Congratulations on totally missing the point of why he brought it up. He didn't bring it up because of its "worthy"ness, he brought it up because it's a genuine case of government censorship applied to a game and it's gotten literally zero discussion in a thread about censorship applied to a game where the primary discussion is about what actually constitutes censorship instead of, say, discussion about why that's good, bad, or in between.
I'm likewise curious about why things that are relevant and cogent to the censorship discussion have been totally ignored.I'm all ears.
Here's a cool censorship test for you guys.
If a guy approaches me and asks to advertise on my billboard, which occupies a very prominent section of a heavily traveled section of major highway, and I refuse on any grounds to display the advertisement, is that censorship?
The answer is no. Even if I have the only billboard visible from the highway, it is not censorship.
If a guy approaches me, etc, and I decide that his advertisement is abhorrent, tasteless, or any other descriptor and in doing so attempt to convince other proud billboard owners that this guy should not be allowed to display his advertisement, is that censorship?
The answer is yes.
Steam is not trying to get other distributors to shut down this game. Steam is not doing anything besides saying "No, you may not use my billboard."
It is not censorship.
It's somewhat frustrating that my (admittedly self-evaluated) Good Analogy got wholly ignored by the thread.
It's a terrible analogy, because the stores in question went to the trouble of actively denying access to the store (which isn't the same as a "billboard", sorry) because a couple of ideologue troublemakers decided these things were not kosher for the rest of us and shamed the stores into submission. You don't want it called a "censorship", I disagree but accept, for language should at least be a common thing between us. Call it as you please, I don't like it. Because if it starts with things that we both may well dislike (I have no love for Hatred, ar ar ar), the same arguments can be used against things we actually love.
And no the Indian case is still a very different situation. As I have stated, it's a worse situation than Hatred, but let's be clear about why there was no discussion regarding it: it's ****ing consensual that it's incredibly bull****. But as in many Indian issues, it's filled with homophobic politics, racism, class and fascist underpinnings. In other words, it's a very different culture that is still decades in barbarism in certain social issues. And because the issue is entirely consensual in these discussion boards and in twitter which are mostly western, then by definition there is no discussion about it. Why would anyone discuss what is consensual? The Indian censorship is bull****, their reasons are bull****, they should be ashamed, ****ing period.
e: Wait, I've changed my mind a bit on this issue. I think you are correct in saying this is an important case that informs this discussion, and I was a bit wrong declaring it unimportant because it is consensual between us. Yes, it is consensual, but here's an important detail: the reasons for it being censored (or not even distributed due to fear of it being censored) are abhorrent to our western values, but if we are allowed to take down games from stores because of our values, what is to stop others from doing the same with their own values? As I said above, what is to stop others from using the exact same arguments these high moral priests of social correctness use against the very games that you think are actually progressive and advancing your own morals?
Once you allow this kind of white noise chat about how certain "media" is "harmful" to our core ideological goals and should be "challenged" and attacked, boycotted and thrown out of stores, then you are effectively giving intellectual ammo to actual authocratic regimes to pull **** like censoring DA:I. And if you are going to criticize the government for it, then they will call you out for your hypocrisy.
Standing for Free Speech is something we should all be in the same boat, people. Get a load of the "horrible, gruesome, ghastly" Christopher Hitchens on it NAU: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EMFreedom of speech includes the freedom to hate
please don't shoot right back with snark and sarcasm.
Congratulations on totally missing the point of why he brought it up.
Thanks Lorric. Small note: the last time I did this **** I got a warning. I don't want to begin thinking that if this kind of **** is done by a mod against me, then it suddenly becomes kosher. Another note: while it riled me up it only did so for a second, so you don't have to worry Scotty it's all ok.