Dear Autumn Games and Unknown Varriable games,
I am writing to express my thoughts and concerns regarding a product I backed, "Keep Skullgirls Growing," and recent events that have deeply shaken me and made me feel diminished as a person. While I have already shared my sentiments in a separate post, I would like to refrain from rehashing it here. Instead, let's delve into the larger context.
Over the years, there have been numerous instances where murder mysteries, gore, and other forms of explicit content in various media have sparked moral panics and debates about their impact on society. Whether it was the satanic panic surrounding Dungeons & Dragons or the controversies surrounding violent video games, we have witnessed critics expressing their opinions on how fiction can allegedly cause real-world harm. The current situation surrounding Skullgirls falls within this broader framework.
It strikes me as inconsistent that while games like Mortal Kombat, featuring firearms and explicit violence, receive the endorsement of EVO, ESPN, and their sponsors, Skullgirls is facing scrutiny. I find myself questioning where the line is drawn and what prevents it from moving further. My concern is not solely about the recent changes made, but rather the underlying idea that these changes were necessary because it is fiction.
Simplifying the issue, I see three possible explanations. Firstly, it is possible that the development team was unaware of the problematic aspects in the game until external pressures, such as those from EVO, ESPN, and sponsors, prompted them to make sudden changes. This would parallel the earlier modification made to a sprite nearly eight years ago. Secondly, it is plausible that the team knew about the controversial content but chose to retain it for an extended period without taking any action until now. Finally, there may be a more subtle and pernicious factor at play: the assumption of a self-appointed moral authority claiming that such materials are so inherently harmful that they must be removed from the game, regardless of artistic integrity and without the consent of consumers.
The fear of media's potential influence has led to claims that certain tropes and elements are harmful or discriminatory, despite inconclusive and debatable evidence. While the impact of words and similar elements on society is a complex subject requiring diverse opinions and critical thinking, what is certain is the negative consequence of censorship. The absence of censorship guarantees neither a perfect world nor absolute safety, but it upholds democratic values such as freedom, autonomy, progress, and diversity. Opposing censorship is about creating a society that values individual rights, fosters critical thinking, and encourages the open exchange of ideas.
To censor, even in a minor capacity, contradicts these principles. While intentions may be well-meaning, they can inadvertently lead us down a problematic path. The immoral aspect of this lies in the measurable harm it causes, as noted in articles such as the one by Salman Rushdie decrying the absurd censorship of Roald Dahl's works.
The increasing discontent with censorship stems from the fact that the term "modern audience" often refers to a vocal minority that finds issues in fiction and demands censorship. If compliance is not met, they resort to utilizing their connections to coerce changes in artistic expressions. This situation mirrors the actions of those who censor books in Florida. Regrettably, I only recognized the potential misuse of the Don't Say Gay bill when it was too late, as well as the ulterior motives behind calls for altering old works or adding disclaimers to movies in the name of "sensitivity." These pretexts serve as means to exert power explicitly or through the insidious manipulation of consent while weaponizing serious issues like sexism, racism, and bigotry.
I recall addressing these concerns to Zonetan during a stream some months ago, although she defensively dismissed them, as she did not consider it censorship. Whether the changes made then were harmless and remain so now, or whether
they are being altered without a valid reason other than seeking false consensus, marketing strategies, or appeasing cultural critics to avoid trouble, is unclear. I remember when changes were implemented to align with EVO's "core values," only to discover later that the person invoking those values had been convicted of crimes, unlike those who oppose censorship.
Until recently, I was unaware of the allegations of abuse against Mike Zaimont, the owner of Lab Zero Games, the developers of Skullgirls. While I believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," it has made me ponder the importance of education and staying informed, as exemplified by my belated understanding of the ramifications of the Don't Say Gay bill.
I sincerely hope I can persuade you to reconsider the changes made. It is challenging for me to believe that these alterations were made without the influence of coercive forces manipulating the situation, especially considering the evident double standards and incessant outrage. I encourage you to review the examples provided by Sophia Narwitz in her detailed video, which, although they may seem irrelevant, shed light on the toxic behavior exhibited by individuals who judge arguments based on personal appearances or unjustly label others as abusers or "old." This toxicity should not be fostered or cultivated, as it serves no constructive purpose. Unfortunately, it seems to be an effect of the zealousness exhibited by certain individuals with personal agendas, driving them to reshape various aspects of culture to align with their own convictions.
Censorship has a negative impact on me, and I know I am not alone in this sentiment. However, even if I were to agree with the changes, they still lack a foundation in reason or reality. Therefore, I earnestly implore you to reconsider your stance on this matter.
Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns.
Sincerely,
Matthew Lawliss
I am writing to express my thoughts and concerns regarding a product I backed, "Keep Skullgirls Growing," and recent events that have deeply shaken me and made me feel diminished as a person. While I have already shared my sentiments in a separate post, I would like to refrain from rehashing it here. Instead, let's delve into the larger context.
Over the years, there have been numerous instances where murder mysteries, gore, and other forms of explicit content in various media have sparked moral panics and debates about their impact on society. Whether it was the satanic panic surrounding Dungeons & Dragons or the controversies surrounding violent video games, we have witnessed critics expressing their opinions on how fiction can allegedly cause real-world harm. The current situation surrounding Skullgirls falls within this broader framework.
It strikes me as inconsistent that while games like Mortal Kombat, featuring firearms and explicit violence, receive the endorsement of EVO, ESPN, and their sponsors, Skullgirls is facing scrutiny. I find myself questioning where the line is drawn and what prevents it from moving further. My concern is not solely about the recent changes made, but rather the underlying idea that these changes were necessary because it is fiction.
Simplifying the issue, I see three possible explanations. Firstly, it is possible that the development team was unaware of the problematic aspects in the game until external pressures, such as those from EVO, ESPN, and sponsors, prompted them to make sudden changes. This would parallel the earlier modification made to a sprite nearly eight years ago. Secondly, it is plausible that the team knew about the controversial content but chose to retain it for an extended period without taking any action until now. Finally, there may be a more subtle and pernicious factor at play: the assumption of a self-appointed moral authority claiming that such materials are so inherently harmful that they must be removed from the game, regardless of artistic integrity and without the consent of consumers.
The fear of media's potential influence has led to claims that certain tropes and elements are harmful or discriminatory, despite inconclusive and debatable evidence. While the impact of words and similar elements on society is a complex subject requiring diverse opinions and critical thinking, what is certain is the negative consequence of censorship. The absence of censorship guarantees neither a perfect world nor absolute safety, but it upholds democratic values such as freedom, autonomy, progress, and diversity. Opposing censorship is about creating a society that values individual rights, fosters critical thinking, and encourages the open exchange of ideas.
To censor, even in a minor capacity, contradicts these principles. While intentions may be well-meaning, they can inadvertently lead us down a problematic path. The immoral aspect of this lies in the measurable harm it causes, as noted in articles such as the one by Salman Rushdie decrying the absurd censorship of Roald Dahl's works.
The increasing discontent with censorship stems from the fact that the term "modern audience" often refers to a vocal minority that finds issues in fiction and demands censorship. If compliance is not met, they resort to utilizing their connections to coerce changes in artistic expressions. This situation mirrors the actions of those who censor books in Florida. Regrettably, I only recognized the potential misuse of the Don't Say Gay bill when it was too late, as well as the ulterior motives behind calls for altering old works or adding disclaimers to movies in the name of "sensitivity." These pretexts serve as means to exert power explicitly or through the insidious manipulation of consent while weaponizing serious issues like sexism, racism, and bigotry.
I recall addressing these concerns to Zonetan during a stream some months ago, although she defensively dismissed them, as she did not consider it censorship. Whether the changes made then were harmless and remain so now, or whether
they are being altered without a valid reason other than seeking false consensus, marketing strategies, or appeasing cultural critics to avoid trouble, is unclear. I remember when changes were implemented to align with EVO's "core values," only to discover later that the person invoking those values had been convicted of crimes, unlike those who oppose censorship.
Until recently, I was unaware of the allegations of abuse against Mike Zaimont, the owner of Lab Zero Games, the developers of Skullgirls. While I believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," it has made me ponder the importance of education and staying informed, as exemplified by my belated understanding of the ramifications of the Don't Say Gay bill.
I sincerely hope I can persuade you to reconsider the changes made. It is challenging for me to believe that these alterations were made without the influence of coercive forces manipulating the situation, especially considering the evident double standards and incessant outrage. I encourage you to review the examples provided by Sophia Narwitz in her detailed video, which, although they may seem irrelevant, shed light on the toxic behavior exhibited by individuals who judge arguments based on personal appearances or unjustly label others as abusers or "old." This toxicity should not be fostered or cultivated, as it serves no constructive purpose. Unfortunately, it seems to be an effect of the zealousness exhibited by certain individuals with personal agendas, driving them to reshape various aspects of culture to align with their own convictions.
Censorship has a negative impact on me, and I know I am not alone in this sentiment. However, even if I were to agree with the changes, they still lack a foundation in reason or reality. Therefore, I earnestly implore you to reconsider your stance on this matter.
Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns.
Sincerely,
Matthew Lawliss