you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top Bottom