It seems weird that I am asking this on Holla Forums

It seems weird that I am asking this on Holla Forums
But I want to hear what people think
Since apparently the opinion here has changed recently

So tell me guys
Can the censorship or banning of videogames ever be justified?
And I don't mean having age ratings or anything like that.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QsTKEyhajUo&feature=youtu.be&t=31m5s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

No

the censorship or banning of nothing can be justified

...

If it upsets turbo autist NEETs then yes.

Yes, sometimes things are just purely unacceptable, period.

Nope

Banning and censoring things for the protection of people who don't actually care about, nor are offended by those things cannot be justified.

If nuTomb Raider can feature Lara Croft being brutally maimed and murdered every time you fail a quicktime event, then my shitty weeb RPGs can stand to have a teenage girl with her midriff showing.

No.

Nope.

no

Short answer is no. The slippery slope is the only reason needed here. Ban one game for whatever reason, then it becomes easier and more normal to ban more games for more reasons. Unless it's an issue of legality, every other reason is not to be tolerated.

I don't care if weeb pedo shit is censored. Fuck em.

Absolutely not.

They should ban games because all the american games are loaded with bulldyke and faggot shit with a large portion also being racemixing with shitskins. I say ban videogames.

The common opinion is that censorship is bad, but don't Holla Forums convince you it's because they're the sole virtuous defenders of artistic vision in this crazy industry.
Censorship is bad because it usually amounts to covering up tits and asses, and other risque things.

Absolutely not. Anybody who condones the censoring/banning of a piece of media simply because they don't like it is an enormous faggot whose opinions should be ignored/laughed at.

Censorship and banning only makes it more valuable. All those kids they don't want to see the stuff? They'll go pirate it even more because they'll be totally hardcore playing something the state or their parents don't want them to play.

Why are you asking everyone here this anyway?

Only if it's liberal propaganda I don't agree with.

I get the feeling John is pro-censorship.

censoring certain aspects of a game for kids (and only for them, not for everyone, not like it's ever gonna happen though) is the only acceptable case

I find reading the autistic screeching of asshurt anons vastly entertaining so I selfishly don't care if some shit tier JRPG has dialogue changed or whatever.

Nobody makes games for kids anymore. Outside of nintendo and shovelware trash.

Of course not, let the kids learn.

youtube.com/watch?v=QsTKEyhajUo&feature=youtu.be&t=31m5s

Daily fucking reminder that this fat fuck deserves cancer and all of his shit genes

It's never acceptable.

I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why games should be censored or banned, particularly in western nations. Video games are fictitious after all.

I can understand things like age ratings or parental controls or whatever but that's about it.

No. Withdrawing kids from reality harms their development.

yeah he is hardcore leftie, was known for some time already

Is he still alive?

No dude, once you give anyone an inch for making censorship okay, they'll take a mile.

It's kinda sad seeing this be used as valid. Especially when you consider shit like, the media trying to paint Trump and UKIP as racists. I get the feeling if the stockholders who control the media and funded Hillary had just a little more power, they could have gotten either of those parties shut down. I guess that fat slob was Anti-Trump anyways, so it conveniently works for them.

Clearly never heard of the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" law in the US or is willfully ignoring it. yelling fire in a crowded theater law. Either way, this isn't what free speech protects.

AKA how democrats function. Good thing they overstepped their bounds.

In a perfect world, I'd say no, but we live in this shit called reality. In reality, if some game creator makes something that the people of another culture find offensive for some reason, to the point that said game creator won't see any sales if they choose to keep the sensitive content intact, then it stands to reason that they'd remove it for the sake of offering a palatable and marketable product. Video games are a business, after all. Gotta make the bread, right? The problem arises when game creators are "forced" into stifling their own product in order to prevent manufactured outrage from being generated about their game.

There's nothing wrong with trying to consider the sensibilities of another culture. However, if self righteous faggots, who want to bully you into deliberately shifting how you produce content, show up and try to dictate to you every single thing, then you should tell them to fuck off. I think it's more important to ask, "why do we consider [this idea] offensive?" and also, "does it [this thing] really need to be censored, or is doing so motivated by something other than the desire to exhibit [said idea] in a more understandable context?"
For example:
They should have relegated their censorship to regions where Islam is a pertinent component of society, not in fucking USA or Britain or Japan.

Are you that lolbertarian that was against preventing commie scum from expressing themselves?

I'd love it if all political agendas were censored from all games, left or right.

I wanna go back to the days when gaming was about cool shit like space marines shooting demons, and nonsense like werewolves fighting dinosaurs.

Gaming becoming an artform instead of a toy is the worst thing that cou'd've happened to it.

Yes it can be justified. I want bad games removed from the market. I want plebs voices on decision making censored and silenced. Having no censorship means everyone has an equal voice in a topic meaning that videogames go to shit.

I don't know anymore. I don't want my son getting indoctrinated by cultural marxists via videogames, I don't want some Soros-funded faggot from San Francisco putting subliminal memes into flappy bird clones.

TotalAsscancer should stick to bitching about FOV sliders and framerates, otherwise he won't have enough shekels to pay for his Wife and his Wife's Son to continue to live in comfort after he dies an agonizing death.

Simply ebin


Posting style is the same.

...

Yes

God it must suck to have children these days. They don't play straight up games anymore, they play little app shovelware toys and freemium shit that conditions them into thinking paying money to increase your level is standard and acceptable.

This user gets it

It depends if you're discussing videogames or what they are perverted to for nefarious purposes.

OP is so unwavering in his "principles" he feels the need to trick Holla Forums into validating them.

I can see it now

No, but as far as localization is concerned, if not changing something would result in less people buying the game due to culture differences, or would weird people out, then I'm for it. Not saying Treehouse localizations are good, I'm saying localizations with cultural changes CAN be done in a positive way.

Name some, if it's from japan they do stupid stuff like shoving in hamburgers or changing food to doughnuts.

You just named one right after asking me to name one, you fuck

...

...

OP IS ALWAYS A FAGGOT: NO EXCEPTIONS

What's this story now?

What was his argument yesterday?

Pottery

You ever think about how we're practically speaking a different language at times? This post will be unreadable to anyone in any other time, and even most people right now. Total Asscancer, referring to Total Biscuit; autistic as a common adjective, not necessarily meaning autistic in the literal sense; Hill for Hillary, and the entire paradigm of politics for the last year and half will be so fucking confusing to people in the future; shill, just the term in general; Pottery meaning poetry meaning perfectly fitting, in funny or ironic way.

Anyone ever think about this when reading posts?

Only if the content being censored/banned is illegal. Like the removal of CP. And no, loli doesn't count as CP.

Outside of that, no. Nope. Nuh-uh. Never.

Basically that Gramscian corruption of institutions should be allowed because "muh uncensored vidya and developer expression".

Here is the original thread:

no

And let me guess you were the faggots calling to censor anything you didn't like?

Hell the fuck no.

I think you are just retarded and looking at the opinions of people baiting you.

...

Nah. I was pointing out that at the current juncture, you can either prevent one group (leftists) from speaking and thereby guarantee that most things will remain uncensored, or you can allow them to speak and thereby ensure that most things will become censored.

OP got repeatedly BTFO for being a muh principles cuck and then made this thread to assuage his ravaged rectum.

...

Censorship is never justified. If something is really so bad you think it deserves censoring then people will shy away from it of their own accord, they don't need someone to preemptively remove "disagreeable" content on their behalf (assuming, of course, they're a sensible adult and not some overgrown crybaby who flips their shit at the merest hint of something they disagree with).

ok

why censor then, just make a game without those elements if it's for kids

Im OP

Apparently I have just fooled Holla Forums into embracing cultural marxism and the end of western civilization because I didn't mention the consequences of free speech.

Oops

I guess it really depends,censoring your games content or changing to fit retarded cultural guidelines or to curtail offense is basically games admitting that they aren't art but are just products.

Want to sell your games change that shit to get the most customers if you have artistic integrity change that shit if you think it works better for what you are trying to achieve.

No, if you don't like something, don't consume it. Use your ability to choose, don't force others to try and enjoy the same things you do, they'll just resent you in the end.

Censorship of illegal materials is okay. Otherwise no. But then the debate becomes what is and isn't illegal.

Do you have the clip of when, during the middle of his podcast, they all took a moment to show their support for all the rapefugees that were suffering because of Trump's "muslim ban"?

(1)
God damn I never though I would find a reason to do this autistic quote all the (1)s bullshit but god damn here I am.

It is basically a yes/no question for most people so (1) isn't unusual.

Considering the importance of the topic and where we are I'm skeptical of that

NO NO
NO NO NO
NO NO NO
NO NO

NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO

I'll give you a (2). I only care about the things that I find entertaining. I find reading the salt of of weebs way more than I like JRPG scripts/2D tits. So I don't care if they change shit as long as my entertainment from reading said salt is greater than my entertainment from generic JRPG stories or 2D titties.

You sound like an emotionally stunted sociopath.

nope

I don't spend my days being overly concerned about the feelings or problems of people I don't know or care about.

See this is a believable stance. I was considering not quoting you because thats a rational I'd expect from here.

Of course not. Censoring, removing or otherwise altering content in order to pander to another person or cultures proclivities is bad for the original creator and potential customer. It presumes the content to be both undesirable in terms of its content yet still desirable for its market potential while belittling the individuals who wish to experience the content by assuming they will be offended or influenced (negatively) by it.

I empathise more with age ratings but, for the most part, I think if parents do their job then kids can play whatever. It ought to be a guideline and nothing more.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'd expect or a sociopath.
Those without empathy are less than human. You're trash.

No

Yes, all Jewish subverting garbage must be censored if not outright destroyed to keep the purity of the Aryan race, as is the policy of the National Socialists of the world, like myself and the rest of my brethren on Holla Forums. Anybody who disagrees with a race traitor.

I just happen to be an outlier here when it comes to the relative entertainment merits of salt vs X that is being changed.

I care about lots of things. I just don't care about the anonymous shitposters I share this board with.

Hate to break it to you, but there's no difference.

A lot of things pertaining solely to yourself.
Do a little research on sociopathy user, you'll learn something about yourself.

Abso-fuckin-lutely and I dare you to prove me wrong.

Your armchair psychology needs some work. I have empathy for others, just not the fags here. This board is a collection of some of the most mind numbingly stupid and unlikable people around. It's just that every other vidya forum and board is even worse. If I had any other more appealing options to discuss the topic with I would be there in a flash but I don't. So I take the rare decent thread and my kicks where I can from this board but I will never care about the fags here. We just aren't a very likable bunch in the end.

Ah, we're not that bad.

HD homosexual snuff porn streams in all kindergartens so toddlers can learn about reality when?

So does your capacity for empathy.
I'm beginning to suspect you're autistic as well, because I'm not sensing even a shred of self-awareness here.

The parents are responsible. Introduce them to real games.


I'd hope that we have a much more important history than some random imageboard posts.


I expect that's true of most of us in real life. On here though you're expected to have a thick skin.

via government body?
In just about all cases, no, as long as there's intrinsic value (even being obscene) in the game itself there is no logical reason to censor it; other than to conform to an arbitrary ideology.

same as above, as long as there's some type of intrinsic value, then no; never.

Although, I could definitely supply arguments as to why one could "make up" reasons to do so (that is, even if said game has intrinsic value), but in essence it all falls under the category of prostrating one's ideology.
The same thing applies to the categorization of "obscenity", or "intrinsic value", but imo the "intrinsic value" part is very rational, and has solid logic to back it up.
Although the "obscenity" part is on rockier ground… as the definition of obscenity is quite dynamic, due to it changing over time due to the values of the culture; i.e. socially acceptable acts/things/depictions/etc determined via the culture itself.


That's why systems like the esrb exist.
There would more than likely be no need to censor as they wouldn't of included things that would prevent children from playing a game due to said rating (as the guidelines are plainly laid out); if they'd designed said game with the intention of children being the intended audience.

However, altering/changing content, or "towing the line" to a certain culture's standards (such as in the US: violence requiring a lot more brutality to get a higher rating, and overt sexuality requiring only an inkling); due to the need to appease to a ratings board for a lower age rating is pretty standard stuff.
Although, this does technically fall under the definition of self censorship, but this is more than likely done for profit, or better visibility in the general gaming scene towards the targeted audience; than to conform to some ideology of those who developed the game itself (so, generally, it's more the culture, marketing teams that want a specific rating to hit their numbers, and other such factors that are to blame; not the game developers themselves).

Though, as long as (at least in the US) any material isn't "judgable" as obscene with no intrinsic value then you can essentially put anything you want into a game; legally that is… as long as one doesn't care about any ratings, or going through the required approval process for something like the permission to port to a console.

What made you think this?

To answer your question, no.

A trivial question with a trivial answer: there necessarily exist cases where censorship is justified, since there are no boundaries on what can be represented. You can construct increasingly depraved content until any person is forced to admit that it shouldn't be viewed in general (obviously with exceptions, because otherwise we'd be constructing another absolute proposition), or lead them into alienate everyone else in the discussion with their autistic commitment to the a priori belief that "censorship is bad, period" leading them to justify any horror you can think up. Those kind of people are useful for now, because they happen to rail against the right target, censorship that has been put in place to deny reality and destroy the West, for the wrong reasons, but ultimately only capable of destroying structures rather than creating them, hence a corrosive element in Western civilization.

Posts like this:

Only if owning content that is illegal in a country and it should be limited to being censored in said country. For example, owning Nazi shit is illegal in Germany I do believe, so in Germany (or other countries where it's illegal) it should be censored. Arguing if it should be illegal in the first place is an entirely different discussion however.

If it's just "not PC" or might offend someone then it can fuck off

Man, forget western civilization. I want my anime tiddies and violent gore.

Well yes, I don't mind and often find it humorous when bad things happen to people I don't like. Which is 99.9% of Holla Forums as it happens. Also the guiding philosophy of the vast majority of posters here, I might add. It isn't some grand mental condition, lad. Honestly you sound like a woman with your tut tutting over how damaged I am for enjoying schadenfreude.

This site, and imageboards in general, aren't good because there is "no censorship", they are good because they lack the very specific kind of censorship I alluded to (in addition to other effects anonymity have on discussions). You can be free from the Leftist manufactured zeitgeist and its enforcement here, but obviously you still cannot just post and view anything and everything, because it is still censored. Most people can only operate on Universal principles because they lack the mental faculties to have a more nuanced and hierarchical view of the world and what it ought to be, which accounts for the seductiveness of "everything is permitted or nothing is" and similar idiocy, and why it's used as a rallying cry to oppose some cancerous effort; not because it's "true", but because it just spreads and motivates the largest number of people.

He might sound like a woman but at least he doesn't sound like a whiny little bitch :^)

...

No. Anyone who says otherwise is a communist.

quality post m8

Figured as much.

Why must you Holla Forumsfags ruin every thread? We at Holla Forums never do that.

I don't think you understand your own fallibility.

...

...

...

Well said lad.

You're a bad dad.


You could find more common ground with one side than the other.

Everyone is fallible, yet things still need to be done. It is enough to try, then correct any mistakes.

Of course not.
If a thing is really as detestable as its detractors claim it to be, then people will avoid it of their own accord, with any prohibition being at best redundant, and at worst giving it the appeal of forbidden fruit.
It also presumes that the people can't make their own decisions, so it's up to [insert your in-group here] to do it for them.

You sound like a tremendous boy-molesting fruit.

No

A very elegant way of saying nothing at all.
The same statement can be used to justify anything.

What other response is there to pointing out the obvious fact that I'm fallible? That's a meaningless statement, so the answer is also.

It's the dev's game, but it's a pretty shitty practice that I frown upon. The only way I can see censorship justified is if it's for legal reasons, like an asset being copyrighted for example.

It's like offering a participation award for tyranny.

People aren't just your means to an end.
Somewhere we have to draw a hard line for ourselves.
I'm not going to say "well at least you tried" when you fuck up.

A symptom of the times we live in, I suppose. One political side fighting another on the battlefield that the video game industry has become.
Censoring games, for whatever reason, seems ridiculous to me simply because of what said.

The root of the problem is that video games have become so incredibly political in the first place.
You'd be right to complain about the mental masturbation of a developer who couldn't cut it elsewhere in the entertainment industry trying to "subtly" insert his political agenda into his own game. And people are.
People are steadily getting fed up with the nonsense that is the PC culture that plagues a lot of media, not just video games. They will flock to what they like and voice their distaste over what they don't.

The argument that "people who are against censorship are useful now because they don't directly go against this certain movement" doesn't fly for me. Largely because it doesn't give a fuck about the medium itself at all.
It's driven by just another set of political believes that honestly have no place in video games, whether I or anyone else agrees with them or not. It's not what video games are about.

Censoring political ideology one doesn't like would do nothing but ruin the hobby even further while only attacking the symptoms instead of the cause.

Faggot

Creators should be allowed to craft whatever they wish. That said people can then shit on it or ridicule it, freedom from censorship works both ways. You have the right to make horrible crap and I have the right to tell you what terrible shit it is.

Anything can be justified, but its up to you to decide you accept the justification. I love me some nonanswers

Personally, I really don't care unless the change is both hamfisted like crazy and pointless, or in other words, a change that REALLY didn't need to be made, or a change that was in some sense reasonable, but godawful in the execution.
Even then, if I am aware of some dumb, needless change, it generally won't stop me from playing a game if I wanted to play it before. I suppose I am part of the problem, but I generally don't buy games anyways, censorship or no, so I have no monetary impact, at least directly, on this sort of thing in the first place.

People can be a means to an end. Observing this and acting upon this does not suggest a belief that all people are only a means to an end. Once again, this is a conclusion drawn by you in your Universalist worldview. If you don't want tyranny, where I take that specifically to mean no person has any sort of compelling power over you since you seem to have a touch of the tism about you, go live on an island and have nature as your direct master instead. Alternatively, perhaps it is that people have obligations to each other, and perhaps it is that you ought to fulfill them even if you don't like them. It's not actually useful for you to try to jam observations such as the existence of some cases where censorship is justified into the simplified absolute framework you're working with, and arguing that since it doesn't quite fit, the observation must be wrong rather than the framework.

Banning and censorship is nothing more than forbidding people of enjoying a message.

And that's inherently communism. Communism is never justified.

Expanding on this point.
Personal freedom is much more important than the "greater good" or non-personal happines, for the sole reason of that humanity's only purpose in life is to attain happiness.
I'm not denying that morality, ethics, self-control are a virtue. I'm just saying that they shouldn't be enforced by anyone but yourself or your people.

Again, you don't seem to comprehend fallibility.

We have absolutes because it has been proven to be practical.
We have these rigid standards because we don't have rigid people.

There has to be a line somewhere.
What you are proposing is not stable.

There is only the strong and the weak. Either you are strong enough to enforce your ideals or they aren't worth a bucket of warm piss. How many divisions do you command?

Pozzed shitlib media should be ridiculed and its creators have their public funding canceled, not censored. The forbidden fruit effect is real.

"Either it's all okay or none of it is" is the Cultural Marxist's battle cry, an excuse to inject as much evil as possible - until dissent becomes unfavorable.

Of course censorship is a good thing when applied right and exercised with a proper discernment. Same with any type of discrimination - it's a matter of propriety and due diligence in guarding against evil. webm related.


I do not believe so, unless the game is very clear and evident propaganda encouraging something like joining jihadists/ISIS or the like.

There are such things as moral crimes, but in the end even the most propagandizing vidya or movie lunges as far as media outlets throw it. I believe that, as we've seen in history and with our current state of mainstream media, this is the realm where hard discretion and guarding must be put up, not really with particular titles or genres of entertainment.

That being said it can only ever be applied
1. With absolute censorship (half-measures do no one any good, ie NISA titles, etc.)
2. Extremely carefully in order to preserve freedom of speech under our U.S.A constitutional rights.

The Constitution is essentially meant to be the U.S. government's Bible - which is why so many politicians need to "reinterpret" passages in order to enact sweeping changes in laws, ex.Homosexual "Marriage".
Rather like "Christian" churches encouraging Israel-worship or Hyper Grace theology.

TL;DR Censorship is like any other sword: good when utilized properly and to its fullest extent when used, bad when we start swinging mindlessly at anything that annoys us.

In short:
Sure, but the kind of games that would warrant such measures don't even exist yet (that I know of), so until then: No.

At that point you may as well just leave it to the single most prolific, and effective body of censorship: the general public.

i thought he browses cuckchan tho

How many layers of jewing are we on now?

Every time.

A post of no value has more value than anything you've posted in this thread or elsewhere.

...

Possibly if you made a game that was just outright slander/libel (i.e. non-parody, no mention of it being a work of fiction etc), maybe also if it included private information gained illegally. Other than that nope.

Also if it was a VN with real life CP assuming you are opposed to CP ofc. Both of these are common-sense exceptions to freedom of speech in general though they can be open to abuse if legislation is not thought out properly.

what did he mean by this sneakily introduced unsupported premise

thats Jessie Cox, but he got so butthurt when 4chan started calling him a cuck for endorsing Hillary through his mom or something so he went to that thread to defend himself.


I dont watch him but I might search for that episode so I can make webm out of it

holy shit just found it,
Dodger openly shilling for Soros ACLU?! disgusting

I don't think so.


Fuck off, retard.

Literally kill yourself, you worthless sentient sack of shit.

Glorious dragons are not for love or lewd, you fucking faggot. Only if they're actual women is it acceptable.

I believe censorship should only be allowed is for the sake of children, or if it's too prevent an element in media that is morally frowned upon, like pedophilia.

Pretty catchy, user.
Moar?