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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Asterios wrote:
thats censorship when people are afraid of saying or doing something in fear of being labeled or called things and so forth.

So, your solution to that speech should be free of consequences? That we should silence people who would “label” others?
.

the right to freedom of speech is tantamount to our very constitution and is in our countries first amendment, censorship should not be allowed, nor be used to dictate our laws.

Asterios wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Asterios wrote:
thats censorship when people are afraid of saying or doing something in fear of being labeled or called things and so forth.

So, your solution to that speech should be free of consequences? That we should silence people who would “label” others?
.

the right to freedom of speech is tantamount to our very constitution and is in our countries first amendment, censorship should not be allowed, nor be used to dictate our laws.

just because you can say something, doesnt mean you should. You are free to say what ever you want but you will be punished for it acordingly. For instance go into a court room and curse at the judge, free speech and all that but you will be punished.

Free speech is the right to voice an oppnion not be ignorant of others or rude to peoples feelings. Hate speech is still very much a thing.

OgreChubbs wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Asterios wrote:
thats censorship when people are afraid of saying or doing something in fear of being labeled or called things and so forth.

So, your solution to that speech should be free of consequences? That we should silence people who would “label” others?
.

the right to freedom of speech is tantamount to our very constitution and is in our countries first amendment, censorship should not be allowed, nor be used to dictate our laws.

just because you can say something, doesnt mean you should. You are free to say what ever you want but you will be punished for it acordingly. For instance go into a court room and curse at the judge, free speech and all that but you will be punished.

Free speech is the right to voice an oppnion not be ignorant of others or rude to peoples feelings. Hate speech is still very much a thing.

and yet the KKK and Black lives Matter groups can legally go out and march and such, that is the value of freedom of speech, but these are done on streets and the open, inside a home and a courthouse is like the judges home, you say something he does not like he has the right to kick you out of his house, so there is a big difference since you can be outside the courthouse and curse the judge and well within your rights to do so, you just can't do it in his house and expect to be allowed to.

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't know, I'd be perfectly happy with wargaming getting an 18+ rule attached. I want to play games with other adults...

I will say having a local game store with a bar, makes this rather nicely serving as a seperation. I have started to see more "Game and Brew" places starting to pop up as well. I can see the appeal for them.

Asterios wrote:
also you slap an 18+ label on a mini only place you will get them is online and even then probably not.

Kingdom Death has "MA 17+" label and I can pick it up at two of the local game shops here.

 Kojiro wrote:
Complaining something is sexist is expressing a moral opinion.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So, just to make things clear, are you saying that I should abide by your definition of morality, but that you will in turn abide to mine?

That is the main crux which is why there is such a diversity to the issues with the subject, sexism and morals are subjective especially moreso when we aren't talking about real people but imaginary things.

 Dark Severance wrote:

Asterios wrote:
also you slap an 18+ label on a mini only place you will get them is online and even then probably not.

Kingdom Death has "MA 17+" label and I can pick it up at two of the local game shops here.

big differance between video and miniature games, slapping a 17+ or 18+ on it makes it much more exciting and desired, while miniatures it makes you a pervert.

The big difference is we are another industry entirely and we can see from the other industry.

For many especially the small companies the computer games industry rating is a money-drain and a barrier to competition.
If you cannot pay to be rated you cannot join the competition in the shops, digital distribution as steam has helped a lot with this barrier but it is still there, moreover many studios has sacrificed content to hit a more desirable age bracket by the distributor because X rating committee thought their content was for a higher age bracket while another (or even the same) committee decided their competitors game with the same content more or less is ok for the desired age bracket.

who really decides what content is and at what age bracket? and how products are rated, as individual peaces? as a whole? for example (again) 40k models are not that big of a deal may get a rating T but some would definitely get higher rating because of gore, should the entire range get the rating or just that model? the fluff books are definitely M should the models get M rating too?

Putting a rating is not easy and should not be taken so light, KDM put a rating on the box for reasons, I do not agree with his choice, there is no rating system in the industry.

Asterios wrote:
big differance between video and miniature games, slapping a 17+ or 18+ on it makes it much more exciting and desired, while miniatures it makes you a pervert.

In this example I'm not sure what video games have to do with miniatures games, Kingdom Death is a miniatures game. The statement was made that if you put a MA label on a miniature, then it will only be available online.

 Dark Severance wrote:

Asterios wrote:
big differance between video and miniature games, slapping a 17+ or 18+ on it makes it much more exciting and desired, while miniatures it makes you a pervert.

In this example I'm not sure what video games have to do with miniatures games, Kingdom Death is a miniatures game. The statement was made that if you put a MA label on a miniature, then it will only be available online.

my bad thought it was a video game since never heard of a miniatures board game being rated since its a death knell to any such game since it would exclude younger potential players.

Asterios wrote:
my bad thought it was a video game since never heard of a miniatures board game being rated since its a death knell to any such game since it would exclude younger potential players.

Just do a search for Kingdom Death and you will understand why. It has the rating moreso because of the theme, over-the-top demons (that thematically fit) and pin-ups. Although the pin-ups aren't needed for the game at all they were an example of miniatures that didn't get a huge outcry that they were sexiest unlike Prodos Space Crusaders which did.

Keep in mind there were no laws or regulations that actually made him do that. That was something he chose to do given the subjective nature of the material.

Asterios wrote:
the right to freedom of speech is tantamount to our very constitution and is in our countries first amendment, censorship should not be allowed, nor be used to dictate our laws.

Ah yes, the traditional "but the first amendment!!!" argument we always get in these threads. The first amendment applies to government censorship of speech. It does NOT apply to individuals saying "this is bad, stop doing it". Please do not confuse the wo.

Asterios wrote:
now if laws are passed to make all miniature games 18+ then your argument might have had a chance, but they are not, then you say what about the nudes being made 18+? then I say what about the scantily clad ones which parents would deem offensive to their poor childs eyes?ok we make those 18+ ? so that leaves us with what miniatures left that kids can use in their miniature games?but wait those miniatures are holding weapons and promote violence, well have to make those 18+ now and by the time you are done kids are removed from miniature game hobby.

Who. ing. Cares.

If all miniatures games become 18+ then I'm not going to care one bit about it. In fact, my game experience will likely improve now that there aren't obnoxious children in the store making all of the adults feel awkward. Just imagine: no "watch your language, there are kids here" rules, no worrying about how to tell the annoying kid with the half-assembled space marine starter box that don't want to play a game without causing an argument, etc. If this is the horrible dystopian future that you see if sexy miniatures are criticized then I'm really not worried.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
my bad thought it was a video game since never heard of a miniatures board game being rated since its a death knell to any such game since it would exclude younger potential players.

And the fact that the game exists and seems to be selling pretty well rather clearly disproves your claim of such a rating being a death knell. Younger players are nowhere near as necessary as you seem to think.

 Mymearan wrote:
There are a lot of strawmen here. I don't think anyone wants sexy miniatures banned.

Spoiler:

I certainly don't, although I would probably still be labelled an "SJW" by many people. What I personally would like to see is variety. There is room for cheesecake, there is room for seriousness. But if the majority of what we have is cheesecake, if 99% of all "sexy slave models" are female... Then we have a problem. Why? Because of the society we live in. Historically, women have most often (but not always!) been seen as the lesser gender. Men are the ones with power, the ones who rule, the ones who decide the important things. The women are at home, taking care of the children, providing sexual services, cooking, cleaning, etc. Again, not in all societies and certainly not always. But it is there, and it is very common. This image of the submissive woman is something that has carried forward to our day. It is getting better in many cases. We see more powerful female role models, like Katniss Everdeen of Hunger Games, Elsa and Anna of Frozen, and many others. Women have the power, in many countries, to have their own careers, to be powerful... Although still not nearly as much as men, and they still get paid less for the same work because of those cultural artefacts. And that's the point. These things have effects in real life. No one thing does, but millions and millions of small things put together.

And still, the image of the sexy and submissive woman is everywhere. In advertising, in movies, in comics, in magazines... And in miniature wargaming. All these things contribute to the image we, as a society, have of women. Now again, I don't want to ban anything. Every creator should be free to create whatever they want. The problem is society's, not any one person or company's. But this is something more people should think about. So we get back to the GoA Jabba guy. I personally find the portrayal of sexual slavery in a goofy, often comical game to be in not very good taste. Why continue to propagate the image of the submissive, sexy, woman, going as far as to make her physically chained to the man who controls her? Does it add anything to the portrayal of this character beyond T&A and some quite horrifying implications that don't jive with the general tone of the game? In my opinion it does not. There is always the excuse of "but it's fluffy!". Yes. And GW could make a miniature portraying Dark Eldar group raping a human female, and it would be very fluffy. But would you find it in good taste? Probably not. Note that I'm not equating these two concepts, but simply making the point that everyone makes moral judgements. There are infinite ways to portray this concept without resorting to sexual slavery. Sexual slavery is not goofy, or comical, or something that should be used as a throwaway reference. Again, I don't want to ban anything, but I would love if people put more thought into these things.

If the the slave handler was a female would have been ok? It is a fact that most countries in the past have been involved in slavery business, so slavery is associated with a dark past, and a practice of lesser civilization, in miniatures the pose is often sexually depicted but in the past the nudity was part of the humiliation, slaves were like cattle, they didn't need clothes, and clothes hide defects.
It would nice if people would stop looking at things without their high morality glasses. And then there is the avenue of kickstarter to make miniatures in a more realistic stance.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
the right to freedom of speech is tantamount to our very constitution and is in our countries first amendment, censorship should not be allowed, nor be used to dictate our laws.

Ah yes, the traditional "but the first amendment!!!" argument we always get in these threads. The first amendment applies to government censorship of speech. It does NOT apply to individuals saying "this is bad, stop doing it". Please do not confuse the wo.

no but if our right to do such is taken away then it is bad, just like Christians wanted to do away with Polygamy even though it hurt no one and it was done away with.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
now if laws are passed to make all miniature games 18+ then your argument might have had a chance, but they are not, then you say what about the nudes being made 18+? then I say what about the scantily clad ones which parents would deem offensive to their poor childs eyes?ok we make those 18+ ? so that leaves us with what miniatures left that kids can use in their miniature games?but wait those miniatures are holding weapons and promote violence, well have to make those 18+ now and by the time you are done kids are removed from miniature game hobby.

Who. ing. Cares.

If all miniatures games become 18+ then I'm not going to care one bit about it. In fact, my game experience will likely improve now that there aren't obnoxious children in the store making all of the adults feel awkward. Just imagine: no "watch your language, there are kids here" rules, no worrying about how to tell the annoying kid with the half-assembled space marine starter box that don't want to play a game without causing an argument, etc. If this is the horrible dystopian future that you see if sexy miniatures are criticized then I'm really not worried.

now see we can agree on something I've noticed a trend of game stores being turned into essentially free day care for parents to drop off their kids with a couple bucks and send the whole day there. here here I say make all miniature board games and all games become 18+, but that would also mean doing away with pokemin, yu-gi-oh and magic card games since those market to kids mainly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
my bad thought it was a video game since never heard of a miniatures board game being rated since its a death knell to any such game since it would exclude younger potential players.

And the fact that the game exists and seems to be selling pretty well rather clearly disproves your claim of such a rating being a death knell. Younger players are nowhere near as necessary as you seem to think.

i'm glad it is doing good, just saying i've never heard of it. that is why I confused it with a Video game, it is not played anywhere around here or sold now that i think about it.

Asterios wrote:
no but if our right to do such is taken away then it is bad, just like Christians wanted to do away with Polygamy even though it hurt no one and it was done away with.

Well ok, what's your point here? There is no realistic possibility of legal bans on sexy miniatures any time in the foreseeable future. The government is not going to take your toys away.

now see we can agree on something I've noticed a trend of game stores being turned into essentially free day care for parents to drop off their kids with a couple bucks and send the whole day there. here here I say make all miniature board games and all games become 18+, but that would also mean doing away with pokemin, yu-gi-oh and magic card games since those market to kids mainly.

Then why are you so worried about the possibility of miniatures games getting an 18+ rule?

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
no but if our right to do such is taken away then it is bad, just like Christians wanted to do away with Polygamy even though it hurt no one and it was done away with.

Well ok, what's your point here? There is no realistic possibility of legal bans on sexy miniatures any time in the foreseeable future. The government is not going to take your toys away.

just like the government won't do religious prosecutions? like not allowing the Mormons polygamy beliefs?

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
now see we can agree on something I've noticed a trend of game stores being turned into essentially free day care for parents to drop off their kids with a couple bucks and send the whole day there. here here I say make all miniature board games and all games become 18+, but that would also mean doing away with pokemin, yu-gi-oh and magic card games since those market to kids mainly.

Then why are you so worried about the possibility of miniatures games getting an 18+ rule?

because it would hurt the hobby as a whole, with no younger generation playing there is no way to get them into the game or continue the game down the generations. after 18 not many people will pick up miniature games, that is mostly done when they are younger.

also I'm not talking about a Government ban per se but if the company is forced to stop selling something because some group got in a tizzy over it, classic items include the Taco Bell Chihuahua, Spanish Barbie, plastric pigs in farm toy sets in the UK, Black Canary Barbie, the current push to ban gender specific toys and areas, Steve the tramp figure, breaking bad figures and the list goes on and on and on, all products the company removed and stopped making because of pressure from way too sensitive groups.

Asterios wrote:
just like the government won't do religious prosecutions? like not allowing the Mormons polygamy beliefs?

Look, you can make all the theoretical arguments you like, but it all comes back to the fact that you can buy and sell hardcore pornography right now and there is no credible challenge to this policy. As long as this remains the case there is absolutely zero chance of the sale of sexy miniatures to adults being in any danger. It is unfortunate that polygamy is treated differently, but it doesn't mean anything for this discussion.

because it would hurt the hobby as a whole, with no younger generation playing there is no way to get them into the game or continue the game down the generations. after 18 not many people will pick up miniature games, that is mostly done when they are younger.

{citation needed}

I picked up miniatures at about 25, and most of the people I play miniatures games with also got into them as adults.

also I'm not talking about a Government ban per se but if the company is forced to stop selling something because some group got in a tizzy over it, classic items include the Taco Bell Chihuahua, Spanish Barbie, plastric pigs in farm toy sets in the UK, Black Canary Barbie, the current push to ban gender specific toys and areas, Steve the tramp figure, breaking bad figures and the list goes on and on and on, all products the company removed and stopped making because of pressure from way too sensitive groups.

So what? I fail to see the problem here. If these controversial things weren't profitable enough for the manufacturer to say "STFU, we're going to keep selling this" then that's too bad, companies aren't obligated to continue selling the products you want to buy no matter what effect it has on their profits. On the other hand, if there is a significant market for those things then the company is entirely free to say "STFU we're going to keep selling this" and make lots of money. Or, if they choose not to, another company is free to come along and fill that market niche.

So what it comes down to is the real fear here: that people who want sexy miniatures are a small and powerless market, and the only way to keep those products available is to silence all criticism of them.

 Peregrine wrote:
So what? I fail to see the problem here. If these controversial things weren't profitable enough for the manufacturer to say "STFU, we're going to keep selling this" then that's too bad, companies aren't obligated to continue selling the products you want to buy no matter what effect it has on their profits. On the other hand, if there is a significant market for those things then the company is entirely free to say "STFU we're going to keep selling this" and make lots of money. Or, if they choose not to, another company is free to come along and fill that market niche.

So what it comes down to is the real fear here: that people who want sexy miniatures are a small and powerless market, and the only way to keep those products available is to silence all criticism of them.

so the Taco Bell Chihuahua wasn't profitable for Taco Bell? it was removed because people said it was insensitive to Mexicans and yet most of the Mexicans I know loved the dog and did not consider it racist or denegrating to their culture.

and now we have the Redskins Mascot and name which is under fire the owner does not want to get rid of it, yet is being forced too, even though most recent polls show most Native Americans have no problem with the name or the mascot, yet because of an over sensitive minority (or as I call them White Indians, go see the pics of the people going after the redskins and see how many are White.) these thing are gone or will be gone soon. so, so much for your STFU theory since that doesn't wash.

Asterios wrote:
so the Taco Bell Chihuahua wasn't profitable for Taco Bell?

Apparently not, because if it was then Taco Bell would have kept it.

and now we have the Redskins Mascot and name which is under fire the owner does not want to get rid of it, yet is being forced too, even though most recent polls show most Native Americans have no problem with the name or the mascot, yet because of an over sensitive minority (or as I call them White Indians, go see the pics of the people going after the redskins and see how many are White.) these thing are gone or will be gone soon. so, so much for your STFU theory since that doesn't wash.

And yet the racist name* still remains. Despite all the protests about it they have no power to force the owner to make a change. In fact, he has stated that he will not make a change. Nor will the government step in and force him to make a change. All you've done here is help to prove my point for me.

*Yes, it is a racist name. Go read the history of the team, and how its original name was changed by a white supremacist owner.

Given the reports from the companies that care to give them out I would say people who want sexy miniatures over sensible" miniatures are a major buying force, so this is not a fear.

The market been small and underexposed is also a good factor it allows manufacturers to do their business without social press on their shoulders.

If you fail to see the problem, you simply fail to see the problem and nothing can be done, I will try to explain, there is a possibility a product be successful but be canceled because of a minority of extremely loudmouthed minority abusing the normal democratic means to enforce their opinion on others.

This is not realistic to happen in the wargame industry at this point, but could happen if it gets more successful the boardgame industry is on the verge of getting the mass to draw attention and the industry that is huge enouph to be a close example is the computer games industry were they have a constant battle against media and people getting offence.

I would like to prevent our industry from falling in the same situation with "violent games" for example in Australia games deemed perfectly fine are banned, I would not like to see this in our industry.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
so the Taco Bell Chihuahua wasn't profitable for Taco Bell?

Apparently not, because if it was then Taco Bell would have kept it.

and now we have the Redskins Mascot and name which is under fire the owner does not want to get rid of it, yet is being forced too, even though most recent polls show most Native Americans have no problem with the name or the mascot, yet because of an over sensitive minority (or as I call them White Indians, go see the pics of the people going after the redskins and see how many are White.) these thing are gone or will be gone soon. so, so much for your STFU theory since that doesn't wash.

And yet the racist name* still remains. Despite all the protests about it they have no power to force the owner to make a change. In fact, he has stated that he will not make a change. Nor will the government step in and force him to make a change. All you've done here is help to prove my point for me.

*Yes, it is a racist name. Go read the history of the team, and how its original name was changed by a white supremacist owner.

the dog was an icon plain and simple, as to the redskins, go read your history on that about Government not getting involved:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-redskins-ban_us_561ae70ee4b0e66ad4c854af

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-ban-redskins-name-html-20151012-htmlstory.html

Asterios wrote:
just like the government won't do religious prosecutions? like not allowing the Mormons polygamy beliefs?

Apples and oranges. You like to make a lot of comparisons that aren't actually related to the discussion that was going on.

Asterios wrote:
Taco Bell Chihuahua ...
... Redskins Mascot

These two things have something in common that they don't share with gaming miniatures, they are public icons. They are on tv, movies, on clothing, posters, in magazines and on billboards. People don't have a choice to not see them or look. They can turn off the tv, close the magazine, look away from the posterboard yes... but they are always there.

Unlike gaming miniatures which are in a public store or setting, however people going to those places already have a general idea of what they are going to find and see. There is a wide diveristy of games, those that people don't like, they just don't watch or participate. They don't however go to a WH40K table and picket them because they don't like how Slaanesh miniatures look. You aren't going to have people coming into the store complaining because they were outside, looking in a window and noticed a scantly clad miniature and it offended them.

Asterios wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Asterios wrote:
thats censorship when people are afraid of saying or doing something in fear of being labeled or called things and so forth.

So, your solution to that speech should be free of consequences? That we should silence people who would “label” others?
.

the right to freedom of speech is tantamount to our very constitution and is in our countries first amendment, censorship should not be allowed, nor be used to dictate our laws.

Are you telling me that because freedom of speech is so important, you should censor people because else there might be censorship?
This is getting more and more confusing.

Asterios wrote:
the dog was an icon plain and simple

Too bad it wasn't a profitable one. Taco Bell's purpose is to make money, not to preserve marketing campaigns you consider "iconic".

And again, this just goes back to the real fears here: you're afraid that people who want to buy sexy miniatures are a small and powerless market, so any criticism of sexy miniatures needs to be silenced. The threat is not that someone is going to step in and ban sexy miniatures, it's that the people making them are going to voluntarily decide "this isn't making enough money anymore" and move on to more profitable product lines. And you're terrified that if the current companies producing sexy miniatures do drop those product lines you aren't a profitable enough market for new companies to start producing their own sexy miniatures.

as to the redskins, go read your history on that about Government not getting involved:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-redskins-ban_us_561ae70ee4b0e66ad4c854af

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-ban-redskins-name-html-20151012-htmlstory.html

Well that's certainly an impressively dishonest bit of goalpost moving. Or do you honestly not understand the difference between the government forcing a private business to change its mascot and the government deciding that its own organizations will not use that mascot?

Do you have proof that this was the reason, or simply choose the explanation that fits your worldview?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Are you telling me that because freedom of speech is so important, you should censor people because else there might be censorship?
This is getting more and more confusing.

You are not the only one confused here, I really do not get some of this!

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
the dog was an icon plain and simple

Too bad it wasn't a profitable one. Taco Bell's purpose is to make money, not to preserve marketing campaigns you consider "iconic".

And again, this just goes back to the real fears here: you're afraid that people who want to buy sexy miniatures are a small and powerless market, so any criticism of sexy miniatures needs to be silenced. The threat is not that someone is going to step in and ban sexy miniatures, it's that the people making them are going to voluntarily decide "this isn't making enough money anymore" and move on to more profitable product lines. And you're terrified that if the current companies producing sexy miniatures do drop those product lines you aren't a profitable enough market for new companies to start producing their own sexy miniatures.

as to the redskins, go read your history on that about Government not getting involved:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-redskins-ban_us_561ae70ee4b0e66ad4c854af

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-ban-redskins-name-html-20151012-htmlstory.html

Well that's certainly an impressively dishonest bit of goalpost moving. Or do you honestly not understand the difference between the government forcing a private business to change its mascot and the government deciding that its own organizations will not use that mascot?

except that it is not only for public schools, but private schools too.

as to the NFL team they are still facing issues and might even have the NFL force them to change their name, not counting the federal trademark office that tried to block them from trademarking their name, then there is the name itself which was changed to Redskins when the team was in Boston, when it used to be called the Braves so named by a self proclaimed American Sioux.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Asterios wrote:
thats censorship when people are afraid of saying or doing something in fear of being labeled or called things and so forth.

So, your solution to that speech should be free of consequences? That we should silence people who would “label” others?
.

the right to freedom of speech is tantamount to our very constitution and is in our countries first amendment, censorship should not be allowed, nor be used to dictate our laws.

Are you telling me that because freedom of speech is so important, you should censor people because else there might be censorship?
This is getting more and more confusing.

no, people should not be censored, the problem is censorship is being forced on people by negativity from others, the issue is they should not allow censorship or the minority to make their decisions but they do because that minority is a very vocal minority.

Never forget that the definition of Public versus Private property rights. I see an awful lot of people arguing that "Some institutions ban offensive speech" and that should be grounds for government to ban offensive speech. This is a common mistake. Property rights dictate that I may set whatever rules I wish on my property. I can ban cursing, or wearing a certain set of shoes, or I can ban somebody from visiting for no other reason that to demonstrate that I can.

In the First Amendment, it covers public property to be a "Place of Open Forum" which means you can say anything you wish, because the property belongs to everybody, and therefor everything is fair game. They did this because you had two viewpoints: "Because the property is everyone's, you should uphold everyone's right to say what they wish", "or because the property is everyone's you must attempt to protect everyone's sensibilities". Protecting everyone's sensibilities was out of the question because no matter you say, it is possible that somebody might find it objective and offensive. So they chose the former.

But to the point: Private Property is private: the owner bans whatever he wishes.
Public Property belongs to everyone, and because it is impossible to protect everyone's sensibilities, the only reasonably alternative to giving the courts a dangerous power over what people might or might not say in public is to allow everyone to say whatever they wish in equal measure. Similarly, the internet has been declared a place of open forum with exception to sites that are privately owned (the people who run dakkadakka, for instance, may ban me for whatever reason they wish, and that is their sovereign right as owners of this website to do so) .

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Given the reports from the companies that care to give them out I would say people who want sexy miniatures over sensible" miniatures are a major buying force, so this is not a fear.

That sounds a bit like the "We don't need a ramp, we never had a customer with a wheelchair" argument. They are a major buying force but from their exiting customer-base (and often with a lack in the same variety as male miniatures). The industry is relatively small and it might grow even better if it had more options. Some people like a bigger variety of female miniatures and not the same sexy miniatures all the time. They might think these are not immersive, ridiculous, or whatever. We have the internet and people can voice their opinion, that makes it much easier for a small company to see what people might want. How is that a bad thing? They still can chose to produce something more conservative that their customer-base is used to or try to expand with that information. Nobody is forcing them and yes, some people who make their own miniature lines have told us in this thread that having a bigger variety can be a hard thing to do because of the production needs. It's still their choice and they can just ignore the articles and blogs and just do their own thing.

Overall i don't know how somebody can complain about the possibility of censorship and at the same time advocate for the silencing of dissenting opinion on grounds that somebody else might feel bad because of it? If people are okay with somebody feeling bad about a sexy female miniature then they should also be able to be okay with somebody else feeling bad about a review of that miniature.

And generally regarding the censorship in Germany (yes the flag is correct): I don't know the exact details for this because it was never really a problem for me I got Doom/Quake/Wolfenstein/C&C without problem as a teenager. The store I bought it from just had the Austrian version of the game (or some other european version, or the US version). Overall it means the game may not be advertised but adult still may buy them but it also made the games much more in demand for young edgy teenagers so the censorship just increased sales (think Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics stickers on CDs). I think there is a second list that is a bit harsher but I don't know the details (or that was the harsher list?). It never really affected me, I just got more choices.

When it comes to video games humans were often replaced by robots (or green blood) but you could easily patch it (and I think these days there isn't much that is changed anyways) or just buy the non-german version (it's not like they put much effort in the translation), or the original version that was usually released weeks or months earlier (who could really wait?). And you can also ask them to evaluate your game again. Most of the stuff that got onto the list would be removed today as the perception of video games has changed.

On the other hand that censorship got us some fun stuff like crunchy infantry when you drive your tank over them in C&C (they were robots after all), or Probotector which was the european version of Konami's Contra games. The robots were much cooler than puny humans.

I don't know about scale models and swastikas. I think they could be okay (but I never bought german planes, never felt like "Nazis, yeah, that's what I want") on these (had they different decal sheets?). Usually it's just about not promoting nazi stuff and that also adjusts to perception and changes how it's applied. Censorship in Germany (from my point of view) is not really worse than film or video game ratings in the USA, technically it probably is but the effect never showed for me.

Asterios wrote:
no, people should not be censored, the problem is censorship is being forced on people by negativity from others, the issue is they should not allow censorship or the minority to make their decisions but they do because that minority is a very vocal minority.

There is a difference between censorship and removing something because it is considered racist.

How do you know that minority is a vocal minority?

 Dark Severance wrote:

Asterios wrote:
no, people should not be censored, the problem is censorship is being forced on people by negativity from others, the issue is they should not allow censorship or the minority to make their decisions but they do because that minority is a very vocal minority.

There is a difference between censorship and removing something because it is considered racist.

How do you know that minority is a vocal minority?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

 Dark Severance wrote:

Asterios wrote:
no, people should not be censored, the problem is censorship is being forced on people by negativity from others, the issue is they should not allow censorship or the minority to make their decisions but they do because that minority is a very vocal minority.

There is a difference between censorship and removing something because it is considered racist.

How do you know that minority is a vocal minority?

Define "Racist". For instance, if I suggested to an asian woman she was not cut out to be an airforce pilot, and she thought it was because I was racist and not because the minimum height requirement for an airforce pilot to be 5'10 (as opposed to this woman's stature of 5'4), should I be censored for racism?

Asterios wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

Do you understand how those surveys actually work? I will quote you from the actual survey done in 2004 that explains where the numbers came from:

The sample of telephone exchanges called was randomly selected by a computer from a complete list of thousands of active residential exchanges across the country. Within each exchange, random digits were added to form a complete telephone number, thus permitting access to both listed and unlisted numbers. Within each household, one adult was designated by a random procedure to be the respondent for the survey.

In other words they cold call people in the US. They ask them if they would like to take a survey, then they ask qualifier questions, do they consider themselves to be a Native American or Indian. When they answer yes, they ask questions.

The problem with those polls is that they are way too small of a sample size to determine anything. The survey you linked to asked 504 people, the one in 2004 asked 1,000 people. You also don't know what other qualifier questions were asked. Are these voters? What is the age range of these people? There is no evidence that the person asked is actually a Native American or Indian, they just have to say yes.

The advocates asking for change are multiple organizes and groups, one of them being National Congress of American Indians which has 1.2 million individuals within the organization. That is just one of the organizations... but a random poll of 1504 people is supposed to be considered a majority?