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.

Bullying is strong criticism? That's a new one.

Yeah. Public shaming is just carefully crafted criticism.

And demanding that an artist change their work because of a minuscule minority, well that's just a good ol' fashion lark!


I guess Perry's a big fan of that douche at Gawker who said we should #BringBackBullying to get at people who like video games. Seems legit to me!

I heartily condemn this product or event. Which button do i need to click to ensure social justice prevails?

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Bullying is strong criticism? That's a new one.

It is in this case, where "bullying" means "an SJW said my favorite author/game company/etc should change their product in a way I don't like", it is.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Which button do i need to click to ensure social justice prevails?

The one with the little birdy. Something to do with Twitter, I believe.

But you're doing it wrong. You don't "heartily condemn". You declare that it is wrong, misuse words like "transphobic" and "misogyny" to make yourself look like you know you're talking about - hell, even make up a new one, 'transmisogyny' being a great new one from this very non-issue - and then demand that it be erased from history never to see the light of day again.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Which button do i need to click to ensure social justice prevails?

The one with the little birdy. Something to do with Twitter, I believe.

But you're doing it wrong. You don't "heartily condemn". You declare that it is wrong, misuse words like "transphobic" and "misogyny" to make yourself look like you know you're talking about - hell, even make up a new one, 'transmisogyny' being a great new one from this very non-issue - and then demand that it be erased from history never to see the light of day again.

That's too much effort. I prefer a 'krusty the clown'-style stock footage of my disapproval so i can spend more time fighting social injustice.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah. Public shaming is just carefully crafted criticism.

In this case it is. There is only "shame" if you accept the critic's argument. If you honestly feel that what you've done is right then you don't feel any shame, just like I don't feel shamed when people like you call me a "SJW".

And demanding that an artist change their work because of a minuscule minority, well that's just a good ol' fashion lark!

I see, so criticism and requests for change are only acceptable if they agree with the majority opinion? For someone who talks so much about "SJW censorship" you sure do spend a lot of time telling people what they're allowed to say.

I guess Perry's a big fan of that douche at Gawker who said we should #BringBackBullying to get at people who like video games. Seems legit to me!

Perhaps you could clarify what exactly you're talking about here? A search for "#BringBackBullying" turns up a couple of low-traffic blog/forum posts with nothing more than "someone said #BringBackBullying". Is this another one of those "controversies" where some random person nobody pays any attention to makes a twitter post and the other side pretends that they are a relevant part of something?

 Peregrine wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Bullying is strong criticism? That's a new one.

It is in this case, where "bullying" means "an SJW said my favorite author/game company/etc should change their product in a way I don't like", it is.

Considering what happened to the aforementioned Dr Matt Taylor, I don't believe you

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Considering what happened to the aforementioned Dr Matt Taylor, I don't believe you

You mean the idiot who couldn't figure out that wearing a shirt with half-naked women all over it might not be appropriate in a professional context, especially when you're about to be broadcast worldwide? I can't say I have all that much sympathy for him.

Also, let's not pretend that "what happened to him" was just bullying with no legitimate point. Did some people cross the line into abuse? Probably. It is the internet after all. But a lot of the supposed "bullying" was actually legitimate criticism that was labeled as "bullying" by the "SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS RUIN EVERYTHING" crowd for ideological reasons.

 Peregrine wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Considering what happened to the aforementioned Dr Matt Taylor, I don't believe you

You mean the idiot who couldn't figure out that wearing a shirt with half-naked women all over it might not be appropriate in a professional context, especially when you're about to be broadcast worldwide? I can't say I have all that much sympathy for him.

The 'idiot' landed a probe on a comet. He could have been wearing a wedding dress for all anyone should care.

I guess you can't advance science unless you're wearing a Peregrine Approved shirt

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
The 'idiot' landed a probe on a comet. He could have been wearing a wedding dress for all anyone should care.

I guess you can't advance science unless you're wearing a Peregrine Approved shirt

Being good at your job doesn't prevent you from being an idiot in other contexts. And whether or not you personally agree with it in most similar situations there's a dress code (whether explicit or implied) that does not include shirts like that. If you show up to most science or engineering jobs dressed like that you'll be lucky if you're given an opportunity to correct your mistake instead of being fired.

 Peregrine wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
The 'idiot' landed a probe on a comet. He could have been wearing a wedding dress for all anyone should care.

I guess you can't advance science unless you're wearing a Peregrine Approved shirt

Being good at your job doesn't prevent you from being an idiot in other contexts. And whether or not you personally agree with it in most similar situations there's a dress code (whether explicit or implied) that does not include shirts like that. If you show up to most science or engineering jobs dressed like that you'll be lucky if you're given an opportunity to correct your mistake instead of being fired.

I've known highly paid software developers who wear similar, so again, I don't believe you

 Peregrine wrote:
It is in this case, where "bullying" means "an SJW said my favorite author/game company/etc should change their product in a way I don't like", it is.

No, Peregrine. It means "an SJW said my favorite author/game company/etc should change their product ". It does not even have to be in a way they do not like. It is opposition for opposition's sake. Because they have to fight the bad guys that want to censor everything. By, uh, censoring them, or something!

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
The 'idiot' landed a probe on a comet. He could have been wearing a wedding dress for all anyone should care.

I guess you can't advance science unless you're wearing a Peregrine Approved shirt

You needn't concern yourself with ol' Perry. His cast iron mind doesn't allow for any independent thought that isn't lockstep with his own.

That moment was a glorious achievement for science. People celebrated it for what it was. Social Justice Warriors earned their title that day as well, once again proving that there's nothing too trivial and nothing too harmless that they won't scream, shame and bully someone over.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

I am so triggered right I could stage a rally.

I could blog about the rally you staged!

...and I will tweet about it! With anger!

Mission accomplished !
But a website lampooning and satirizing silliness such as this is much needed in this day and age.

peregrine wrote: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:

Mild criticism: Oh my, that's not a very nice thing to say about these people. Maybe that should've been worded a little differently.
Moderate criticism: That comment/fictional epitaph/whatever is over the line. My respect for these people has definitely gone down.
Strong critiscism: This is completely ourageous! Someone better have a good explanation for this, or apologise for it!
(Attempted) censorship: This offends me! I demand it be removed!

See the difference? Although technically you are correct; it's not censorship, it's attempted censorship.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

I am so triggered right I could stage a rally.

I could blog about the rally you staged!

...and I will tweet about it! With anger!

Mission accomplished !
But a website lampooning and satirizing silliness such as this is much needed in this day and age.

peregrine wrote: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:

Mild criticism: Oh my, that's not a very nice thing to say about these people. Maybe that should've been worded a little differently.
Moderate criticism: That comment/fictional epitaph/whatever is over the line. My respect for these people has definitely gone down.
Strong critiscism: This is completely ourageous! Someone better have a good explanation for this, or apologise for it!
(Attempted) censorship: This offends me! I demand it be removed!

See the difference? Although technically you are correct; it's not censorship, it's attempted censorship.

Censorship requires authority. I can only censor you if I have authority over you. Otherwise all I can do is lay out the case for why I think what you're saying is incorrect, harmful or crass and that I think you should change what you're saying. I can be demanding about it or loud, but in the end no matter how indignant or confrontational I'm being I can still only ask you to change.

Your definition of censorship means that any place there is a disagreement over the subjective merit of something and someone takes the position that "Your position is gak, you should abandon" it", that's censorship. Following the standards you've put forward any stance firmer than "Let's agree to disagree" is censorship.

If I'm your editor and a squash your works, I'm censoring you.
If I'm your government and I suppress your works, I'm censoring you.
If I'm your investor and pull my funding unless I vet your content, I'm censoring you.

The closest this kind of thing can ever get to censorship is if the non-authoritative party tries to put pressure on someone with authority over the content produce to scuttle the content themsleves. Like going directly to the editor, government or investor and coercing them into action.

If you draw a massive erect penis on the side of a public-facing building and I go "That's awful! That's offensive! I demand you take it down" I'm not censoring you.
If you draw a massive erect penis on the side of a public-facing building and the government goes "You're under arrest and we're washing that off" the government is censoring you.
If you draw a massive erect penis on the side of a public-facing building and I got "Hey government! You should arrest that guy and wash off that penis drawing", I'm trying to get the government to censor you. Even if I succeed in convincing them I still haven't made an attempt (succesful or otherwise), to censor you the government has. If there you've a problem with the censorship your problem is with the government and not me.

So essentially it could be boiled down to a form of Soft Censorship where instead of penalty from the government it's a penalty from financial institutions, in this case the paying customer is demanding that they self censor themselves.

Regardless of the fact, all this etymology is rather getting off topic isn't it?

Correct. They're not actually censoring obsidian games. Just as I already pointed out.
But they're still attempting to do so. Hence my use of the term "(attempted) censorship".
That they lack the authority or power (as the people in your other examples do) to do so does not change the intent, and the intent is clearly to censor someone saying something they find offensive.
"I'm offended. You must change it!" is an attempt to exercise power to force someone to change something. WIth no actual authority (power remains to be seen) behind it it will come to nothing, but that's besides the point.

As for the public-facing building, the only case where you have a point is if the person doing the drawing owns the building in question. In that case yes, it would be censorship. Possibly defensible (note I did not say "right") censorship, of something extremely silly and depending on resemblance to the real thing possibly pornographic, but censorship nonetheless.
A better case for defensible censorship could be made if our wall-scribbler painted hate-inducing speeches or symbols/drawings on his own walls.

In any other case our hypothetical 'artist' is defacing someone else's property and should rightly be held accountable.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You needn't concern yourself with ol' Perry. His cast iron mind doesn't allow for any independent thought that isn't lockstep with his own.

The hypocrisy of this statement is delectable.

Since it appears that all we're left with is thinly veiled personal attacks now...