New York City is only 3% of the population and I’m sure Glendale CA and Redmond WA are the same. I’m reminded of the founder of The Escapist, he turned around Break.com and made it about cars women and guns and what people and Men like. That’s what the site used to be. And the traffic to that site OUT PERFORMED ALL OTHER PARTS OF BREAK.COM BY A WIDE MARGINE. Before the “fix”, it started writing articles like you’d find GQ and Esquire they were going to a downturn. When the reverse that downturn and the Media Group was having massive success the publication punished that success. They said the winning content “doesn’t align with our values”. It just shows that the company’s values was failure and rubbishing their core audience. Now that company, DEFY MEDIA, is bankrupt.
Their core value was FAILURE.
The same happens here.
Censorship is only harmful. Atrox Chobatsu knows this and i takled with them. They wouldn't have censored it if they knew how much it would affect people. That's what they said. My suicide attempts and the like moved their heart. But it's out of their hands.
It's Glendale. It's the 3% of people that hold very radical Californian and "ACADEMIC" opninons and impose it on the +90% of people who don't want it and can call it out as bad
It's forced. And the publisher is being a vampire on to the IP. Player numbers are down, Paid apple reviews are up.
It was not a different time. No time is different. Either it's wrong in every time or not.
it's EXACTLY the same.
the brain washing is too effective sadly. Because addics defend their addiction. Mdude comes to mind
But i'm hoping that some of you are intelligent to see through this.
Kicking people while they're down is gross.
I hate to use the term "woke" but that's what they call themselves.
they're losers in their twenties making badly drawn MLP furry as they have double standards on censorship.
but the discord mods worry about "proselytization."
as i get death threats
by their own logic. they are animals.
it's... strang.e there was public outcry to chagne it back. and it is BY DEFINITION censorship.
"the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
ESPECIALLY by the arist."
I'll trust someone who has studed this https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/11...rship-why-we-need-to-be-concerned-about-both/
"
A more difficult question is whether a creator or author’s wishes to ban their own work should be honoured. This is difficult because it pits the creator’s speech rights against the public right of access to speech. Neither should be taken lightly. Here, though, my own personal view leans towards the public good surpassing that of the individual creator. Until a work is released, it doesn’t occupy public space, and the rights of its creator—as well as those of the publisher or distributor—don’t come into any meaningful conflict with those of the public. But once a work is released, that calculus changes. At that juncture, the decision to retract a work has several ramifications. First, the decision might be made for the wrong reason (more on this in a moment). Second, it might incentivise future moral crusades that lead to further bannings that other authors oppose, a precedent having been established for authors to acquiesce to claims of harm. Third, it can cause a chilling effect, as authors and artists become frightened to produce anything edgy to which one group or another might claim to take offence.
A few examples will sharpen these questions. In the 1990s, Stephen King allowed his novella Rage to fall out of print, concerned that it might be have been linked to school shootings that had occurred. Later research would establish that fictional media, whether books or videogames, played no role in the development of rampage shooters. Put simply, King fell victim to a moral panic and made a mistake—albeit a good-faith mistake, made with the best information available at the time. This mistake not only made it difficult to access the book, but also contributed to a false belief at the time linking fictional media to violence—a belief that risked encouraging de jure censorship on the part of the government. There are other examples of authors who have retracted or substantially cut books, and of agents dropping authors following moralistic outcries. Each time this tendency is reinforced, it makes it more difficult for future authors to resist such moral crusades.
The other famous example—an uncomfortable one, as it cuts across even my line of argument—is that of Franz Kafka. Famously, most of Kafka’s work was published after his death, and against his explicit written instructions to have the material burned. This is a clear case of a writer’s desires being violated, but it is also hard to disagree that the world is a better place as a result. As a writer myself, I believe authors should profit from their works during their lifetimes. They should also be free to disavow their work, should they so choose. But unpublish it? I’m not so sure. Just as with science, I have the sense that creation in this space entails a certain sacrifice to the public, and that that may be something creators should make peace with as an ethical matter. Should I have the right to unpublish my novel if it becomes uncomfortable for me in the future? Honestly, I should have the right to publicly disavow it, but not to unpublish it.
There are probably some legislative fixes that may resolve some of these issues. Copyright is extended absurdly beyond the death of the creator in the United States, for instance. But, while we generally cannot rely on de jure solutions to de facto censorship, that doesn’t mean de facto censorship isn’t a real problem in its own right that we need to address as a culture. Quite the contrary: I suspect that, as producers and distributors including big tech companies become increasingly monopolistic, de facto censorship by private entities will become one of the more formidable cultural challenges of the twenty-first century."
To say otherwise is incorrect in every possible way. But ideology polutes us. An old friend turned enemy.
I'm sure it's not serious. But I wish it were. I'd rather not be than to suffer what is happening to games. yes. censorship is pain to me.
All i'm asking is for heart and understanding and just basic decency.
but HV and FC want us dead. all of us. swept away. like nothing.
and now the game fumbles. At least i got some appologies from HV and FC emplolyees.
But i fear they may hurt other people.
Their core value was FAILURE.
The same happens here.
Censorship is only harmful. Atrox Chobatsu knows this and i takled with them. They wouldn't have censored it if they knew how much it would affect people. That's what they said. My suicide attempts and the like moved their heart. But it's out of their hands.
It is to treat people as children, to hide a carrot, or cyanide in pieces of entertainment to prime and shape and maybe even brainwash people in to belief. To prime what is “acceptable” or not. To change history as the ideologue sees fit and to expunge ideas and people and even facts of reality that fail to align with the Ideology. It’s deceptive. It’s ideological bullying and abuse by infantilization. To keep people “safe” or “on the correct path” by culling out ideas and people. And it's been this way for over 60 years. From a very radical and dangerous camp that now supports Hamas. The "long march through institutions". It's the same kind of ideology that has taken root and infested Glendale.
It's Glendale. It's the 3% of people that hold very radical Californian and "ACADEMIC" opninons and impose it on the +90% of people who don't want it and can call it out as bad
It's forced. And the publisher is being a vampire on to the IP. Player numbers are down, Paid apple reviews are up.
Why else would a company shoot itself in the foot, abandon it's core audience for the sake of some "proprietary" over harmless things?
It's control. It's power. It's looking down at people like you and me as inferior.
It was not a different time. No time is different. Either it's wrong in every time or not.
Note how all the pro censorshiop people leavy accusations of pedophilia while they tried to abuse and send porn to me and give death threats. They're not good people. You are not good people.
It’s seeing the whole rest of the world as inferior. Knowing dang well that no one appreciates or wants. Speaking out against it gets one mobbed or discarded as some how socially unaceptable or abhorent by flaw of character. The insult of bigoted, racist, sexist, transphobic is the projection they love.
Pedo in this case.
Hyper Conservatism, Woke, Christian funimentalism. Take your pick. It’s all bigoted elitism. Pure and simple. It’s the long march through institutions and the dangerous cultural hegemony. It would be no different if it were the Church or other people editing books of Shakespeare to not offend the sensibilities of “weak” women and children.
Iit's EXACTLY the same.
the brain washing is too effective sadly. Because addics defend their addiction. Mdude comes to mind
But i'm hoping that some of you are intelligent to see through this.
Kicking people while they're down is gross.
I hate to use the term "woke" but that's what they call themselves.
they're losers in their twenties making badly drawn MLP furry as they have double standards on censorship.
but the discord mods worry about "proselytization."
as i get death threats
by their own logic. they are animals.
it's... strang.e there was public outcry to chagne it back. and it is BY DEFINITION censorship.
"the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
ESPECIALLY by the arist."
I'll trust someone who has studed this https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/11...rship-why-we-need-to-be-concerned-about-both/
"
A more difficult question is whether a creator or author’s wishes to ban their own work should be honoured. This is difficult because it pits the creator’s speech rights against the public right of access to speech. Neither should be taken lightly. Here, though, my own personal view leans towards the public good surpassing that of the individual creator. Until a work is released, it doesn’t occupy public space, and the rights of its creator—as well as those of the publisher or distributor—don’t come into any meaningful conflict with those of the public. But once a work is released, that calculus changes. At that juncture, the decision to retract a work has several ramifications. First, the decision might be made for the wrong reason (more on this in a moment). Second, it might incentivise future moral crusades that lead to further bannings that other authors oppose, a precedent having been established for authors to acquiesce to claims of harm. Third, it can cause a chilling effect, as authors and artists become frightened to produce anything edgy to which one group or another might claim to take offence.
A few examples will sharpen these questions. In the 1990s, Stephen King allowed his novella Rage to fall out of print, concerned that it might be have been linked to school shootings that had occurred. Later research would establish that fictional media, whether books or videogames, played no role in the development of rampage shooters. Put simply, King fell victim to a moral panic and made a mistake—albeit a good-faith mistake, made with the best information available at the time. This mistake not only made it difficult to access the book, but also contributed to a false belief at the time linking fictional media to violence—a belief that risked encouraging de jure censorship on the part of the government. There are other examples of authors who have retracted or substantially cut books, and of agents dropping authors following moralistic outcries. Each time this tendency is reinforced, it makes it more difficult for future authors to resist such moral crusades.
The other famous example—an uncomfortable one, as it cuts across even my line of argument—is that of Franz Kafka. Famously, most of Kafka’s work was published after his death, and against his explicit written instructions to have the material burned. This is a clear case of a writer’s desires being violated, but it is also hard to disagree that the world is a better place as a result. As a writer myself, I believe authors should profit from their works during their lifetimes. They should also be free to disavow their work, should they so choose. But unpublish it? I’m not so sure. Just as with science, I have the sense that creation in this space entails a certain sacrifice to the public, and that that may be something creators should make peace with as an ethical matter. Should I have the right to unpublish my novel if it becomes uncomfortable for me in the future? Honestly, I should have the right to publicly disavow it, but not to unpublish it.
There are probably some legislative fixes that may resolve some of these issues. Copyright is extended absurdly beyond the death of the creator in the United States, for instance. But, while we generally cannot rely on de jure solutions to de facto censorship, that doesn’t mean de facto censorship isn’t a real problem in its own right that we need to address as a culture. Quite the contrary: I suspect that, as producers and distributors including big tech companies become increasingly monopolistic, de facto censorship by private entities will become one of the more formidable cultural challenges of the twenty-first century."
To say otherwise is incorrect in every possible way. But ideology polutes us. An old friend turned enemy.
I'm sure it's not serious. But I wish it were. I'd rather not be than to suffer what is happening to games. yes. censorship is pain to me.
All i'm asking is for heart and understanding and just basic decency.
but HV and FC want us dead. all of us. swept away. like nothing.
and now the game fumbles. At least i got some appologies from HV and FC emplolyees.
But i fear they may hurt other people.
Last edited:
