When it comes to issues of censorship. there are a lot of people who defend it for reasons that are beyond me.
now i was criticzed. rightly by being a jerk in the other threads. Well, i'd like to change that.
i do stand by the fact that a lot of the pro censorship crowd is misinformed, projecting or violent. that has shown itself to be true. undeniably so.
And i wonder if that's the kind of audicence we want to keep. because goodness knows the player numbers drop.
I know a documentarian and people that have been stalked and harassed for OVER TEN YEARS.
even prominant individuals.
the pro censorship crowd are dangerous and that's why i do this. So the people saying things are fine. are casting their vote in with this.
genius.com
I am reminded of the Helldivers situation and how people still said that Thor of PirateSoftware was a "crybaby" when he was giving Sony his criticisms. His legit criticisms just have flies still saying he was wrong... because people so married to Sony or Helldivers 2 just want to enjoy the game ... while they're being crapped on. And i see a lot of that here. That it's just thought killing put downs but i want to hope it's more than that.
That's sad to see, that's what many censorship defenders seem to say that call others crazy or whining... it's toxic. And to see just how toxic....
When people show themselves, believe them.
The people who scream that "she's a minor" and all that had no problem with having skeletons in their own closet.
The people that said that we have to get rid of the "nazi" imagery had no problems with the tactics of abusive totalitarian regimes.
The people who said it would keep racial/ethinic/identity minorities from harm have no problems or qualms my minority voice and the voices of others.
Yet still surely there's someone out there willing to engage in good faith. Surely there's someone out there who can make the case or at least this can be a way to have people's voices heard.
I've had my say, Censorship not only doesn't stop harm, it's the cause of it. A lot of it.
it's too easy to mock.
let's have an example where someone couldn't be consistent with themselves.
This person with all their screaching. said they honestly didn't care.
Then went on to flirt with me show me their porn and spit in the face of child victims of SA.
And i wonder if any of you just have such strong convictions but loosely held.
all that talk. just to mack and be a creep. with their friends. when i coud have been a minor.
Well that's the problem, they don't care.
it was also really funny how they macked on me.
But we know why this happens.
An anti abuse org shows why it is wrong to equate drawings with real life abuse. That's the same think like calling furry art the same as bestiality.
And the same people that said that "drawings = abuse", the same people who talked at the UNITED NATIONS and are informing policy were found guilty of harming kids. Convicted.
AS for all the other stuff like police bruatliaty and "nazi" imagry and the like.
It was either wrong the whole time or it it isn't wrong at all.
Not only do we have the Weimar Fallacy showing that censorship was not just the tool but hate speech laws lead to the rise of Nazism.
We now have a majority white company saying that a Comb in an afro was racist.
Even with the best intentions that is a ridiculous thought. But it does lessen the impact of the scene.
Linguist Eric McWhorter has, as a black man, a stern warning against such infantalization and patronization of black individuals. That what we see with that censorship is a kind of benevolent racism.
In all that. it's way WAY too easy to point the finger and mock.
in the age of only fans and the like. people will cheer that but then take exception over games because it's "gross". In working with sewage or cleaning and manual labor or anything related to our bodies. There's always the element of societal pressures to shun that which is undignified or gross be it janitorial work, sewage cleaning, even breast feeding. There's a strange phobia about all of that and "whoopie" is one of those things.
It is a horrible self inflicted or societal pressure/torture of "Enantiodromia" (being pulled at both ends).
The very people that take such exception to materials that are "bad" are the ones that may have hang ups themselves. It's a vain attempt to try to throw others off the trail of a stench of their own terribleness.
Adam tots and the violence against those who were upset that Stellar Blade was censored, despite all indications it wouldn't be. were viciously mocked. But in a way that really shows the sins of those doing the mockery. Homophobia and the like. Strawmans. You name it.
And sadly. yes, i have this one instance. (and many more) of people being dishonest. terribly so. Thing is. the only people that really seem to reply to my other posts were ... well i think they are right. i was not exactly the best either.
Mdude just comes around and dunks. that's just them
But STONE made a very good point.
forum.skullgirlsmobile.com
yes, i am very much "biased" to anti censorship but it didn't help me to make strawmen out of others. they were right. the other poll is at 50 50 now.
A long time academic that has studied the mortal kombat debacle back in the 90s now has to give the same warning he gave back then about the burning of books and the changing of lore/censorship for the very subjective idea of sensibilities and fears.
“Censoring video games is always wrong! It's strange that this is such a controversial statement nowadays, but it's come to a point in time where many people defend censorship vehemently. Now, if you haven't heard, the most recent victim of video game censorship is a game called Skullgirls. And honestly, considering the trend of censoring anything that is in any way offensive is so widespread, I'm actually kind of surprised it took the pro-censorship crowd this long to throw a fit over this game.
Now, I don't have hundreds of hours of this game, but I did play it back in the day and really enjoyed it. It's a cute little fighting game with phenomenal art, riveting characters, and complex gameplay. Well, just a couple of weeks ago, a patch dropped for this game that censored large parts of the game and straight up removed other parts of it. Bear in mind, this game has been out for 10 years. I thought that surely nobody would defend censoring a 10-year-old game, but to my surprise, there are many who did just that.
As I searched the internet, I feel that not only were many people defending censorship, but they were unfairly characterizing anyone who criticized the censorship of a 10-year-old game. As I thought more about it as the days went by, it bothered me more and more until the point where I felt compelled to make this video.
Now, when people censor video games, it's almost always under the guise of removing what they feel is dangerous information. In the case of Skullgirls, two of the biggest aspects that were censored were allusions to real-world hate groups and racial sensitivity.
The way the first change was actually implemented was by removing the red armband from the Black Egrets, the group of soldiers who serve under one of the main characters named Parasol. This red armband was seen as too close to Nazi armbands. Though the second change was implemented, they removed one of the more graphic scenes of the character Big Band being beaten and left for dead by his fellow cops. Since Big Band is African-American, this was seen as too close to real-world instances of racial violence.
This is one of the biggest misconceptions of the pro-censorship crowd. They believe that not talking about or not depicting real-world issues is a noble idea. However, this accomplishes the complete opposite of what they think it does. Censoring these issues brings less awareness to these topics instead of more.
In the case of the Black Egrets, they were censored because they were supposedly the good guys, and having them identify with the imagery was seen as promoting that view. The Black Egrets, though, are the military of a totalitarian dictatorship. The inclusion of the red armbands was a way of warning the player against trusting totalitarian governments. It was a way of showing that even the so-called good guys could turn into something evil if the situation is right. The Canopy Kingdom, which the Black Egrets served under, also has a very dark past. This includes the rule of King Renoir, who restricted political freedoms and enforced authority with jackbooted officers. The red armbands served as a reminder that even the so-called good guys can have committed atrocities in the past and made the Black Egrets more complex and their backstory into more of a moral gray area.
In the case of Big Band, by removing his art in the story mode, it trivializes the police brutality that happened instead of highlighting it. When players are exposed to the full brutality of a scene, it makes a bigger impact on them. These changes have only served to downplay the issues that should be talked about instead of highlighting them. Not portraying real-world issues is not a noble pursuit; it's a foolish one.
Since the pro-censorship crowd seems to think that even depicting these issues in fiction is dangerous, it's not a stretch to infer that they think fiction inspires real-world events. In these cases, it seems that they think that by identifying the Black Egrets with the Nazis or showing police brutality inflicted on Big Band, they're inspiring real-world racism. This is a completely preposterous notion that fiction, especially video games, inspires any meaningful amount of real-world action. It's reminiscent of the constant scares of video games causing violence. Whenever violent video games come out, this exact same rhetoric is thrown around.
A perfect example is the video game Hatred, an extremely violent video game and basically a mass shooting simulator. Many critics at the time said it was going to inspire real-life mass shootings. The game was removed from Steam for a small period of time but was later brought back with a personal apology from Gabe Newell. Only eight years ago, such censorship was abhorred enough to force an apology from one of the biggest names in gaming. But now, it's celebrated. Unsurprisingly, a mass shooting inspired by Hatred never actually took place. It's hard to believe that video games have inspired real-life violence in any meaningful way.
One of the most recent studies on if there is a link between violent video games and violent behavior was done in 2020 by Royal Society Open Science, which concluded: "current research is unable to support the hypothesis that violent video games have a meaningful long-term predictive impact on youth aggression." Therefore, why do people believe that video games have a meaningful long-term predictive impact on beliefs such as racism? It seems hard to believe that including the red armbands of the Egrets or the depiction of Big Band's betrayal would have inspired any real-life racism or police brutality.
Furthermore, this extends to one of the other biggest points of contention of the recent Skullgirls censorship, and that would be the removal of sexual themes, specifically of the character Fillia. Now, Fillia,in the canon, is 16 years old.
Some changes were made to remove what was believed to be sexualized content towards this character. Based on the previous points, it's hard to believe Fillia will inspire any meaningful amount of real-world sexualization of 16-year-olds either. It's understandable that people are concerned about children; obviously, real-life children should be protected. But a fictional character like Philea, while her depiction can be off-putting to some at times, generally seems harmless in the grand scope of things. Her depiction is really no worse than girls in current anime, such as Nagatoro.
The censorship around Fillia is also the most perplexing part of this whole debacle. Although some scenes were altered, like the scene from our story mode that shows her underwear, other scenes in this game still show her underwear largely unaltered. So it's very strange that people are defending the censorship because if the people who are defending it believe that the way Filia has been portrayed is wrong, don't they think this hasn't gone nearly far enough?
If the pro-censorship crowd had it their way, they would likely remove Fillia completely. And show you the demographic that is upset about the censorship. The censorship has largely been categorized as removing “sexualization” of minors. That's not true at all either. Much of the artwork that was censored was of characters who are 18 plus, like Cerebella in this scene or the way they adjusted a scene of Double Violet.
One of the biggest ways that this game has set itself apart from others has always been its character designs and its use of sexual themes. Now, whether or not you think this is a good way to market a game, it's very disingenuous that people are downplaying the censorship. This is one of the main ways that this game was marketed, and it was definitely one of the multitude of reasons that people became interested in this game in the first place. So, of course, people are upset about the removal of sexual themes.
It's also very dubious that the censorship will, in any meaningful way, stop the sexualization of any of these characters. It's one of the biggest problems with censorship, and that it almost always misses the point of what it's actually trying to accomplish. The censorship of any of these characters will never, in any meaningful way, reduce their sexualization. They've been characters on the internet for 10 years. All the art that was censored will remain on the internet. The censorship to the Black Egrets does not change the fact that the rest of their uniform or their weapons are both inspired by Nazi Germany. The censorship to Big Band does not change the fact that an African-American police officer was assaulted by white police officers.
The censoring of Hatred did not prevent it from being purchased on alternative markets. The digital age is here, and those censors will continue to try to stifle information. There's very little that can actually be done to prevent the dissemination of information online. A mod that removes all the censorship to Skullgirls is already out. Although there are benefits to the digital age, such as the dissemination of information, there are also massive drawbacks as well. The biggest is a concerning trend of digital products consumers own never actually belonging to them.
The Skullgirls team has taken a digital product that many people purchased and altered it in very significant ways. They've cut out entire pages from the art book, removed and re-announced voice lines, and drawn over concept art to make it less offensive. The current Skullgirls team, while many of them have ties to the very beginning of the game, is not the same team it was at the beginning. They're missing some of the most important contributors to the Skullgirls brand. They're also literally a completely different company than the original Lab Zero, who is now censoring Lab Zero's products.
The digital age just made the censorship okay in some people's eyes, but imagine if these were physical products. Imagine if you bought a physical art book that you really loved. Ten years later, when the company you bought that art book from is overtaken by another company, that new company comes into your house and demands that you give them the pages of the art book that they deemed offensive.
Now, even if you had no problem with it, although many popular gaming websites try to unfairly characterize everyone who's raised their voice about this censorship as nazi pedophiles. Censorship is truly what the backlash against Skullgirls has been about. It's about censorship and the nature of owning digital art. If consumers allow such censorship without raising any concern about it, that's a very dangerous precedent. At any time, a developer can drop a digital patch removing swaths of content that consumers enjoyed under the guise of reflecting on past decisions.
Although the changes with Skullgirls might not seem like a big issue to some, if these kinds of actions are allowed, another time will come where a developer censors something that the so-called pro-censorship crowd loved, that they were attached to, and then they will have zero recourse to get that content back because they're the very ones who cheered that censorship on from the start.”
-luckystrike1917
and we have this as well... that maybe this whole censorship issue is something that stems from something far more complicated. something that made a stereotype of itself. Good intentions... hot place.. you know the rest. it's probably why we here the W word used so often. And i have to admit I am saddened if any of the people on my side have attacked any of you in the same way.
With all of this. why are people still pro censorship? Does it serve a good? Does it stop harm? Was there harm at all? Can we prove it?
yet still as much As i disagree and as much as i made my thoughts known. i should refrain from testing such reasons. Maybe after all this people are still pro censorship and to me "dont' get it". I'm sure the other side says the same of me as well.
I don't know what to do other than to say what i think is right and correct.
now i was criticzed. rightly by being a jerk in the other threads. Well, i'd like to change that.
i do stand by the fact that a lot of the pro censorship crowd is misinformed, projecting or violent. that has shown itself to be true. undeniably so.
And i wonder if that's the kind of audicence we want to keep. because goodness knows the player numbers drop.
I know a documentarian and people that have been stalked and harassed for OVER TEN YEARS.
even prominant individuals.
the pro censorship crowd are dangerous and that's why i do this. So the people saying things are fine. are casting their vote in with this.
John "TotalBiscuit" Bain (Ft. Anita Sarkeesian, GamerGate, Jack Thompson, Rowan Kaiser & Zoe Quinn) – Enough is Enough
Online harassment towards TotalBiscuit finally pushes him to speak on it. From the soundcloud description: I am tired of the lies. I am tired of the faux morality. I am tired of
genius.com
I am reminded of the Helldivers situation and how people still said that Thor of PirateSoftware was a "crybaby" when he was giving Sony his criticisms. His legit criticisms just have flies still saying he was wrong... because people so married to Sony or Helldivers 2 just want to enjoy the game ... while they're being crapped on. And i see a lot of that here. That it's just thought killing put downs but i want to hope it's more than that.
That's sad to see, that's what many censorship defenders seem to say that call others crazy or whining... it's toxic. And to see just how toxic....
When people show themselves, believe them.
The people who scream that "she's a minor" and all that had no problem with having skeletons in their own closet.
The people that said that we have to get rid of the "nazi" imagery had no problems with the tactics of abusive totalitarian regimes.
The people who said it would keep racial/ethinic/identity minorities from harm have no problems or qualms my minority voice and the voices of others.
Yet still surely there's someone out there willing to engage in good faith. Surely there's someone out there who can make the case or at least this can be a way to have people's voices heard.
I've had my say, Censorship not only doesn't stop harm, it's the cause of it. A lot of it.
it's too easy to mock.
let's have an example where someone couldn't be consistent with themselves.
This person with all their screaching. said they honestly didn't care.
Then went on to flirt with me show me their porn and spit in the face of child victims of SA.
And i wonder if any of you just have such strong convictions but loosely held.
all that talk. just to mack and be a creep. with their friends. when i coud have been a minor.
Well that's the problem, they don't care.
it was also really funny how they macked on me.
But we know why this happens.
An anti abuse org shows why it is wrong to equate drawings with real life abuse. That's the same think like calling furry art the same as bestiality.
And the same people that said that "drawings = abuse", the same people who talked at the UNITED NATIONS and are informing policy were found guilty of harming kids. Convicted.
AS for all the other stuff like police bruatliaty and "nazi" imagry and the like.
It was either wrong the whole time or it it isn't wrong at all.
Not only do we have the Weimar Fallacy showing that censorship was not just the tool but hate speech laws lead to the rise of Nazism.
We now have a majority white company saying that a Comb in an afro was racist.
Even with the best intentions that is a ridiculous thought. But it does lessen the impact of the scene.
Linguist Eric McWhorter has, as a black man, a stern warning against such infantalization and patronization of black individuals. That what we see with that censorship is a kind of benevolent racism.
In all that. it's way WAY too easy to point the finger and mock.
in the age of only fans and the like. people will cheer that but then take exception over games because it's "gross". In working with sewage or cleaning and manual labor or anything related to our bodies. There's always the element of societal pressures to shun that which is undignified or gross be it janitorial work, sewage cleaning, even breast feeding. There's a strange phobia about all of that and "whoopie" is one of those things.
It is a horrible self inflicted or societal pressure/torture of "Enantiodromia" (being pulled at both ends).
The very people that take such exception to materials that are "bad" are the ones that may have hang ups themselves. It's a vain attempt to try to throw others off the trail of a stench of their own terribleness.
Adam tots and the violence against those who were upset that Stellar Blade was censored, despite all indications it wouldn't be. were viciously mocked. But in a way that really shows the sins of those doing the mockery. Homophobia and the like. Strawmans. You name it.
And sadly. yes, i have this one instance. (and many more) of people being dishonest. terribly so. Thing is. the only people that really seem to reply to my other posts were ... well i think they are right. i was not exactly the best either.
Mdude just comes around and dunks. that's just them
But STONE made a very good point.
Stone
yes, i am very much "biased" to anti censorship but it didn't help me to make strawmen out of others. they were right. the other poll is at 50 50 now.
A long time academic that has studied the mortal kombat debacle back in the 90s now has to give the same warning he gave back then about the burning of books and the changing of lore/censorship for the very subjective idea of sensibilities and fears.
“Censoring video games is always wrong! It's strange that this is such a controversial statement nowadays, but it's come to a point in time where many people defend censorship vehemently. Now, if you haven't heard, the most recent victim of video game censorship is a game called Skullgirls. And honestly, considering the trend of censoring anything that is in any way offensive is so widespread, I'm actually kind of surprised it took the pro-censorship crowd this long to throw a fit over this game.
Now, I don't have hundreds of hours of this game, but I did play it back in the day and really enjoyed it. It's a cute little fighting game with phenomenal art, riveting characters, and complex gameplay. Well, just a couple of weeks ago, a patch dropped for this game that censored large parts of the game and straight up removed other parts of it. Bear in mind, this game has been out for 10 years. I thought that surely nobody would defend censoring a 10-year-old game, but to my surprise, there are many who did just that.
As I searched the internet, I feel that not only were many people defending censorship, but they were unfairly characterizing anyone who criticized the censorship of a 10-year-old game. As I thought more about it as the days went by, it bothered me more and more until the point where I felt compelled to make this video.
Now, when people censor video games, it's almost always under the guise of removing what they feel is dangerous information. In the case of Skullgirls, two of the biggest aspects that were censored were allusions to real-world hate groups and racial sensitivity.
The way the first change was actually implemented was by removing the red armband from the Black Egrets, the group of soldiers who serve under one of the main characters named Parasol. This red armband was seen as too close to Nazi armbands. Though the second change was implemented, they removed one of the more graphic scenes of the character Big Band being beaten and left for dead by his fellow cops. Since Big Band is African-American, this was seen as too close to real-world instances of racial violence.
This is one of the biggest misconceptions of the pro-censorship crowd. They believe that not talking about or not depicting real-world issues is a noble idea. However, this accomplishes the complete opposite of what they think it does. Censoring these issues brings less awareness to these topics instead of more.
In the case of the Black Egrets, they were censored because they were supposedly the good guys, and having them identify with the imagery was seen as promoting that view. The Black Egrets, though, are the military of a totalitarian dictatorship. The inclusion of the red armbands was a way of warning the player against trusting totalitarian governments. It was a way of showing that even the so-called good guys could turn into something evil if the situation is right. The Canopy Kingdom, which the Black Egrets served under, also has a very dark past. This includes the rule of King Renoir, who restricted political freedoms and enforced authority with jackbooted officers. The red armbands served as a reminder that even the so-called good guys can have committed atrocities in the past and made the Black Egrets more complex and their backstory into more of a moral gray area.
In the case of Big Band, by removing his art in the story mode, it trivializes the police brutality that happened instead of highlighting it. When players are exposed to the full brutality of a scene, it makes a bigger impact on them. These changes have only served to downplay the issues that should be talked about instead of highlighting them. Not portraying real-world issues is not a noble pursuit; it's a foolish one.
Since the pro-censorship crowd seems to think that even depicting these issues in fiction is dangerous, it's not a stretch to infer that they think fiction inspires real-world events. In these cases, it seems that they think that by identifying the Black Egrets with the Nazis or showing police brutality inflicted on Big Band, they're inspiring real-world racism. This is a completely preposterous notion that fiction, especially video games, inspires any meaningful amount of real-world action. It's reminiscent of the constant scares of video games causing violence. Whenever violent video games come out, this exact same rhetoric is thrown around.
A perfect example is the video game Hatred, an extremely violent video game and basically a mass shooting simulator. Many critics at the time said it was going to inspire real-life mass shootings. The game was removed from Steam for a small period of time but was later brought back with a personal apology from Gabe Newell. Only eight years ago, such censorship was abhorred enough to force an apology from one of the biggest names in gaming. But now, it's celebrated. Unsurprisingly, a mass shooting inspired by Hatred never actually took place. It's hard to believe that video games have inspired real-life violence in any meaningful way.
One of the most recent studies on if there is a link between violent video games and violent behavior was done in 2020 by Royal Society Open Science, which concluded: "current research is unable to support the hypothesis that violent video games have a meaningful long-term predictive impact on youth aggression." Therefore, why do people believe that video games have a meaningful long-term predictive impact on beliefs such as racism? It seems hard to believe that including the red armbands of the Egrets or the depiction of Big Band's betrayal would have inspired any real-life racism or police brutality.
Furthermore, this extends to one of the other biggest points of contention of the recent Skullgirls censorship, and that would be the removal of sexual themes, specifically of the character Fillia. Now, Fillia,in the canon, is 16 years old.
Some changes were made to remove what was believed to be sexualized content towards this character. Based on the previous points, it's hard to believe Fillia will inspire any meaningful amount of real-world sexualization of 16-year-olds either. It's understandable that people are concerned about children; obviously, real-life children should be protected. But a fictional character like Philea, while her depiction can be off-putting to some at times, generally seems harmless in the grand scope of things. Her depiction is really no worse than girls in current anime, such as Nagatoro.
The censorship around Fillia is also the most perplexing part of this whole debacle. Although some scenes were altered, like the scene from our story mode that shows her underwear, other scenes in this game still show her underwear largely unaltered. So it's very strange that people are defending the censorship because if the people who are defending it believe that the way Filia has been portrayed is wrong, don't they think this hasn't gone nearly far enough?
If the pro-censorship crowd had it their way, they would likely remove Fillia completely. And show you the demographic that is upset about the censorship. The censorship has largely been categorized as removing “sexualization” of minors. That's not true at all either. Much of the artwork that was censored was of characters who are 18 plus, like Cerebella in this scene or the way they adjusted a scene of Double Violet.
One of the biggest ways that this game has set itself apart from others has always been its character designs and its use of sexual themes. Now, whether or not you think this is a good way to market a game, it's very disingenuous that people are downplaying the censorship. This is one of the main ways that this game was marketed, and it was definitely one of the multitude of reasons that people became interested in this game in the first place. So, of course, people are upset about the removal of sexual themes.
It's also very dubious that the censorship will, in any meaningful way, stop the sexualization of any of these characters. It's one of the biggest problems with censorship, and that it almost always misses the point of what it's actually trying to accomplish. The censorship of any of these characters will never, in any meaningful way, reduce their sexualization. They've been characters on the internet for 10 years. All the art that was censored will remain on the internet. The censorship to the Black Egrets does not change the fact that the rest of their uniform or their weapons are both inspired by Nazi Germany. The censorship to Big Band does not change the fact that an African-American police officer was assaulted by white police officers.
The censoring of Hatred did not prevent it from being purchased on alternative markets. The digital age is here, and those censors will continue to try to stifle information. There's very little that can actually be done to prevent the dissemination of information online. A mod that removes all the censorship to Skullgirls is already out. Although there are benefits to the digital age, such as the dissemination of information, there are also massive drawbacks as well. The biggest is a concerning trend of digital products consumers own never actually belonging to them.
The Skullgirls team has taken a digital product that many people purchased and altered it in very significant ways. They've cut out entire pages from the art book, removed and re-announced voice lines, and drawn over concept art to make it less offensive. The current Skullgirls team, while many of them have ties to the very beginning of the game, is not the same team it was at the beginning. They're missing some of the most important contributors to the Skullgirls brand. They're also literally a completely different company than the original Lab Zero, who is now censoring Lab Zero's products.
The digital age just made the censorship okay in some people's eyes, but imagine if these were physical products. Imagine if you bought a physical art book that you really loved. Ten years later, when the company you bought that art book from is overtaken by another company, that new company comes into your house and demands that you give them the pages of the art book that they deemed offensive.
Now, even if you had no problem with it, although many popular gaming websites try to unfairly characterize everyone who's raised their voice about this censorship as nazi pedophiles. Censorship is truly what the backlash against Skullgirls has been about. It's about censorship and the nature of owning digital art. If consumers allow such censorship without raising any concern about it, that's a very dangerous precedent. At any time, a developer can drop a digital patch removing swaths of content that consumers enjoyed under the guise of reflecting on past decisions.
Although the changes with Skullgirls might not seem like a big issue to some, if these kinds of actions are allowed, another time will come where a developer censors something that the so-called pro-censorship crowd loved, that they were attached to, and then they will have zero recourse to get that content back because they're the very ones who cheered that censorship on from the start.”
-luckystrike1917
and we have this as well... that maybe this whole censorship issue is something that stems from something far more complicated. something that made a stereotype of itself. Good intentions... hot place.. you know the rest. it's probably why we here the W word used so often. And i have to admit I am saddened if any of the people on my side have attacked any of you in the same way.
With all of this. why are people still pro censorship? Does it serve a good? Does it stop harm? Was there harm at all? Can we prove it?
yet still as much As i disagree and as much as i made my thoughts known. i should refrain from testing such reasons. Maybe after all this people are still pro censorship and to me "dont' get it". I'm sure the other side says the same of me as well.
I don't know what to do other than to say what i think is right and correct.
Attachments
Last edited:
