Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If we have to start censoring fiction to avoid offending anyone then we might as well just give up and never write anything.

That is the premise of Fahrenheit 451

 feeder wrote:
It reinforces the false notion of binary sexuality and the idea that a man can be "tricked" by a "trap". This is weapons grade bull-onium and has been disproved many times, starting with Kinsey in the 50's.

It IS transphobic and is, as you say, infantile. Since it is so inconsequential to the gameplay and causing such negative attention to the game itself it should be an easy call to remove it.

I saw it happen all the time in the French Quarter of New Orleans when I lived there. Some drunk guy would find out what they thought was a woman was really a man, sometimes after some action happened, and the fists would fly, the cops get called and off to jail he went.

Relapse wrote:

 feeder wrote:
It reinforces the false notion of binary sexuality and the idea that a man can be "tricked" by a "trap". This is weapons grade bull-onium and has been disproved many times, starting with Kinsey in the 50's.

It IS transphobic and is, as you say, infantile. Since it is so inconsequential to the gameplay and causing such negative attention to the game itself it should be an easy call to remove it.

I saw it happen all the time in the French Quarter of New Orleans when I lived there. Some drunk guy would find out what they thought was a woman was really a man, sometimes after some action happened, and the fists would fly, the cops get called and off to jail he went.

But that can't happen! Because Kinsey, and reasons!

 daedalus wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 feeder wrote:
It reinforces the false notion of binary sexuality and the idea that a man can be "tricked" by a "trap". This is weapons grade bull-onium and has been disproved many times, starting with Kinsey in the 50's.

It IS transphobic and is, as you say, infantile. Since it is so inconsequential to the gameplay and causing such negative attention to the game itself it should be an easy call to remove it.

I saw it happen all the time in the French Quarter of New Orleans when I lived there. Some drunk guy would find out what they thought was a woman was really a man, sometimes after some action happened, and the fists would fly, the cops get called and off to jail he went.

But that can't happen! Because Kinsey, and reasons!

Clearly, Kinsey never spent time in the French Quarter.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Because no internet discussion is complete without Godwin.

Don't look at me.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
That is the premise of Fahrenheit 451

Really?

*off to wikipedia*

Books were ruthlessly abridged or degraded to accommodate a short attention span while minority groups protested over the controversial, outdated content ---perceived--- to be found in books.

How depressing.

Surely the epitaph on the tomb should be seen as a warning against the perils of bigotry; that because of the deceased's intolerance and insecurity he is dead by his own hand.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If we have to start censoring fiction to avoid offending anyone then we might as well just give up and never write anything.

Fortunately nobody has to start censoring fiction. There's a clear difference between "I have a right to say what I want to say" and "I have a right to say what I want to say without anyone criticizing me". If people feel strongly about expressing a particular point in their writing then they can write it and accept the potential criticism.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
That is the premise of Fahrenheit 451

Really?

*off to wikipedia*

Books were ruthlessly abridged or degraded to accommodate a short attention span while minority groups protested over the controversial, outdated content ---perceived--- to be found in books.

How depressing.

You know the even sadder thing is my english teacher in high school got the whole class to read the book and then tried banning violent video games in a protest not long after. I was p*ssed.

Talk about a lesson the teacher didn't even understand.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
You know the even sadder thing is my english teacher in high school got the whole class to read the book and then tried banning violent video games in a protest not long after. I was p*ssed.

Talk about a lesson the teacher didn't even understand.

Talk about a lesson the student didn't understand. Despite the rather shallow high school version of presenting it as nothing more than a criticism of censorship a large part of Bradbury's actual intent was to criticize TV devaluing books. So it would be entirely in line with this theme to oppose mindless video games.

 Peregrine wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
You know the even sadder thing is my english teacher in high school got the whole class to read the book and then tried banning violent video games in a protest not long after. I was p*ssed.

Talk about a lesson the teacher didn't even understand.

Talk about a lesson the student didn't understand. Despite the rather shallow high school version of presenting it as nothing more than a criticism of censorship a large part of Bradbury's actual intent was to criticize TV devaluing books. So it would be entirely in line with this theme to oppose mindless video games.

So you've never heard of "Death of the Author" when it comes to such do you? Because it's almost universally read as Censorship due to his poor writing of his topic. It wasn't just something passed down as a "Shallow High school version" when even higher ranking literary critics use the theme.

Bradbury himself should have wrote a bit better if he really wanted his intention to show through.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor for the concept.

Also you forgot his intention that Political correctness was destroying literature through it's constant censorship.

TV and video games are hardly the same thing considering one is interactive and the other isn't. You'd be better off comparing non-interactive media with each other

 Peregrine wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
You know the even sadder thing is my english teacher in high school got the whole class to read the book and then tried banning violent video games in a protest not long after. I was p*ssed.

Talk about a lesson the teacher didn't even understand.

Talk about a lesson the student didn't understand. Despite the rather shallow high school version of presenting it as nothing more than a criticism of censorship a large part of Bradbury's actual intent was to criticize TV devaluing books. So it would be entirely in line with this theme to oppose mindless video games.

Just because violence is in something shouldn't invalidate the entire thing. It's one aspect of something. Banning violent video games just because violence is in them without thinking about content would be banning the fantastic game Deus Ex: Human Revolution just because of said violence. In fact the game seems to reward you for being as non-lethal as possible.

Sure though let's ban movies like robocop because violence. Wait you mean to say star wars involved bad guys that blew up a planet? Ban that too. What about Ender's Game where he saves humanity by killing an alien race only to find out it was real life and not a game? It includes violence so let's ban that as well.

Notice how violence is just one aspect of something. Entirely banning something because of violence is like banning a puzzle because you don't like them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
You know the even sadder thing is my english teacher in high school got the whole class to read the book and then tried banning violent video games in a protest not long after. I was p*ssed.

Talk about a lesson the teacher didn't even understand.

Talk about a lesson the student didn't understand. Despite the rather shallow high school version of presenting it as nothing more than a criticism of censorship a large part of Bradbury's actual intent was to criticize TV devaluing books. So it would be entirely in line with this theme to oppose mindless video games.

Dear God....I agree with Peregrine!

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Just because violence is in something shouldn't invalidate the entire thing. It's one aspect of something. Banning violent video games just because violence is in them without thinking about content would be banning the fantastic game Deus Ex: Human Revolution just because of said violence. In fact the game seems to reward you for being as non-lethal as possible.

Sure though let's ban movies like robocop because violence. Wait you mean to say star wars involved bad guys that blew up a planet? Ban that too. What about Ender's Game where he saves humanity by killing an alien race only to find out it was real life and not a game? It includes violence so let's ban that as well.

Notice how violence is just one aspect of something. Entirely banning something because of violence is like banning a puzzle because you don't like them.

I think you kind of missed the point there. I didn't say that Bradbury would agree with banning video games because of violence, I said he might oppose them because they aren't books. Even though schools tend to present Fahrenheit 451 as a straightforward anti-censorship story the author's intent was to criticize how TV and mass media were creating an illiterate society that didn't care about books anymore. The complete message of the story in a video game context would be "censorship of violence is wrong, but go read a book instead of playing COD all day".

Maybe but there are games with incredibly well thought out plots. To say there aren't means you probably have never played a video game since the early 90's, haven't played one at all or haven't played or seen any with any actual value.
That's like saying, "What's with these books these days? In my day we used to have orally spoken stories passed down from generation to generation." Video games are just a form of telling a story for some. It doesn't matter about the medium that tells the story often but that it tells its story well.

For instance skyrim is a fun game and though i find it's basically ADD in a fictional universe (chase a butterfly to collect ingredients, wind up in a cave, fight falmer for hours and complete a small quest maybe and then stumble out half drunk on mead to the next cave while on the way to the next quest) the game itself has a decent story that doesn't have specifically good or bad guys (even if it does manipulate the player into hating the imperials at the beginning of the game that was probably a test for the audience seeing their head nearly lopped off on a chopping block for doing nothing).

So maybe i got the lesson wrong but one of the portions of it seemed to be about censorship and in my view getting rid of something with violence for including it whether or not it condemns it or has actual good story is beyond ridiculous.

-------

 Peregrine wrote:
Fortunately nobody has to start censoring fiction. There's a clear difference between "I have a right to say what I want to say" and "I have a right to say what I want to say without anyone criticizing me". If people feel strongly about expressing a particular point in their writing then they can write it and accept the potential criticism.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me, but we have people (and not just in this thread) who want it removed. That's the line to draw. You want to crap on about imaginary words like "transmisogyny", then that's cool - do that on your own time - but you do not attack/berate/shame a developer into changing their work because you think someone else might get offended.

 Peregrine wrote:
So it would be entirely in line with this theme to oppose mindless video games.

Implying video games are mindless.

I mean you're right - I get that the point of 451 was a look at devaluing books - but if you're just going to dismiss an entire medium as 'mindless' then that's just nuts.

 Peregrine wrote:
So it would be entirely in line with this theme to oppose mindless video games.

Implying video games are mindless.

Jesus Perry, when era are you from?

Took the words out of my mouth. What right does anyone have to declare books as the king of media formats? Is the worst book somehow better than the best movie? 451 criticizes mind-numbing mass-media and not necessarily everything but books, as you, Perry, have postulated.

@H.B.M.C.: He more implied violent video games are mindless but i disagree with that too. Even among some supposedly mindless things you can learn the true nature of people in a bad situation. War is probably a good example. A survival horror game or similar might be another.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Maybe but there are games with incredibly well thought out plots. To say there aren't means you probably have never played a video game since the early 90's, haven't played one at all or haven't played or seen any with any actual value.

You'll please note that Peregrine also never said that.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Maybe but there are games with incredibly well thought out plots. To say there aren't means you probably have never played a video game since the early 90's, haven't played one at all or haven't played or seen any with any actual value.

You'll please note that Peregrine also never said that.

I might not have been referring to him specifically but the people that took issue with it. Words and people's intentions behind them are fun!

 Squidmanlolz wrote:
What right does anyone have to declare books as the king of media formats?

I don't know, ask the author who explicitly said that Fahrenheit 451 is about criticizing TV/radio/etc for making people less interested in books.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me, but we have people (and not just in this thread) who want it removed. That's the line to draw. You want to crap on about imaginary words like "transmisogyny", then that's cool - do that on your own time - but you do not attack/berate/shame a developer into changing their work because you think someone else might get offended.

IOW, you believe that people should have a right to say whatever they want without being criticized. Freedom of speech works both ways you know, if the author/developer/etc has a right to say something then I have an equal right to say "you should take that back".

Implying video games are mindless.

Yes, they're mindless according to the author. Do you really not see the difference between "this is Bradbury's position" and "I agree with this position"?

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Maybe but there are games with incredibly well thought out plots. To say there aren't means you probably have never played a video game since the early 90's, haven't played one at all or haven't played or seen any with any actual value.

You'll please note that Peregrine also never said that.

I might not have been referring to him specifically but the people that took issue with it. Words and people's intentions behind them are fun!

Know what else is fun? Properly connecting your pronouns to the subjects to which they are referring.

 Peregrine wrote:
IOW, you believe that people should have a right to say whatever they want without being criticized.

Right, so, when you said:

"If people feel strongly about expressing a particular point in their writing then they can write it and accept the potential criticism."

... and I said:

"That sounds perfectly reasonable to me..."

... somehow you read that as me saying people can say what they want without criticism? Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.

I'll try again. Please keep up:

Criticism is one thing. Criticise all you like. Criticism is fine. It is to be encouraged. But when that criticism goes from simply criticising a work to actively attacking/threatening/shaming and demanding that a work be changed to mean the narrow criteria of a tiny tiny minority, that's when the line must be drawn. So criticise away, but do not censor.

Oh people and their opinions and the ability to put words in other people's mouths and misinterpret them. I feel like so many here are guilty of that.

Just wondering is misinterpreting something somebody else says a 'free space' on the dakka bingo card?

Meh. Bingo cards just appear to be a lazy way of criticising topics of discussion, especially when squares on the bingo card contain either universally broad and controversial subjects (and are therefore meaningless ie. "Discussion about Religion!") or topics relative to the current news of the day, which is just kinda obvious ("People are discussing the news? BINGO!").

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
... somehow you read that as me saying people can say what they want without criticism? Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.

I saw exactly what you said. You said "criticism is fine", but then listed various forms of criticism that you consider unacceptable. If you're only allowed to criticize a work within narrow standards then you aren't really free to criticize it.

Criticism is one thing. Criticise all you like. Criticism is fine. It is to be encouraged. But when that criticism goes from simply criticising a work to actively attacking/threatening/shaming and demanding that a work be changed to mean the narrow criteria of a tiny tiny minority, that's when the line must be drawn. So criticise away, but do not censor.

And now here you are attempting to censor the people who are criticizing in ways that you don't approve of. Irony, thy name is H.B.M.C.

As I said: Reading comprehension skills. Use them!!!

 Peregrine wrote:
I saw exactly what you said. You said "criticism is fine", but then listed various forms of criticism that you consider unacceptable. If you're only allowed to criticize a work within narrow standards then you aren't really free to criticize it.

That's bull gak and you know it. Shaming peolpe and demanding they change the work isn't criticism. It is bullying and censorship.

 Peregrine wrote:
And now here you are attempting to censor the people who are criticizing in ways that you don't approve of. Irony, thy name is H.B.M.C.

Please use words correctly. That is not irony. I'm happy for them to say whatever they want, but they cannot demand and expect changes because they don't like something.

They actually can demand and expect.

Should be disappointed though.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
They actually can demand and expect.

Should be disappointed though.

Yes, you are correct. Sort of. They can demand (free speech and all that). They should not expect.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's bull gak and you know it. Shaming peolpe and demanding they change the work isn't criticism. It is bullying and censorship.

It's strong criticism, but still criticism. If you can only criticize something politely and moderately then you don't really have the right to criticize it. Otherwise all you really have is the right to speak in ways that H.B.M.C. approves of.

And no, it isn't censorship. Censorship requires the ability to force someone to change the thing that you want censored. Making demands is not censorship because this is what happens if the author/developer/etc doesn't want to change their work:

"Censor": I don't like that, you need to change it.
Author: No.
"Censor": Ok.

The only way anything changes is if the creator either accepts that the critic has a point and voluntarily makes the change, or if the creator is a for-profit business and makes a business decision that making the change is more profitable than keeping the original work. That's not at all how it works in cases of real censorship, where the conversation is more like this:

Censor: I don't like this, change it or go to jail.
Author: *changes their work*

And somehow, despite all the complaints about "censorship", we don't see that happening.

Please use words correctly. That is not irony. I'm happy for them to say whatever they want, but they cannot demand and expect changes because they don't like something.

And yet here you are demanding and expecting changes because you don't like something.