Quote from: Will;795369It'd be really interesting, I think, to see how closely GG/anti-GG maps to conservative/liberal.

I'm guessing 'very closely.'

It depends on whether you consider libertarians conservative or not.

Quote from: Novastar;795387http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/841/842/7e1.png
Actually, it seems to track more "Libertarian" versus "Authoritarian".

While both Milo and Adam Baldwin are fairly solidly Right, IIRC, Totalbiscuit and Christina H. Sommers were both moderate Left's.

Quote from: Will;795389Where does the graph come from/what is it based on?

I have no idea about Totalbiscuit, but Sommers... she might be registered Democrat, but reading up on her views, I'd be hard-pressed to call her even moderate Left, though I can't find anything on her fiscal thoughts (she's mostly focused on social issues).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
Note that this is based on UK left and right rather than US left and right. Note also that it is a website, not peer reviewed academic work, but it is based on peer reviewed political typologies.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795485That's not censorship, it's a boycott attempt. Difference.

Denying someone access to media they want to consume is censorship.

Quote from: Nexus;795487But don't forget its only censorship if the government does it. Calling for something to never been shown lest  anyone that dare be shamed out of the business isn't censorship.

Legalistic hair-splitting, i.e. rules lawyering, something people on this board should be familiar with.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795493The banning or restriction of certain types of media content, by legal authority, is what constitutes censorship. Canada has a legal ban on hate speech for instance. Restricting obscene content in movies, either through age restrictions (mild) or bans (major) is also censorship.

This is a common attitude I find profoundly anti-liberty; popehat does it all the time as well, but they are lawyers so they look at everything through a legal lens rather than from the standpoint of the ideals laws are meant to serve.

"Liberty" is an abstract ideal, not what they law allows. The first amendment is a legal codification of this ideal, it is a tool with which to achieve the goal of speech liberty, it is not the totality of speech liberty. It someone does not feel free to speak because of non-governmental institutions, they don't have speech liberty. Corporate speech codes may be legal, but they are anti-free speech because they place practical limits on ones ability to exercise free speech. They limit liberty, they do so through coercive threats, and that makes them oppression.  

Likewise if private entities can force producers to stop producing media content they disapprove of, they are engaging in censorship because they are denying access to speech. They are abusing the ideal of speech liberty, whether on not they are acting illegally.  

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795516Not just "radfem" critics - your bolded sentence above is what feminist critics do, period. That's "feminist media criticism" in a nutshell. Would they like the problematic media removed? Sure, but their goal isn't to have them banned (except in the case of things like extremely abusive porn like Max Hardcore or Khan Tusion); it's to lower consumer demand until market forces cause the the offending content to disappear.

Actually it seems to be to shame producers into stopping production in spite of market demand; i.e. preventing potential consumers from accessing material they are interested in, i.e. censorship.

Quote from: apparition13;795543It depends on whether you consider libertarians conservative or not.

Depends on the libertarian. There are conservative libertarians (particularly in the US) and socialist libertarians (particularly in Europe), and probably other stripes I'm unaware of.

Quote from: apparition13;795543http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
Note that this is based on UK left and right rather than US left and right. Note also that it is a website, not peer reviewed academic work, but it is based on peer reviewed political typologies.

Oh, I didn't mean the squares, I meant the data points.

Edit: Oh, and duh, libertarian left/right is right there on your link. My bad.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795516Not just "radfem" critics - your bolded sentence above is what feminist critics do, period. That's "feminist media criticism" in a nutshell.

I'm unaware of any feminist media critics besides radfems that focus on critiquing elements of geek entertainment. I'd go so far as to say the article of faith associated with Premise #2 is an aspect of radfem solely, not of equity feminism.

QuoteWould they like the problematic media removed? Sure, but their goal isn't to have them banned (except in the case of things like extremely abusive porn like Max Hardcore or Khan Tusion); it's to lower consumer demand until market forces cause the the offending content to disappear.

I'm not seeing the distinction you're making there other than the method. The intent is the same, is it not? If they were in the position to ban it, do you not think that they would? It's only because they lack the authority that they are trying tactics such as exerting social pressure. If the ultimate goal has the same effect, I call it the same thing. "Calling for censorship" is the desire for censorship.

Wertham did not have the power to ban comicbooks, so he testified before the supreme court to present claims that comics caused juvenile delinquency. Patricia Pulling did not have the power to ban RPGs, so she started BADD to convince society that Dungeons & Dragons caused players to commit suicide. The Tangency clique didnt have the power to prevent James Desberough from publishing, so they started a campaign of harrasment to try to remove him from the industry.  

Let me use an exaggerated and extreme analogy to attempt to drive my point home: A murderer is someone who violently ends another person's life. If someone is incapable or unwilling to murder another person, but they hire another person to murder them, even if they do not technically commit the muurder themselves is it not fair to say that that person's murder was thier ultimate goal?

Quote from: apparition13;795543It depends on whether you consider libertarians conservative or not.

I think of libertarianism as having a certain common ground with conservatism insofar as it holds certain things as pre-existing realities that cannot be politicized or socially engineered.  Of course that doesn't stop conservatives from trying to socially engineer things they don't like, except that when liberals do it, it's "social engineering" and when conservatives do it, it's "legislating morality."

Basically the difference between liberalism and conservatism is the belief that there are no standards at all versus the belief that standards are more important than facts.

QuoteDenying someone access to media they want to consume is censorship. ...

"Liberty" is an abstract ideal, not what they law allows. The first amendment is a legal codification of this ideal, it is a tool with which to achieve the goal of speech liberty, it is not the totality of speech liberty. It someone does not feel free to speak because of non-governmental institutions, they don't have speech liberty. Corporate speech codes may be legal, but they are anti-free speech because they place practical limits on ones ability to exercise free speech. They limit liberty, they do so through coercive threats, and that makes them oppression.  

Likewise if private entities can force producers to stop producing media content they disapprove of, they are engaging in censorship because they are denying access to speech. They are abusing the ideal of speech liberty, whether on not they are acting illegally.

Obviously that isn't the correct legal definition, as you know, but it's a good practical definition.

JG

Quote from: TristramEvans;795549I'm not seeing the distinction you're making there other than the method. The intent is the same, is it not? If they were in the position to ban it, do you not think that they would? It's only because they lack the authority that they are trying tactics such as exerting social pressure. If the ultimate goal has the same effect, I call it the same thing. "Calling for censorship" is the desire for censorship.

Wertham did not have the power to ban comicbooks, so he testified before the supreme court to present claims that comics caused juvenile delinquency. Patricia Pulling did not have the power to ban RPGs, so she started BADD to convince society that Dungeons & Dragons caused players to commit suicide. The Tangency clique didnt have the power to prevent James Desberough from publishing, so they started a campaign of harrasment to try to remove him from the industry.  

Let me use an exaggerated and extreme analogy to attempt to drive my point home: A murderer is someone who violently ends another person's life. If someone is incapable or unwilling to murder another person, but they hire another person to murder them, even if they do not technically commit the muurder themselves is it not fair to say that that person's murder was thier ultimate goal?

I completely disagree with Patricia Pulling, and I disapprove of her trying to use the courts to enforce her views. However, it seems bizarre to suggest that the suicide angle was just an excuse that she concocted in bad faith. While she was mistaken, I'm pretty sure that she genuinely did blame D&D for her son's suicide.

The problem with your murder analogy is that it presumes that besides a right to life, every consumer has a fundamental right to get exactly the kind of media they like made for them, and that creators have a fundamental right to get paid to produce the kind of media they like. That's fucking entitled bullshit, in my opinion.

If my favorite series gets cancelled because of what some critics publish (feminist or otherwise), those critics aren't murdering my right to the series. They're engaging in their own free speech.

My counter-analogy is this.  Someone wants to get elected as their end goal. Does it matter if they convince people to willingly vote for them, or if they cheat and rig the election?

Quote from: jhkim;795575I completely disagree with Patricia Pulling, and I disapprove of her trying to use the courts to enforce her views. However, it seems bizarre to suggest that the suicide angle was just an excuse that she concocted in bad faith. While she was mistaken, I'm pretty sure that she genuinely did blame D&D for her son's suicide.

How she felt isn't relavent to the reality of the situation

QuoteThe problem with your murder analogy is that it presumes that besides a right to life, every consumer has a fundamental right to get exactly the kind of media they like made for them, and that creators have a fundamental right to get paid to produce the kind of media they like. That's fucking entitled bullshit, in my opinion.

I dont think creators have the fundamental right to "get paid", and never said anything of the sort, nor that anyone has the right to get media "made for them". Its entitlement bullshit because you just pulled those two statements wholesale out of your ass.

I do think they have the fuundamental right to create. I believe any human has the fundamental right to create/produce/do what they want as long as doing so does not directly involve the physical harm of another sentient being.

QuoteIf my favorite series gets cancelled because of what some critics publish (feminist or otherwise), those critics aren't murdering my right to the series. They're engaging in their own free speech.

If your favouurite series gets cancelled because of what someone else publishes, then I'd lay the blame on the people who cancelled it, not the published criticism.

If the critic wrote "this series should get cancelled", then I'd say that its a safe to say that getting the series cancelled was thier ultimate goal.

QuoteMy counter-analogy is this.  Someone wants to get elected as their end goal. Does it matter if they convince people to willingly vote for them, or if they cheat and rig the election?

What does that analogy map to? Unpack it for me, because on the usrface it does not seem to be an analogy of what's being discussed in any way.

Quote from: jhkimMy counter-analogy is this. Someone wants to get elected as their end goal. Does it matter if they convince people to willingly vote for them, or if they cheat and rig the election?

Quote from: TristramEvans;795585What does that analogy map to? Unpack it for me, because on the usrface it does not seem to be an analogy of what's being discussed in any way.

The point of the counter-analogy is that for murder, the how doesn't matter - but for an election, it does. My claim is that if I want to stop certain material from being published, it matters how I do it. If I do it through negative reviews, opinion pieces, protest, or boycott - then it's like winning an election fairly and legally. If I do it through lying, harassment, and/or intimidation, then it is like an invalid and illegal win.

I consider it far more apt to what we're talking about than your murder analogy. If a game doesn't get published, that isn't in any way equivalent to murder. Murder is wrong in itself - it is denying someone their right to life. If a game doesn't get published, that isn't inherently a crime.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;795538And that is the key to their censorship. They can't make laws to make looking at bewbies illegal, so they call everyone misogynist and make them feel bad about looking at bewbies.

Fools! The power of bewbies is invincible and eternal!

Quote from: S'mon;795509Gender feminists tend to have a remarkably poor understanding of male psychology.

The vast majority of each gender has a remarkably poor understanding of the psychology of the other gender.

Quote from: Alathon;795446Until such substantial changes happen, I think the best we can do is spend our time exploring the many, many amateur game reviewers.  Doing our due dilligence to find critics who do theirs.  Amateurs, or niche outlets like the one you mentioned, seem to me to be the wave of the immediate future.

Amateurs who gain popularity will be courted with dollars from companies. Any amateur blogger who wants to quit his day job will be lured by those dollars, and I don't blame them. And influence can be more subtle - access to developers, invites to E3, even being thanked, etc.

For me, the rule has always been Play the Demo. If there is no demo, then I wait until the game is out for a month or two as see what the commentary looks like then.

Quote from: Novastar;795436The OPPRESSION OLYMPICS have begun!!!

Ya gotta say it like Yoda! Begun, the Oppression Olympics has!

Quote from: Haffrung;795393The bottom line in Hollywood is the bottom line.

Amen. The Box Office is our one true god!

Quote from: Snowman0147;795234See this is why I put Will, Ladybird, and Ben into my ignore list.

Then you are missing out on three interesting voices.

I'd happily game with all three anytime, especially if Will will let me rub my D20 on his bald head for good luck! Look at his pic, there's dice tossing good luck just sitting on that noggin waiting to be enjoyed.

Quote from: Snowman0147;795260History had shown we will win because there reasonable people using their critical thinking skills to fight this.

This dance is destined for the dustbin of history because at the end of the day all of GG/anti-GG is a tempest in a teapot. If real social justice issues can't ignite the mainstream to take action, nonsense being farted about online will waft away soon enough.

Quote from: jhkim;795628The point of the counter-analogy is that for murder, the how doesn't matter - but for an election, it does. My claim is that if I want to stop certain material from being published, it matters how I do it. If I do it through negative reviews, opinion pieces, protest, or boycott - then it's like winning an election fairly and legally. If I do it through lying, harassment, and/or intimidation, then it is like an invalid and illegal win.

So, what? We're talking about the end result. It doesnt matter if its "legal" or "fair". I think you're caught up in the analogy and utterly missing the point.
The reason I made the analogy was to show that the means or ends or process used does not alter the final intended result. And your counter-analogy doesn't dispute that, it reinforces it.

Secret about my noggin:
Yes, those are obnoxiously hipster glasses, but they are necessary to minimize how much my head resembles a fat pink potato.

PO TA TO

Quote from: jhkim;795540And here's my point of disagreement - "making people feel bad" is not censorship in any way, and comparisons to McCarthy and the Salem witch trials are stupid.

And I disagree. Laws are created and repealed because of how people think about a subject, and how people think about a subject is strongly influenced by how they feel about a subject.



Don't like something? Run a PR campaign to show how "evil" it is.



Now, people are free to say all kinds of nutty things, what bothers me is when a narrative gets traction because of feelings and overrides our critical thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave

Quote from: TristramEvans;795632So, what? We're talking about the end result. It doesnt matter if its "legal" or "fair". I think you're caught up in the analogy and utterly missing the point.
The reason I made the analogy was to show that the means or ends or process used does not alter the final intended result. And your counter-analogy doesn't dispute that, it reinforces it.

So let's say there's a game product that I hate and I want to see off the market. However, there's a fan of that product who really likes it. I write some prominent posts attacking it, and write to the publisher asking them to drop it from their line. The publisher feels that the negative press isn't worth the potential profits for that single product, and they drop it. The end result is that the fan doesn't get the product he wanted.

The fan says that even if the means are legal and fair, the end result should be that the fan gets the product they wanted. If he don't get it, then it's censorship of the equivalent.

I don't agree with that. I haven't cheated the fan out of anything, because he isn't entitled to get exactly the product he wants. As long as I didn't lie or use violent means to persuade the publisher, it is part of the free marketplace of ideas.

Quote from: jhkim;795668So let's say there's a game product that I hate and I want to see off the market. However, there's a fan of that product who really likes it. I write some prominent posts attacking it, and write to the publisher asking them to drop it from their line. The publisher feels that the negative press isn't worth the potential profits for that single product, and they drop it. The end result is that the fan doesn't get the product he wanted.

The fan says that even if the means are legal and fair, the end result should be that the fan gets the product they wanted. If he don't get it, then it's censorship of the equivalent.

I don't agree with that. I haven't cheated the fan out of anything, because he isn't entitled to get exactly the product he wants. As long as I didn't lie or use violent means to persuade the publisher, it is part of the free marketplace of ideas.

Sure, but that person is also free to hate you for being the type of person that if youu don't like something you don't want anyone else to like it either. And now, say you then set yourself up in a position as a "consultant", in an attempt to get in a position where you can dictate that nothing you don't want published is published. And you also begin a media campaign to explain that everyone whose published things you don't like are horrible people part of a conspiracy to corrupt our children. And if anyone disagrees with you or doesnt want your services as consultant, you use any means necessary , from doctoring facts to implying connections between radical extremists and groups that oppose your opinoins, to whip up a media frenzy to blacklist those people, all the while portraying them as a cliched stereotype that's no different than early twentieth century racial charicatures of "chinamen" or "negroes". You even stoop to twisting national tragedies to support your opinions...

Well, then you're Anita Sarkeesian. And regardless of whether any of that is legal or not, or a "part of the freemarket", I don't think I'd call it ethical behaviour by any standard. Accepting however that you don't share my ethical viewpoint, I'm still correct in my supposition that your ultimate goal is censorship. You're just saying that's okay. I'm saying, I don't think it is. Maybe thats simply the point where we have to agree to disagree.

I never noticed before that the Satanic cultists in Dark Dungeons belonged to The Temple of Diana. Wonder if they were big Cheers fans?

Quote from: jhkim;795628The point of the counter-analogy is that for murder, the how doesn't matter - but for an election, it does. My claim is that if I want to stop certain material from being published, it matters how I do it. If I do it through negative reviews, opinion pieces, protest, or boycott - then it's like winning an election fairly and legally. If I do it through lying, harassment, and/or intimidation, then it is like an invalid and illegal win.

I consider it far more apt to what we're talking about than your murder analogy. If a game doesn't get published, that isn't in any way equivalent to murder. Murder is wrong in itself - it is denying someone their right to life. If a game doesn't get published, that isn't inherently a crime.

Boycotts are intimidation. The South African boycotts weren't just a feel good policy, they were meant to hurt South Africa until it gave in to pressure. Hell, one of the reasons given for Japan's attack on the U.S. in 1941 was because the U.S. oil embargo was causing so much trouble that they thought they had to go for the Indonesian oil fields, which meant they also thought they had to take the U.S. Navy out.

Quote from: jhkim;795668So let's say there's a game product that I hate and I want to see off the market. However, there's a fan of that product who really likes it. I write some prominent posts attacking it, and write to the publisher asking them to drop it from their line. The publisher feels that the negative press isn't worth the potential profits for that single product, and they drop it. The end result is that the fan doesn't get the product he wanted.

The fan says that even if the means are legal and fair, the end result should be that the fan gets the product they wanted. If he don't get it, then it's censorship of the equivalent.

I don't agree with that. I haven't cheated the fan out of anything, because he isn't entitled to get exactly the product he wants. As long as I didn't lie or use violent means to persuade the publisher, it is part of the free marketplace of ideas.

The free marketplace of ideas only works if everyone respects it and defends it. If you're attacking something in an attempt to get it off the market, in other words if you're trying to make speech between two other people impossible, you aren't acting like someone who respects free speech or the free marketplace of ideas, you're acting like a censor.