The Big Picture: Don't Censor Me!

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Don't Censor Me!

What is and isn't censorship is often misunderstood.

Watch Video

So in other words "Censorship" is another one of those buzzwords that people keep using without actually knowing what they mean. I'll add it to the ever growing list.

Pre Watch: Bobby, do not dare not making this serious month. You did 2 already, now go all tha way.

Post Watch: Yes Chipman, and sometimes someone who's really bad at explaining their points get a megaphone, and then act all surprised that everyone that didn't know the point before, still doesn't know it.

canadamus_prime:
So in other words "Censorship" is another one of those buzzwords that people keep using without actually knowing what they mean. I'll add it to the ever growing list.

It has a certain weight and negative aura to it, so its great for making something sound worse than it is.

'she wants game creators to put more thought into how they design and create certain elements' sounds reasonable, and harder to argue with. 'she wants to censor videogames' is much more villainous and much more easier to argue against.

canadamus_prime:
So in other words "Censorship" is another one of those buzzwords that people keep using without actually knowing what they mean. I'll add it to the ever growing list.

Put it next to racism.

Pretty heavy stuff there, Bob. Good, but heavy nevertheless.

Alright, Bob. I guess you and I have very different definitions on right and wrong then.

Fair enough.

So is it me or is Big Picture basically just Bob's blog now?

I wholeheartedly agree with this video but your 30 second long cynical call out of liberals at the beginning is probably only gonna serve to deafen a few ears.

Cpt. Slow:

canadamus_prime:
So in other words "Censorship" is another one of those buzzwords that people keep using without actually knowing what they mean. I'll add it to the ever growing list.

Put it next to racism.

Why would you wanna try and bring the discussion into this?

canadamus_prime:
So in other words "Censorship" is another one of those buzzwords that people keep using without actually knowing what they mean. I'll add it to the ever growing list.

Tag it in after Quantum and above Maturity.

Windknight:

canadamus_prime:
So in other words "Censorship" is another one of those buzzwords that people keep using without actually knowing what they mean. I'll add it to the ever growing list.

It has a certain weight and negative aura to it, so its great for making something sound worse than it is.

'she wants game creators to put more thought into how they design and create certain elements' sounds reasonable, and harder to argue with. 'she wants to censor videogames' is much more villainous and much more easier to argue against.

The problem is... when the person making it phrases the point as: "This is bad, games shouldn't do this, because this reinforces negative..." it's didactic, confrontational and puts people on the defensive. (I was having this conversation with a friend of mine last night), saying "Well I think this didn't work, but if they tweaked it a little and gave it a little more thought, it could have been more like... ...and that'd have been awesome."

It's the old carrot and stick metaphor, it's "you catch more flies with..." it's stuff we're taught from a very young age. But then there is of course the problem, no one cares what the well reasoned people think, they don't grab headlines or drive up view counts... and without those, the people saying those things don't get paid (that's not to say their intent is disingenuous, just their presentation). But that's a wider cultural issue.

josh4president:
So is it me or is Big Picture basically just Bob's blog now?

What do you mean? This was always Bob's video blob...

Whether he chose to talk about sexism, his love for Sucker Punch or the postcredits scene of the last Marvel movie he saw is still his decision.

Windknight:

canadamus_prime:
So in other words "Censorship" is another one of those buzzwords that people keep using without actually knowing what they mean. I'll add it to the ever growing list.

It has a certain weight and negative aura to it, so its great for making something sound worse than it is.

'she wants game creators to put more thought into how they design and create certain elements' sounds reasonable, and harder to argue with. 'she wants to censor videogames' is much more villainous and much more easier to argue against.

It certainly invites the metaphorical torches and pitchforks.

BigTuk:

canadamus_prime:
So in other words "Censorship" is another one of those buzzwords that people keep using without actually knowing what they mean. I'll add it to the ever growing list.

Tag it in after Quantum and above Maturity.

Nah I'm ranking it next to "racism", "sexism" etc. just above "rip-off."

hermes200:

josh4president:
So is it me or is Big Picture basically just Bob's blog now?

What do you mean? This was always Bob's video blob...

Whether he chose to talk about sexism, his love for Sucker Punch or the postcredits scene of the last Marvel movie he saw is still his decision.

It's true, look at episode 1, he basically tells us that this was given to him as a soapbox... and that's why sometimes it's easy to feel vitriolic towards how he tackles some subjects. In other words, this is op-ed semi rambling as opposed to movie reviewing, which unless something is jarring or egregious, he's professional enough to leave his personal politics out of it.

hermes200:

josh4president:
So is it me or is Big Picture basically just Bob's blog now?

What do you mean? This was always Bob's video blob...

Whether he chose to talk about sexism, his love for Sucker Punch or the postcredits scene of the last Marvel movie he saw is still his decision.

Yeah but at least those kept with the running theme he usually went for - afterall he is 'MovieBob', not 'CensorshipBob', though that sounds more like some bizarro universe version of himself that he probably has over on Game Overthinker.

Also I don't think Bob has a blob. Where would he even put it?

canadamus_prime:
So in other words "Censorship" is another one of those buzzwords that people keep using without actually knowing what they mean. I'll add it to the ever growing list.

Yeah, this is what drives me nuts. A better way to say this would be to say that what happened to the Dixie Chicks absolutely was censorship, but that it just wasn't government censorship, and therefore didn't fall under First Amendment protection.

What people like Mr. Chipman here, or Jim Sterling or Anita Sarkeesian are doing is not censorship of any kind-it's media and cultural criticism. The rest of the video actually does explain that, of course, but still ... How about rather than change the meaning of the word "censor" to fit the dopey, single-purpose (and broadly incorrect) usage to which it has fallen prey, we educate people to understand the difference?

Sorry-just had to get that off my chest. Great video, otherwise!

Really enjoyed the video.

While it may not be censorship, what happened to the Dixie Chicks was really fucking wrong. I guess what I'm saying is, while I agree that it isn't censorship, using power in that way to silence a group whose opinions you disagree with is really fucking wrong.

Trying to silence any group whose opinions you do not agree with is really fucking wrong.

If you're right, then debate. If you aren't, then change your views. No where does silence have to come into play.

I think that you should have gone for the 90's victory lap and shown all of the fatalities from Mortal Kombat.

inb4, just like last week, people still claim that Anita is the Destroyer of Vidyagames, using their super duper secret mind-reading abilities as proof of her intentions.

Anyways, this reminds me a lot of this Critical Miss strip.

In my experience, lot of the time when people aren't giving you a platform to speak, its just because most people never use it for something worth all the inevitible vile that follows. You're not owed a platform, and even if you've done nothing wrong, its not given to you, or is taken away from you, because the owner doesn't think its worth bile.

dragonswarrior:
Really enjoyed the video.
If you're right, then debate. If you aren't, then change your views. No where does silence have to come into play.

Who decides what's "right" and who should change their views then? The problem is, a lot of this isn't as black and white as "I'm right, you're wrong so you change," it's a whole nebulous mess of greys that aren't so much aligned as swirled together into a huge gloopy mass.

Would you trust a single central authority to forever decide what's right or wrong, silence it's nay sayers and make them forcibly change their mind. (oh look, I waved my magic hyperbole wand). No we decide what's right and wrong through discussion and discussion on moral absolutism like this, rarely if ever has an end.

It's not Capitalism that people are mad at. It's Monopolies. Capitalism doesn't exist unless there is competition, and though you might think MSNBC was the competition for FOX News it actually isn't. FOX has a monopoly on Conservative news coverage, and MSNBC has a pretty solid monopoly on the Liberal end. Even Hollywood tries not to compete by carving up the Calender and doing everything to collude to ensure that major films don't compete.

josh4president:
So is it me or is Big Picture basically just Bob's blog now?

How dare bob put his own opinions into his videos! That's....like, the opposite of objective ethics! Come on, fellow game journalist exposer, let's pull his adverts! *tips fedora off into sunset*

Perhaps the more useful question than is this censorship is, does it matter? People seem to conflate the idea of freedom of speech with censorship. What it really comes down to is that we can't stop you from saying whatever you are going to say. That does not mean I have to listen or that any private media has to promote what you say.

Under_your_bed:

josh4president:
So is it me or is Big Picture basically just Bob's blog now?

How dare bob put his own opinions into his videos! That's....like, the opposite of objective ethics! Come on, fellow game journalist exposer, let's pull his adverts! *tips fedora off into sunset*

I think you've misread his point. I think he was more commenting that there is less discussion of geeka obscura and more "issue of the day" style discussion lately.

As an aside: Ainsley Hariott as SHODAN would make System Shock 2 far scarier. "Ready, Steady, Cook you insignificant mortal."

Cpt. Slow:

canadamus_prime:
So in other words "Censorship" is another one of those buzzwords that people keep using without actually knowing what they mean. I'll add it to the ever growing list.

Put it next to racism.

Right? I would love to see Bob do an episode talking about how the vast majority of things that people dub as sexist/racist as a sort of gut instinct aren't actually sexist/racist, and that crying foul at the slightest hint of any stereotype hurts creativity more than it helps any demographic.

I guess I missed whatever annoyed Bob or hes backpadeling on this week so I don't get the context for this rant. Yes Bob, I'm aware of what censorship is.

If this is in relation to calls for elements in games to be banned being called censorship well yes they already to do that in China, Germany and Australia frequently and it's textbook censorship.

josh4president:

hermes200:

josh4president:
So is it me or is Big Picture basically just Bob's blog now?

What do you mean? This was always Bob's video blob...

Whether he chose to talk about sexism, his love for Sucker Punch or the postcredits scene of the last Marvel movie he saw is still his decision.

Yeah but at least those kept with the running theme he usually went for - afterall he is 'MovieBob', not 'CensorshipBob', though that sounds more like some bizarro universe version of himself that he probably has over on Game Overthinker.

Also I don't think Bob has a blob. Where would he even put it?

I vote for josh and I disagree with the Escapist Defense Force. Big picture was announced as popculture ruminations by Bob. He's straying into politic podium stuff and is definitely losing me as at least, as an audience member.

The distinction between ACTUAL definition of "censorship" and this "practical" definition is nonexistent.

Censorship by the government without just cause is ILLEGAL.

Censorship by people just shouting out the opposition is totally legal, but it is still IMMORAL. It is dishonest, and sometimes just as harmful as the illegal kind depending on WHAT is being drowned out.

Rellik San:

dragonswarrior:
Really enjoyed the video.
If you're right, then debate. If you aren't, then change your views. No where does silence have to come into play.

Who decides what's "right" and who should change their views then? The problem is, a lot of this isn't as black and white as "I'm right, you're wrong so you change," it's a whole nebulous mess of greys that aren't so much aligned as swirled together into a huge gloopy mass.

Would you trust a single central authority to forever decide what's right or wrong, silence it's nay sayers and make them forcibly change their mind. (oh look, I waved my magic hyperbole wand). No we decide what's right and wrong through discussion and discussion on moral absolutism like this, rarely if ever has an end.

I guess I could have been clearer, "If you think you're right then debate, if you think you're wrong then change your views" but it's never really about think right? From ones own perspective, one is either right, or one becomes convinced that they're wrong.

Additionally, facts should be the final decider in what is right and wrong. Unfortunately, facts can be large, unwieldy things, so I know expecting that to work is idealism at its worst.

Additionally, I can't stand the "It's a bunch of shades of grey" mentality. Why? Why does it have to be shades of grey? It really doesn't, and things really don't always fall somewhere in the middle. Sometimes, a side that seems "extreme" is actually the one that's right. If you look for truth wherever it might fall, you're more likely to find it then if you look for truth only in the middle.

I enjoyed the hyperbole wand. It made me laugh.

I also enjoyed the "figure out what's right through endless discussion" bit. Though I think that would work better only if people listened more. Meh.

Rellik San:

dragonswarrior:
Really enjoyed the video.
If you're right, then debate. If you aren't, then change your views. No where does silence have to come into play.

Who decides what's "right" and who should change their views then? The problem is, a lot of this isn't as black and white as "I'm right, you're wrong so you change," it's a whole nebulous mess of greys that aren't so much aligned as swirled together into a huge gloopy mass.

Would you trust a single central authority to forever decide what's right or wrong, silence it's nay sayers and make them forcibly change their mind. (oh look, I waved my magic hyperbole wand). No we decide what's right and wrong through discussion and discussion on moral absolutism like this, rarely if ever has an end.

Pretty certain they're referring to capitalist enterprises using such form of "censorship", ie not giving them a platform, giving a platform to their opposition, as rather than trying to silence them, hold a debate instead. Throughout history, a lot of Censorship, as in the big 'C' government kind comes from people afraid of the thoughts coming from whatever it is, and its a sort of intellectual dishonesty to go "you know, they're right, but I don't care because I'm benefitted more by people thinking incorrectly, so I'll try to shut them up". Rather, the suggestion is that these capitalist enterprises use their platform to hold a discussion rather than point fingers and go "they're wrong!"

WhiteTigerShiro:
]Right? I would love to see Bob do an episode talking about how the vast majority of things that people dub as sexist/racist as a sort of gut instinct aren't actually sexist/racist, and that crying foul at the slightest hint of any stereotype hurts creativity more than it helps any demographic.

Don't even need to cover that. In my experience a big chunk of people don't even know how racism is defined and go by the old, debunked race teachings as a guiding point. According to them a German can't be racist towards a French because French is not a race.

If I could snap my fingers and change the face of internet discourse in one way, it would be to make everyone stop mis-sing the word censorship. Unfortunately I doubt this video, as good as it is, will change anything.

Based on furry fandom I now expect to eventually see a bunch of female whales get excited over a dork....

Dealing with the rest of the video I wonder if any of this was aimed at Obama's video that was aimed at the FCC.

the7ofswords:

canadamus_prime:
So in other words "Censorship" is another one of those buzzwords that people keep using without actually knowing what they mean. I'll add it to the ever growing list.

Yeah, this is what drives me nuts. A better way to say this would be to say that what happened to the Dixie Chicks absolutely was censorship, but that it just wasn't government censorship, and therefore didn't fall under First Amendment protection.

What people like Mr. Chipman here, or Jim Sterling or Anita Sarkeesian are doing is not censorship of any kind-it's media and cultural criticism. The rest of the video actually does explain that, of course, but still ... How about rather than change the meaning of the word "censor" to fit the dopey, single-purpose (and broadly incorrect) usage to which it has fallen prey, we educate people to understand the difference?

Sorry-just had to get that off my chest. Great video, otherwise!

You see that's were Bob was saying you get into the technical and practical definitions of the word. Under the technical dictionary definition, yes you could call that censorship, but under the practical common use (and when I say "common use" I mean use by anyone who understands that an opinion expressed against something they don't like is not censorship) definition, it really isn't. Sure it was an unjust backlash against an unpopular opinion, but can't really be called censorship.

And I don't know about Anita, but certainly anyone who's calling for the re-examination of popular culture and the tropes therein, and suggesting that a few changes need to be made is not calling for censorship.

medv4380:
It's not Capitalism that people are mad at. It's Monopolies. Capitalism doesn't exist unless there is competition, and though you might think MSNBC was the competition for FOX News it actually isn't. FOX has a monopoly on Conservative news coverage, and MSNBC has a pretty solid monopoly on the Liberal end. Even Hollywood tries not to compete by carving up the Calender and doing everything to collude to ensure that major films don't compete.

Monopolies are a part of capitalism. The magical land of perfect competition, leading to producers competing for the patronage of consumers has never existed. What part the government plays in this is up for debate, but it happens with or without them.

josh4president:
So is it me or is Big Picture basically just Bob's blog now?

When wasn't it?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here