There is a significant yet subtle difference between:
"You can make whatever you want, but you should know that there are people who won't buy/appreciate/enjoy X and Y if you choose to make those..."
and
"You shouldn't make X and Y."
The first is absolutely fine, should be communicated, and is, I think something every artist considers when creating. (Or should, in as much as they at least consider their intended audience.) The second is, to use a term I enjoy avoiding, problematic.
PA had to take a comic down because some company somewhere thought it misrepresented their brand. None of that is government censorship, but it all has a huge effect on what kinds of content artists feel comfortable creating.
.
Um, pursuing misrepresentation of one's brand has actual legal precedence in civil courts concerning business law.
Who cares who is offended? Fuck being offended. "Offended" is irrelevant.
The question is whether something is harmful to society and specifically harmful to an oppressed group. Harmful meaning it causes harm. I have no problem at all telling an artist to stop harming people. And if you don't think implicit social messages harm people, then click on any of the many sociological studies that are posted in the op.
Sorry, but people have been using the righteousness of their crusades to justify banning any number of products. No, I have no doubt that art can affect people in both negative and positive ways, but that's not why it needs to be limited. In fact, that's exactly why it shouldn't be limited.
To give another example, I have no trouble believing that some violent video games might have a profoundly negative influence on children. For all I know, a game might, at some point, have pushed someone closer to committing actual murder. Movies, books and paintings may have all done the same! But I believe in a society where adults can create and consume whatever kind of entertainment they wish to.
It's a good thing none of us are talking about banning anything.
A really good thing for our arguments, especially. Because it invalidates everything you are saying.
Sorry, that was a poor choice of words.
What I meant was that people have been using double-standards in evaluating the worth of art, and then using morality as a justification, for a very long time.
No, no one was talking about banning anything. But the argument that the usual standards of free speech do not apply in this special case is a tired one. And you were arguing that an artist should not be able to share their art, which does sound like a pretty clear limit to me.
Nobody is calling for censorship, censorship has to come from the law. We just want to put pressure on creators to express our views, that's not censorship! We're just voting with our mouths and our dollars!
Well...yes and no.
Why do you think the first interracial kiss on television was a milestone? Why do you think that was considered a 'brave' move on the part of the Star Trek producers? There wasn't any law against interracial kissing at the time, so it wasn't a censorship issue, right? Yet it was a huge risk all the same.
Yeah, and in the eyes of videogame marketers, putting a woman on the box cover is a "huge risk." That's still not censorship, because that's not what censorship is.
"Should" and "should not" are neutral—they are a constant of human society and can be used positively or negatively. "You shouldn't show interracial kissing" said a regressive group defending the status quo. "Yes you should!" said the other group. Sometimes a "should" is right, sometimes it's wrong. It depends on the argument. The arguments on our particular side are pretty good, which is probably why people keep diving into rhetorical bombast intended solely to garner agreement through the use of a powerful language (censorship, crusade, moral panic) absent any justification.
I think that witch picture you just posted is awesome though. I love the style, and I'd totally want to play her in a game. Different tastes, I guess.
Why do characters of either gender need a 'reason' to be sexy beyond "The artist wanted them to be that way?"
but for a chess game? why does a chess game need a sexy witch?
Why does a chess game need giant insects with battlestaff things?
Why does a chess game need giant robots?
because the people who made the game chose to represent that abstract piece with that figure for whatever reason?
EDIT: I dunno this is feeling less and less like "Let's address sexism in the industry" and more like "Let's start a grand crusade against all depictions of women that could be viewed as sexualized ever". Seriously, even Super Metroid was being criticized as sexist in this thread. Because it portrayed a very heavily muscled Samus in gear that wouldn't look out of place on an Olympic competitor at the end.
And you were arguing that an artist should not be able to share their art, which does sound like a pretty clear limit to me.
Without feeling pressure from society that sexist art is no longer desirable. A limit from culture, not censors.
There are so many straw men in this heated argument that I'm surprised the whole thing hasn't gone up in flames.
No I don't.
+3
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited May 2013
I love how the argument, "well, you just CAN'T tell artists you don't like their stuff! You can't, I say!" is mouthed by the people who pretend that everyone's voice has to be heard no matter how onerous.
If telling people to shut up is censorship, then you've completely invalidated any argument you have been studiously trying to make to tell us to shut up.
I think that witch picture you just posted is awesome though. I love the style, and I'd totally want to play her in a game. Different tastes, I guess.
Why do characters of either gender need a 'reason' to be sexy beyond "The artist wanted them to be that way?"
but for a chess game? why does a chess game need a sexy witch?
Why does a chess game need giant insects with battlestaff things?
Why does a chess game need giant robots?
because the people who made the game chose to represent that abstract piece with that figure for whatever reason?
But of all the choices, why that particular figure?
(Assuming that is a representation of a bishop in that game.)
Why not this instead?
EDIT: Also, in regards to Super Metroid, the only real complaint levied at that game was the reward for speed running it and and the death scene showing her off in a skin tight suit which even then was sort of given a explanation of why one might wear a skin tight suit in that kind of armor. Plus, you know, there is this
I love how the argument, "well, you just CAN'T tell artists you don't like their stuff! You can't, I say!" is mouthed by the people who pretend that everyone's voice has to be heard no matter how onerous.
If telling people to shut up is censorship, then you've completely invalidating any argument you have been studiously trying to make to tell us to shut up.
You can (and should, as long as you're not a dick) absolutely tell artists you don't like their stuff! Hell, most of the ones I know would welcome it, as long as you could articulate what and why and were polite. It's feedback, they can improve, they can grow, they can be BETTER.
You just shouldn't tell 'em they can't make it anymore because you don't like it.
As to the last bit, well... No. Everyone does get to speak. We just don't have to listen.
"Let's start a grand crusade against all depictions of women that could be viewed as sexualized ever".
You have impeccable timing.
As for Metroid, no one is complaining about the entirety of it and I'm sure most people think Samus being an early female protagonist is pretty rad! Now, the fact that your reward for completing the game is seeing her in various states of undress culminating in her underwear for the fastest completion time?
"Should" and "should not" are neutral—they are a constant of human society and can be used positively or negatively. "You shouldn't show interracial kissing" said a regressive group defending the status quo. "Yes you should!" said the other group. Sometimes a "should" is right, sometimes it's wrong. It depends on the argument. The arguments on our particular side are pretty good, which is probably why people keep diving into rhetorical bombast intended solely to garner agreement through the use of a powerful language (censorship, crusade, moral panic) absent any justification.
Everyone thinks that the arguments on their side are good. The people in the 60s who thought that sexuality on TV would lead to the decline of youth everywhere thought that too. That's why it's your side.
What I'm suggesting is that maybe "should" and "should not" are the wrong ways to approach artistic expression. Maybe we should simply consume the media we like and try to encourage more of it (whether that means creating it ourselves or supporting the artists who do), instead of trying to tell people what they should not create.
+3
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I love how the argument, "well, you just CAN'T tell artists you don't like their stuff! You can't, I say!" is mouthed by the people who pretend that everyone's voice has to be heard no matter how onerous.
If telling people to shut up is censorship, then you've completely invalidating any argument you have been studiously trying to make to tell us to shut up.
You can (and should, as long as you're not a dick) absolutely tell artists you don't like their stuff! Hell, most of the ones I know would welcome it, as long as you could articulate what and why and were polite. It's feedback, they can improve, they can grow, they can be BETTER.
You just shouldn't tell 'em they can't make it anymore because you don't like it.
As to the last bit, well... No. Everyone does get to speak. We just don't have to listen.
So you're telling me I can't say something, because it's just the same as telling someone they can't say something which is a wrong thing to do.
Do you see why your own argument invalidates your argument?
I think that witch picture you just posted is awesome though. I love the style, and I'd totally want to play her in a game. Different tastes, I guess.
Why do characters of either gender need a 'reason' to be sexy beyond "The artist wanted them to be that way?"
but for a chess game? why does a chess game need a sexy witch?
Why does a chess game need giant insects with battlestaff things?
Why does a chess game need giant robots?
because the people who made the game chose to represent that abstract piece with that figure for whatever reason?
But of all the choices, why that particular figure?
(Assuming that is a representation of a bishop in that game.)
Why not this instead?
Because that's what the developer decided on. A woman with a low cut dress. There really doesn't NEED to be any other reason.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong. But that's what they decided to use. And all things considered that is tame. The corset might be a little much, admittedly, but without seeing the rest of the pieces I can't say it'd be out of place thematically.
"Should" and "should not" are neutral—they are a constant of human society and can be used positively or negatively. "You shouldn't show interracial kissing" said a regressive group defending the status quo. "Yes you should!" said the other group. Sometimes a "should" is right, sometimes it's wrong. It depends on the argument. The arguments on our particular side are pretty good, which is probably why people keep diving into rhetorical bombast intended solely to garner agreement through the use of a powerful language (censorship, crusade, moral panic) absent any justification.
Everyone thinks that the arguments on their side are good. The people in the 60s who thought that sexuality on TV would lead to the decline of youth everywhere thought that too. That's why it's your side.
What I'm suggesting is that maybe "should" and "should not" are the wrong ways to approach artistic expression. Maybe we should simply consume the media we like and try to encourage more of it (whether that means creating it ourselves or supporting the artists who do), instead of trying to tell people what they should not create.
I don't understand what you mean. Those two options are EXACTLY THE SAME.
Nobody is calling for censorship, censorship has to come from the law. We just want to put pressure on creators to express our views, that's not censorship! We're just voting with our mouths and our dollars!
Well...yes and no.
Why do you think the first interracial kiss on television was a milestone? Why do you think that was considered a 'brave' move on the part of the Star Trek producers? There wasn't any law against interracial kissing at the time, so it wasn't a censorship issue, right? Yet it was a huge risk all the same.
What invisible force kept artists in the 80s and 90s from depicting many homosexual relationships, if there was no law against doing so? Obviously there were gay people in the 80s and 90s who would have enjoyed it, so what prevented there from being media to fill taht niche? The answer is that a large majority of people were opposed to it and so it wasn't "allowed" to happen, not even allowed as a niche form of entertainment. It offended a majority of people and that was enough. You couldn't take the risk.
The mindset of our culture has a huge impact on what kind of content artists are allowed to produce. Could Game of Thrones or The Dark Knight Rises have been made in the 80s, when admitting interest in fantasy or superheroes was enough to make you a target of social ridicule? You have entire genres of media that can be made or not made based on what we as a society find offensive enough to shout down, and we're often very wrong and very shortsighted about what we shout down in retrospect. We put a lot of pressure on creators to self-censor, and when that fails we often censor them directly through their distribution channels - Trey Parker and Matt Stone got into a fight with their studio over whether they were allowed to put a picture of Mohammed on TV. PA had to take a comic down because some company somewhere thought it misrepresented their brand. None of that is government censorship, but it all has a huge effect on what kinds of content artists feel comfortable creating.
And maybe you think that's okay, maybe you think that certain things are worthy of outrage, and that's fine. Just understand that when you say "That shouldn't have been made" over "I wouldn't buy that", you're contributing to an environment in which artists are afraid of being judged by standards that aren't their own, afraid of expressing their identity because the majority doesn't agree. And you're probably creating one more artist who, instead of expressing themselves, will either produce nothing or make the same bland shlock that every artist makes when they try to create something to appeal to everyone.
You're right! There is no difference between blocking interracial kisses or gay kisses and blocking racism and sexism when it comes to societal pressure.
So the real question is, is it ever okay to use social pressure on people to get them to do things? Is there a way to draw a distinction?
Let me give you other examples of societal pressure that cause people to act different: boycotts of segregated bus systems. Boycotts of companies that supported apartheid South Africa. People who refuse to purchase simulated child pornography (this is a hypothetical because that stuff's illegal already). People who don't buy their 8 year olds "sexy" Halloween costumes. People who say that nobody should draw racist caricatures of Jews. People who don't watch FOX News because they think it's evil. Are any of these people doing anything wrong?
I submit that it is sometimes okay and sometimes not okay to use societal pressure to influence what art people make (or what people do in general). And by "pressure" I literally just mean criticism of art which has been going on for thousands of years, not bomb threats and literal murders that (circuitously) get depictions of Mohammed taken down or cross burnings that get interracial kisses censored or legal threats that get PA comics taken down.
Because that is what all your examples come down to. They are ultimately a response to coercion, violence, or legal threats. That's not what I am advocating and it's not what people who agree with me are advocating. We are talking about dialog and voting with our dollars, nothing more. If you can come up with examples where those things aren't okay, then we can talk. But right now your examples are disingenuous. The best you've got are Game of Thrones and The Dark Knight Rises, which are bad examples. Plenty of mature fantasy was made in the 80s, and Watchmen came out in 1986-7, and more importantly, Game of Thrones + Dark Knight Rises are as much a response to stuff in the 80s as they are things that couldn't have existed then.
Instead of continually editing this I'm going to start typing a more composed response:
You are 100% wrong, I think. You're making two claims, as I see it.
1) Societal pressure has been used to achieve horrible results, like blocking interracial macking out, so it shouldn't be used to stop stuff like sexism.
2) Societal has stopped amazing works of art from being made until recently, depriving us of such masterpieces as "The Dark Knight Rises" when we could've been watching Bane 35 years ago in the '80s!
Let's start with #1. 1) Societal pressure has been used to achieve horrible results, like blocking interracial macking out, so it shouldn't be used to stop stuff like sexism.
This breaks down into two points. 1a) Societal pressure has been used to achieve horrible results, like blocking interracial macking out 1b) Societal pressure therefore shouldn't be used to stop stuff like sexism
Let's start with 1a. 1a) Societal pressure has been used to achieve horrible results, like blocking interracial macking out
Sometimes, yes. Much of the time it's more than societal pressure. Comedy Central isn't worried about its viewer numbers when it stops South Park from showing the prophet of Islam. It's worried about getting fucking bombed. Real people have been really attacked and murdered for drawing Mohamed. That is the kind of pressure that stopped South Park. PA wasn't worried about societal backlash when it pulled Strawberry Shortcake. It was worried about getting fucking sued. Kirk + Uhura smooching is a better example - they were probably worried more about viewership numbers than the KKK. But... they were worried about their viewership numbers among racist people, really. So:
1b) Societal pressure therefore shouldn't be used to stop stuff like sexism.
Not really. It sounds like racist people shouldn't use societal pressure to stop Kirk + Uhura from knocking tonsils. But that's not a surprising result. You're drawing from the fact that racist people do racist things (as a society) that good people shouldn't do good things (as a society). Let's say that, as a society, we step up and stop sexism in all its forms, not just video games. We stop rape culture entirely, basically, and we stop people from making sexist art. Note that we're not doing this via laws or coercion or anything. It just happens that we stop buying sexist stuff in the same way that none of us would buy child pornography even if it were available, and we stop socially condoning sexist art the same way we would not socially condone child porn if it were available. Think about it. Would this be wrong? It would basically be the same approach used to combat apartheid in South Africa, or segregated diners and bus services in the American South, and so on. Was all that really wrong because innocent lunch counters and businesses lost money and had to compromise their integrity by folding to societal pressure? I don't think so. Sexist artists can still make their sexist art, of course. They'll be condemned by society, but this isn't new to artists. Suffering artists have existed in every time and place. In this case, the sexist ones would be suffering.
Onto 2.
2) Societal has stopped amazing works of art from being made until recently, depriving us of such masterpieces as "The Dark Knight Rises" when we could've been watching Bane 35 years ago in the '80s!
Yeah not really feeling this. #1, The Dark Knight Rises could never have existed but for Watchmen, which could never have existed but for the cheesy, content-less comics in the first place. Your view of how art works is ridiculous. There isn't good, mature art that would come out to the surface if only society stopped repressing it. There is just constant art forever. It has taken a while for The Dark Knight Rises to come along because comics have been shit for so long and in fact they are still shit in a lot of cases. And actually I hate to break it to you but The Dark Knight Rises isn't Shakespeare. As for fantasy being a nerd ghetto, that's totally wrong. Fantasy, aka myths and legends and the tales of King Arthur and fairy tales and so on have been a thriving genre for centuries. The Game of Thrones is not the first mature fantasy work. Society hasn't kept art down the way you think it has - society has always kept some people down more than others. In fact, women have been shit on forever, and maybe it's time to fix that. Game of Thrones doesn't really seem to be helping with that, but that's another conversation.
"Should" and "should not" are neutral—they are a constant of human society and can be used positively or negatively. "You shouldn't show interracial kissing" said a regressive group defending the status quo. "Yes you should!" said the other group. Sometimes a "should" is right, sometimes it's wrong. It depends on the argument. The arguments on our particular side are pretty good, which is probably why people keep diving into rhetorical bombast intended solely to garner agreement through the use of a powerful language (censorship, crusade, moral panic) absent any justification.
Everyone thinks that the arguments on their side are good. The people in the 60s who thought that sexuality on TV would lead to the decline of youth everywhere thought that too. That's why it's your side.
What I'm suggesting is that maybe "should" and "should not" are the wrong ways to approach artistic expression. Maybe we should simply consume the media we like and try to encourage more of it (whether that means creating it ourselves or supporting the artists who do), instead of trying to tell people what they should not create.
I don't understand what you mean. Those two options are EXACTLY THE SAME.
Can you see a difference between telling a creator "I'm not interested in this" and telling a creator "This is problematic, stop making it"? Because I see those as two very different things.
There is a significant yet subtle difference between:
"You can make whatever you want, but you should know that there are people who won't buy/appreciate/enjoy X and Y if you choose to make those..."
and
"You shouldn't make X and Y."
The first is absolutely fine, should be communicated, and is, I think something every artist considers when creating. (Or should, in as much as they at least consider their intended audience.) The second is, to use a term I enjoy avoiding, problematic.
It's a good thing you avoid that term because you apparently don't know what it means.
Is it problematic to tell a little kid who is about to touch a hot stove "hey, don't touch the hot stove"? Of course not. Because touching a hot stove will cause actual for real harm. Is it problematic to tell artists/game developers "hey, don't draw titty witches"? Of course not. Because drawing titty witches will cause actual for real harm.
"Should" and "should not" are neutral—they are a constant of human society and can be used positively or negatively. "You shouldn't show interracial kissing" said a regressive group defending the status quo. "Yes you should!" said the other group. Sometimes a "should" is right, sometimes it's wrong. It depends on the argument. The arguments on our particular side are pretty good, which is probably why people keep diving into rhetorical bombast intended solely to garner agreement through the use of a powerful language (censorship, crusade, moral panic) absent any justification.
Everyone thinks that the arguments on their side are good. The people in the 60s who thought that sexuality on TV would lead to the decline of youth everywhere thought that too. That's why it's your side.
What I'm suggesting is that maybe "should" and "should not" are the wrong ways to approach artistic expression. Maybe we should simply consume the media we like and try to encourage more of it (whether that means creating it ourselves or supporting the artists who do), instead of trying to tell people what they should not create.
I don't understand what you mean. Those two options are EXACTLY THE SAME.
Can you see a difference between telling a creator "I'm not interested in this" and telling a creator "This is problematic, stop making it"? Because I see those as two very different things.
If the person doing the telling is holding some form of power granted by the government you have a point. If not you're splitting hairs. Those two things are exactly the same if the artist isn't forced to listen to them. And you know that.
No I don't.
+1
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I think I'll repost LadyM's mosaic post, as a sort of cleaning of the palette. It really can't be posted enough.
Well, here's the thing. It's not so much about any one piece of literature/art having a direct effect (although that DOES happen on occasion). Like, I feel like you're conceptualizing this as "the idea is if a guy watches one sexist movie he will go home and slap his girlfriend", and that's not really it.
Imagine there is a mosaic made up of one small piece of tile. Except by definition that's not really a mosaic, is it? A mosaic has to make up a bigger picture, made from smaller things.
But let's say five more tiny tiles are added to the mosaic. Then twenty more. A hundred. A thousand. Ten thousand. Now you have enough tiles to make a mosaic. Any one of those tiles is nothing more than a little bit of colored ceramic, and yet when you put them together you can form a definitive picture.
That's what our society is like. That's what our ideas of "normality" and gender relations and race relations and heteronormativity are like. They are built out of a million tiny things. So maybe ONE video game featuring Syldanian Six-Boobed Slut Warriors or whatever will not have much effect on society. The thing is, there isn't just one video game like that, and that isn't the only place the idea that women are objectified. When people criticize Hillary Clinton's appearance (because male politicians are such hotties, right? Not bloated, liver-spotted, fat old men) . . . that is a little piece of tile. When a comic artist draws kidnapped male Justice League characters in tied up but non-sexy poses, while the kidnapped female Justice League characters are tied up like they're getting geared up for a video session of "Bondage Sluts III" . . . that is a little piece of tile. When someone tells a sexist joke . . . that's a little piece of tile. Look in the comments section of any online news story about a woman being raped and you will find more little bits of tile.
And the defense is always "Well, MY piece of tile isn't at fault! It's Society!" It is indeed society that predefines the mosaic, based on the piece of tile that were placed by previous generations; but it's the individual pieces of gossip, art, expectations that fill in that mosaic. Unlike a real mosaic, old bits fall off quite frequently, forgotten by a new generation. Sometimes they are replaced by a new piece that is about the same as the old one; sometimes they are replaced by a new one. Sometimes there's a lot of new pieces at once, like in the 1960s when a bunch of activists took hammers, beat the crap out of that mosaic, and stuck a bunch of new pieces on to radically alter the picture. The point is, if no one starts changing those tiles, small as they may be, the overarching image will never change.
I love how the argument, "well, you just CAN'T tell artists you don't like their stuff! You can't, I say!" is mouthed by the people who pretend that everyone's voice has to be heard no matter how onerous.
If telling people to shut up is censorship, then you've completely invalidating any argument you have been studiously trying to make to tell us to shut up.
You can (and should, as long as you're not a dick) absolutely tell artists you don't like their stuff! Hell, most of the ones I know would welcome it, as long as you could articulate what and why and were polite. It's feedback, they can improve, they can grow, they can be BETTER.
You just shouldn't tell 'em they can't make it anymore because you don't like it.
As to the last bit, well... No. Everyone does get to speak. We just don't have to listen.
So you're telling me I can't say something, because it's just the same as telling someone they can't say something which is a wrong thing to do.
Do you see why your own argument invalidates your argument?
No, I'm saying you can't prevent someone from speaking. It is technically possible to say "well you can't say someone shouldn't stop someone from speaking because that's stopping someone from speaking when you say I shouldn't say that!", but that's a frankly silly argument.
An artist is free to create. I am under no obligation to like, purchase, support, or enjoy his or her work, but I AM obliged to, regardless of my feelings about it, respect his or her right to create it, even and especially things I don't like.
A simpler example: You can and should tell someone "That movie is shit, don't go see it". You should NOT, however, say "That movie is shit; you shouldn't make it."
I realise it's a fine distinction, but it's a very important one. I am an utter absolutist when it comes to freedom of expression, with my only exceptions being along the lines of "incitement of murder" and suchlike. I recognise and believe that my freedom to create depends on that of others, since everyone doesn't like something. I for instance wholeheartedly support--to use a classic example--the ability and freedom to create "Piss Christ", which is a work that many people honestly and in good faith found amazingly offensive. (It's... Actually quite a beautiful image. The use of light is spectacular.)
I express my disapproval of, or disagreement with a work by not purchasing it, or supporting it, or performing it. I can and should 100% spend my money where I believe, support things I believe, and work to support artists doing things I like and believe should have wider acceptance and audience. I just can't stop those I don't like from presenting their work in a venue or medium I don't personally control. (Nobody will be talking some kinds of shit in my house, for instance.)
Edit: And more specifically to this case, you should absolutely be free to express your opinion of something. Please, I hope you never think I'd say otherwise, and I mean that seriously. Call it shit, call it whatever you like. Just don't say "you can't do this". Your right to disagree with me or hold a differing opinion is absolutely sacred, as is your right to express that opinion. But by god, I'll defend to the death their right to DO whatever it is you think is crap, just as I'd defend your right to call it crap.
"Let's start a grand crusade against all depictions of women that could be viewed as sexualized ever".
You have impeccable timing.
As for Metroid, no one is complaining about the entirety of it and I'm sure most people think Samus being an early female protagonist is pretty rad! Now, the fact that your reward for completing the game is seeing her in various states of undress culminating in her underwear for the fastest completion time?
I love how the argument, "well, you just CAN'T tell artists you don't like their stuff! You can't, I say!" is mouthed by the people who pretend that everyone's voice has to be heard no matter how onerous.
If telling people to shut up is censorship, then you've completely invalidating any argument you have been studiously trying to make to tell us to shut up.
You can (and should, as long as you're not a dick) absolutely tell artists you don't like their stuff! Hell, most of the ones I know would welcome it, as long as you could articulate what and why and were polite. It's feedback, they can improve, they can grow, they can be BETTER.
You just shouldn't tell 'em they can't make it anymore because you don't like it.
As to the last bit, well... No. Everyone does get to speak. We just don't have to listen.
So you're telling me I can't say something, because it's just the same as telling someone they can't say something which is a wrong thing to do.
Do you see why your own argument invalidates your argument?
No, I'm saying you can't prevent someone from speaking. It is technically possible to say "well you can't say someone shouldn't stop someone from speaking because that's stopping someone from speaking when you say I shouldn't say that!", but that's a frankly silly argument.
An artist is free to create. I am under no obligation to like, purchase, support, or enjoy his or her work, but I AM obliged to, regardless of my feelings about it, respect his or her right to create it, even and especially things I don't like.
A simpler example: You can and should tell someone "That movie is shit, don't go see it". You should NOT, however, say "That movie is shit; you shouldn't make it."
I realise it's a fine distinction, but it's a very important one. I am an utter absolutist when it comes to freedom of expression, with my only exceptions being along the lines of "incitement of murder" and suchlike. I recognise and believe that my freedom to create depends on that of others, since everyone doesn't like something. I for instance wholeheartedly support--to use a classic example--the ability and freedom to create "Piss Christ", which is a work that many people honestly and in good faith found amazingly offensive. (It's... Actually quite a beautiful image. The use of light is spectacular.)
I express my disapproval of, or disagreement with a work by not purchasing it, or supporting it, or performing it. I can and should 100% spend my money where I believe, support things I believe, and work to support artists doing things I like and believe should have wider acceptance and audience. I just can't stop those I don't like from presenting their work in a venue or medium I don't personally control. (Nobody will be talking some kinds of shit in my house, for instance.)
Can you explain which of us in this thread have advocated preventing someone from speaking? Actually, just kidding. None of us have. Saying "don't make this movie" is not the same as actually stopping them. The difference is the difference between censure and censorship.
TychoCelchuuu on
+3
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Uh, no you can totally tell someone they shouldn't make a shitty movie. There is actually no distinction between that and telling people not to see someone's shitty movie.
You're right, I can't prevent someone from speaking or creating. Literally.
Also, even if society tells someone not to create something, but society is wrong, the artist would be lauded as a hero for creating that thing anyway. So in all reality, if we're wrong about this whole thing, it'll end up working out pretty good for visionary titty witch, ass shot cut scene, damsel in distress, mid rift showing art in the long run.
"Let's start a grand crusade against all depictions of women that could be viewed as sexualized ever".
You have impeccable timing.
As for Metroid, no one is complaining about the entirety of it and I'm sure most people think Samus being an early female protagonist is pretty rad! Now, the fact that your reward for completing the game is seeing her in various states of undress culminating in her underwear for the fastest completion time?
One of these pictures is a bunch of the best athletes in the world in proper gear for their sport.
The other one is most obviously an objectionable example of sexism in video games.
Perhaps the distinction here is that the athletes have a good reason to look like that (actually, two: they're running a race and they chose their own clothes) whereas the only reason Samus looks like this is sex appeal?
Like honestly do you really think the reason those athletes are dressed like that is the same reason Samus is dressed like that? She's a fucking intergalactic bounty hunter fighting dangerous space aliens on a hostile planet. That's why she wears fucking power armor. Taking it off to show off her hot body is entirely different than wearing minimal clothing because you're running a marathon.
"Let's start a grand crusade against all depictions of women that could be viewed as sexualized ever".
You have impeccable timing.
As for Metroid, no one is complaining about the entirety of it and I'm sure most people think Samus being an early female protagonist is pretty rad! Now, the fact that your reward for completing the game is seeing her in various states of undress culminating in her underwear for the fastest completion time?
One of these pictures is a bunch of the best athletes in the world in proper gear for their sport.
The other one is most obviously an objectionable example of sexism in video games.
You think you're being sarcastic and proving us all wrong, but you're right! Because, see, one of those pictures is a bunch of the best athletes in the world in proper gear for their sport while the other one is getting to see a lady in a bikini as a reward! Seriously, that you think they're even comparable is ridiculous. Because while that is "proper gear for the sport" in a runner's case, this is "proper gear for the sport" in Metroid's case.
Can you explain which of us in this thread have advocated preventing someone from speaking? Actually, just kidding. None of us have. Saying "don't make this movie" is not the same as actually stopping them. The difference is the difference between censure and censorship.
And I think here is where things are becoming confused. We are not advocating the direct suppression of a particular image. What we are trying to do is (to reference LadyM's beautiful and amazing post on the subject) change the tapestry that is informed by society by criticizing works that perpetuate sexual objectification and asking that more diverse mosaic tiles be added. In turn, this will change society in such a way that sexual objectification is not the norm. So in a sense, yes, you could argue that this is a form of suppression, but only insofar as stating that the societal changes that made racism not okay are suppressing racist mosaic tiles.
"Let's start a grand crusade against all depictions of women that could be viewed as sexualized ever".
You have impeccable timing.
As for Metroid, no one is complaining about the entirety of it and I'm sure most people think Samus being an early female protagonist is pretty rad! Now, the fact that your reward for completing the game is seeing her in various states of undress culminating in her underwear for the fastest completion time?
One of these pictures is a bunch of the best athletes in the world in proper gear for their sport.
The other one is most obviously an objectionable example of sexism in video games.
Perhaps the distinction here is that the athletes have a good reason to look like that (actually, two: they're running a race and they chose their own clothes) whereas the only reason Samus looks like this is sex appeal?
Like honestly do you really think the reason those athletes are dressed like that is the same reason Samus is dressed like that? She's a fucking intergalactic bounty hunter fighting dangerous space aliens on a hostile planet. That's why she wears fucking power armor. Taking it off to show off her hot body is entirely different than wearing minimal clothing because you're running a marathon.
And whose to say that isn't what she wears when on her ship, in an extremely controlled environment? Or, you know, the obvious thought, what she has on underneath the armor?
Seriously, this reeks of tilting at windmills. There are actual examples of objectification that are far more worth time and effort criticizing than this.
Uh, no you can totally tell someone they shouldn't make a shitty movie. There is actually no distinction between that and telling people not to see someone's shitty movie.
You're right, I can't prevent someone from speaking or creating. Literally.
No. That's completely incorrect, I'm sorry.
Telling someone not to consume a work is distinct and after the fact of a work being created. The artist 100% has the right to MAKE their work. However, nobody is obliged to CONSUME it. There's I don't know how many racist, shitty, awful books out there talking about some kind of New World Order and/or Nazi shit, and I don't plan to read a damn one, but it'd be wrong for me to say "You can't write that."
If I tell you you shouldn't read Twilight 'cause it's shit, it's an entirely different statement than going up to Stephanie Meyer and saying "Sorry, you can't write that; it's shit."
Uh, no you can totally tell someone they shouldn't make a shitty movie. There is actually no distinction between that and telling people not to see someone's shitty movie.
You're right, I can't prevent someone from speaking or creating. Literally.
No. That's completely incorrect, I'm sorry.
Telling someone not to consume a work is distinct and after the fact of a work being created. The artist 100% has the right to MAKE their work. However, nobody is obliged to CONSUME it. There's I don't know how many racist, shitty, awful books out there talking about some kind of New World Order and/or Nazi shit, and I don't plan to read a damn one, but it'd be wrong for me to say "You can't write that."
If I tell you you shouldn't read Twilight 'cause it's shit, it's an entirely different statement than going up to Stephanie Meyer and saying "Sorry, you can't write that; it's shit."
Telling someone they shouldn't do something doesn't infringe on their rights. Again, we have no actual authority on the matter.
+3
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Uh, no you can totally tell someone they shouldn't make a shitty movie. There is actually no distinction between that and telling people not to see someone's shitty movie.
You're right, I can't prevent someone from speaking or creating. Literally.
No. That's completely incorrect, I'm sorry.
Telling someone not to consume a work is distinct and after the fact of a work being created. The artist 100% has the right to MAKE their work. However, nobody is obliged to CONSUME it. There's I don't know how many racist, shitty, awful books out there talking about some kind of New World Order and/or Nazi shit, and I don't plan to read a damn one, but it'd be wrong for me to say "You can't write that."
If I tell you you shouldn't read Twilight 'cause it's shit, it's an entirely different statement than going up to Stephanie Meyer and saying "Sorry, you can't write that; it's shit."
No one has said can't in this thread. We have REPEATEDLY said that there's nothing we can or will do to prevent people from making what they want. But If I did meet Stephanie Meyer I totally would say "You shouldn't have written that, it's shit." which is perfectly valid.
You're making a cult out of semantics. Please stop.
Yes, various states of undress, meaning she removes more clothing the better you do.
I mean, sure, this eventually culminated in a skintight catsuit that she also wore around more often and fought in so you could see it regularly instead of just as a special bonus where you got to see her take off more clothing because you ~did so well~ and yeah it even grew giant wedge heels and had Miranda shots:
But no you're probably right it's not like sexism or anything.
Carry on I guess. Super Metroid is an example of the sexism permeating the modern video games industry and is on par with things like Dragon Crown, and is deserving of equal scorn and criticism.
Uh, no you can totally tell someone they shouldn't make a shitty movie. There is actually no distinction between that and telling people not to see someone's shitty movie.
You're right, I can't prevent someone from speaking or creating. Literally.
No. That's completely incorrect, I'm sorry.
Telling someone not to consume a work is distinct and after the fact of a work being created. The artist 100% has the right to MAKE their work. However, nobody is obliged to CONSUME it. There's I don't know how many racist, shitty, awful books out there talking about some kind of New World Order and/or Nazi shit, and I don't plan to read a damn one, but it'd be wrong for me to say "You can't write that."
If I tell you you shouldn't read Twilight 'cause it's shit, it's an entirely different statement than going up to Stephanie Meyer and saying "Sorry, you can't write that; it's shit."
Telling someone they shouldn't do something doesn't infringe on their rights. Again, we have no actual authority on the matter.
Yes, it does. You are saying they shouldn't create something in the way they choose. Just because you're not a legal authority doesn't mean you can't impinge on someone's freedom of expression.
Say "If you create X, well, we won't buy it.". Say "If you create X, we'll boycott." Say anything you want, so long as you speak of your actions in response to their creation.
For instance, to use that game with the Sorceress and whatnot as an example: That's pretty stupid. I ain't buying it. He can make it all he wants, but I ain't buying it. Assuming enough people feel the same way, and/or influence people to feel the same way, holy financial failure Batman, bet that'll learn him a lesson about the impact of his chosen art style. (Ideally, not buying it is accompanied by coherent communication as to "dude, you uh, got some issues..." so he knows what's up.)
If you have legal authority, you should probably stay away from legislating censorship. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Listen, your art is terrible and actually contributing to a harmful part of society. If you can't get better about that then maybe you should check into like, a waiting job," if you don't have that authority.
And then that person is free to walk away from me. And I can say, "No, really, you're fucking awful," as they leave. Because that's how a conversation works. When you're having it with somebody who is actively contributing to negative societal influences.
There's a better version of this conversation where instead of getting insulted and aggressive at the first sign of criticism from an unexpected angle the artist listens and makes a decision based off learning something new, but it's kind of a white whale.
I don't see the problem with the chess figure. I'm sorry I just don't. I agree that over-sexualized female characters are far too common in this industry but I don't see that figure as being sexualized. Sexy yes, but not sexualized. And there's nothing wrong with characters being sexy.
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
I don't see the problem with the chess figure. I'm sorry I just don't. I agree that over-sexualized female characters are far too common in this industry but I don't see that figure as being sexualized. Sexy yes, but not sexualized. And there's nothing wrong with characters being sexy.
The problem with that figure is that it is a chess game.
A CHESS GAME. What possible reason is there for that witch to be sexy?
Yes, you're right, by itself, that sexy witch is not particularly objectionable. In a world in which the majority of videogame female character design was not "sexy for the sake of sexy", it wouldn't be a problem at all. But we don't live in such a world, and the last thing we need is one more stupid design of a woman being sexy for no reason in a game in which there is literally NO reason for it.
I don't see the problem with the chess figure. I'm sorry I just don't. I agree that over-sexualized female characters are far too common in this industry but I don't see that figure as being sexualized. Sexy yes, but not sexualized. And there's nothing wrong with characters being sexy.
What do you think the difference between these two ideas are? How could I create a sexy chess wizard with an outfit that has a tit window and a reality-defying corset without it being sexualized?
Posts
"You can make whatever you want, but you should know that there are people who won't buy/appreciate/enjoy X and Y if you choose to make those..."
and
"You shouldn't make X and Y."
The first is absolutely fine, should be communicated, and is, I think something every artist considers when creating. (Or should, in as much as they at least consider their intended audience.) The second is, to use a term I enjoy avoiding, problematic.
Um, pursuing misrepresentation of one's brand has actual legal precedence in civil courts concerning business law.
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
What I meant was that people have been using double-standards in evaluating the worth of art, and then using morality as a justification, for a very long time.
No, no one was talking about banning anything. But the argument that the usual standards of free speech do not apply in this special case is a tired one. And you were arguing that an artist should not be able to share their art, which does sound like a pretty clear limit to me.
Yeah, and in the eyes of videogame marketers, putting a woman on the box cover is a "huge risk." That's still not censorship, because that's not what censorship is.
"Should" and "should not" are neutral—they are a constant of human society and can be used positively or negatively. "You shouldn't show interracial kissing" said a regressive group defending the status quo. "Yes you should!" said the other group. Sometimes a "should" is right, sometimes it's wrong. It depends on the argument. The arguments on our particular side are pretty good, which is probably why people keep diving into rhetorical bombast intended solely to garner agreement through the use of a powerful language (censorship, crusade, moral panic) absent any justification.
Why does a chess game need giant insects with battlestaff things?
Why does a chess game need giant robots?
because the people who made the game chose to represent that abstract piece with that figure for whatever reason?
EDIT: I dunno this is feeling less and less like "Let's address sexism in the industry" and more like "Let's start a grand crusade against all depictions of women that could be viewed as sexualized ever". Seriously, even Super Metroid was being criticized as sexist in this thread. Because it portrayed a very heavily muscled Samus in gear that wouldn't look out of place on an Olympic competitor at the end.
Nevermind, you know, the entire rest of the game.
Without feeling pressure from society that sexist art is no longer desirable. A limit from culture, not censors.
There are so many straw men in this heated argument that I'm surprised the whole thing hasn't gone up in flames.
If telling people to shut up is censorship, then you've completely invalidated any argument you have been studiously trying to make to tell us to shut up.
But of all the choices, why that particular figure?
(Assuming that is a representation of a bishop in that game.)
Why not this instead?
EDIT: Also, in regards to Super Metroid, the only real complaint levied at that game was the reward for speed running it and and the death scene showing her off in a skin tight suit which even then was sort of given a explanation of why one might wear a skin tight suit in that kind of armor. Plus, you know, there is this
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
You can (and should, as long as you're not a dick) absolutely tell artists you don't like their stuff! Hell, most of the ones I know would welcome it, as long as you could articulate what and why and were polite. It's feedback, they can improve, they can grow, they can be BETTER.
You just shouldn't tell 'em they can't make it anymore because you don't like it.
As to the last bit, well... No. Everyone does get to speak. We just don't have to listen.
You have impeccable timing.
As for Metroid, no one is complaining about the entirety of it and I'm sure most people think Samus being an early female protagonist is pretty rad! Now, the fact that your reward for completing the game is seeing her in various states of undress culminating in her underwear for the fastest completion time?
Well, that's a thing.
Everyone thinks that the arguments on their side are good. The people in the 60s who thought that sexuality on TV would lead to the decline of youth everywhere thought that too. That's why it's your side.
What I'm suggesting is that maybe "should" and "should not" are the wrong ways to approach artistic expression. Maybe we should simply consume the media we like and try to encourage more of it (whether that means creating it ourselves or supporting the artists who do), instead of trying to tell people what they should not create.
So you're telling me I can't say something, because it's just the same as telling someone they can't say something which is a wrong thing to do.
Do you see why your own argument invalidates your argument?
Because that's what the developer decided on. A woman with a low cut dress. There really doesn't NEED to be any other reason.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong. But that's what they decided to use. And all things considered that is tame. The corset might be a little much, admittedly, but without seeing the rest of the pieces I can't say it'd be out of place thematically.
I don't understand what you mean. Those two options are EXACTLY THE SAME.
You are 100% wrong, I think. You're making two claims, as I see it.
1) Societal pressure has been used to achieve horrible results, like blocking interracial macking out, so it shouldn't be used to stop stuff like sexism.
2) Societal has stopped amazing works of art from being made until recently, depriving us of such masterpieces as "The Dark Knight Rises" when we could've been watching Bane 35 years ago in the '80s!
Let's start with #1.
1) Societal pressure has been used to achieve horrible results, like blocking interracial macking out, so it shouldn't be used to stop stuff like sexism.
This breaks down into two points.
1a) Societal pressure has been used to achieve horrible results, like blocking interracial macking out
1b) Societal pressure therefore shouldn't be used to stop stuff like sexism
Let's start with 1a.
1a) Societal pressure has been used to achieve horrible results, like blocking interracial macking out
Sometimes, yes. Much of the time it's more than societal pressure. Comedy Central isn't worried about its viewer numbers when it stops South Park from showing the prophet of Islam. It's worried about getting fucking bombed. Real people have been really attacked and murdered for drawing Mohamed. That is the kind of pressure that stopped South Park. PA wasn't worried about societal backlash when it pulled Strawberry Shortcake. It was worried about getting fucking sued. Kirk + Uhura smooching is a better example - they were probably worried more about viewership numbers than the KKK. But... they were worried about their viewership numbers among racist people, really. So:
1b) Societal pressure therefore shouldn't be used to stop stuff like sexism.
Not really. It sounds like racist people shouldn't use societal pressure to stop Kirk + Uhura from knocking tonsils. But that's not a surprising result. You're drawing from the fact that racist people do racist things (as a society) that good people shouldn't do good things (as a society). Let's say that, as a society, we step up and stop sexism in all its forms, not just video games. We stop rape culture entirely, basically, and we stop people from making sexist art. Note that we're not doing this via laws or coercion or anything. It just happens that we stop buying sexist stuff in the same way that none of us would buy child pornography even if it were available, and we stop socially condoning sexist art the same way we would not socially condone child porn if it were available. Think about it. Would this be wrong? It would basically be the same approach used to combat apartheid in South Africa, or segregated diners and bus services in the American South, and so on. Was all that really wrong because innocent lunch counters and businesses lost money and had to compromise their integrity by folding to societal pressure? I don't think so. Sexist artists can still make their sexist art, of course. They'll be condemned by society, but this isn't new to artists. Suffering artists have existed in every time and place. In this case, the sexist ones would be suffering.
Onto 2.
2) Societal has stopped amazing works of art from being made until recently, depriving us of such masterpieces as "The Dark Knight Rises" when we could've been watching Bane 35 years ago in the '80s!
Yeah not really feeling this. #1, The Dark Knight Rises could never have existed but for Watchmen, which could never have existed but for the cheesy, content-less comics in the first place. Your view of how art works is ridiculous. There isn't good, mature art that would come out to the surface if only society stopped repressing it. There is just constant art forever. It has taken a while for The Dark Knight Rises to come along because comics have been shit for so long and in fact they are still shit in a lot of cases. And actually I hate to break it to you but The Dark Knight Rises isn't Shakespeare. As for fantasy being a nerd ghetto, that's totally wrong. Fantasy, aka myths and legends and the tales of King Arthur and fairy tales and so on have been a thriving genre for centuries. The Game of Thrones is not the first mature fantasy work. Society hasn't kept art down the way you think it has - society has always kept some people down more than others. In fact, women have been shit on forever, and maybe it's time to fix that. Game of Thrones doesn't really seem to be helping with that, but that's another conversation.
Can you see a difference between telling a creator "I'm not interested in this" and telling a creator "This is problematic, stop making it"? Because I see those as two very different things.
It's a good thing you avoid that term because you apparently don't know what it means.
Is it problematic to tell a little kid who is about to touch a hot stove "hey, don't touch the hot stove"? Of course not. Because touching a hot stove will cause actual for real harm. Is it problematic to tell artists/game developers "hey, don't draw titty witches"? Of course not. Because drawing titty witches will cause actual for real harm.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
If the person doing the telling is holding some form of power granted by the government you have a point. If not you're splitting hairs. Those two things are exactly the same if the artist isn't forced to listen to them. And you know that.
No, I'm saying you can't prevent someone from speaking. It is technically possible to say "well you can't say someone shouldn't stop someone from speaking because that's stopping someone from speaking when you say I shouldn't say that!", but that's a frankly silly argument.
An artist is free to create. I am under no obligation to like, purchase, support, or enjoy his or her work, but I AM obliged to, regardless of my feelings about it, respect his or her right to create it, even and especially things I don't like.
A simpler example: You can and should tell someone "That movie is shit, don't go see it". You should NOT, however, say "That movie is shit; you shouldn't make it."
I realise it's a fine distinction, but it's a very important one. I am an utter absolutist when it comes to freedom of expression, with my only exceptions being along the lines of "incitement of murder" and suchlike. I recognise and believe that my freedom to create depends on that of others, since everyone doesn't like something. I for instance wholeheartedly support--to use a classic example--the ability and freedom to create "Piss Christ", which is a work that many people honestly and in good faith found amazingly offensive. (It's... Actually quite a beautiful image. The use of light is spectacular.)
I express my disapproval of, or disagreement with a work by not purchasing it, or supporting it, or performing it. I can and should 100% spend my money where I believe, support things I believe, and work to support artists doing things I like and believe should have wider acceptance and audience. I just can't stop those I don't like from presenting their work in a venue or medium I don't personally control. (Nobody will be talking some kinds of shit in my house, for instance.)
Edit: And more specifically to this case, you should absolutely be free to express your opinion of something. Please, I hope you never think I'd say otherwise, and I mean that seriously. Call it shit, call it whatever you like. Just don't say "you can't do this". Your right to disagree with me or hold a differing opinion is absolutely sacred, as is your right to express that opinion. But by god, I'll defend to the death their right to DO whatever it is you think is crap, just as I'd defend your right to call it crap.
...various states of undress.
Hang on.
Image 1
Image 2
One of these pictures is a bunch of the best athletes in the world in proper gear for their sport.
The other one is most obviously an objectionable example of sexism in video games.
You're right, I can't prevent someone from speaking or creating. Literally.
Like honestly do you really think the reason those athletes are dressed like that is the same reason Samus is dressed like that? She's a fucking intergalactic bounty hunter fighting dangerous space aliens on a hostile planet. That's why she wears fucking power armor. Taking it off to show off her hot body is entirely different than wearing minimal clothing because you're running a marathon.
You think you're being sarcastic and proving us all wrong, but you're right! Because, see, one of those pictures is a bunch of the best athletes in the world in proper gear for their sport while the other one is getting to see a lady in a bikini as a reward! Seriously, that you think they're even comparable is ridiculous. Because while that is "proper gear for the sport" in a runner's case, this is "proper gear for the sport" in Metroid's case.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
And I think here is where things are becoming confused. We are not advocating the direct suppression of a particular image. What we are trying to do is (to reference LadyM's beautiful and amazing post on the subject) change the tapestry that is informed by society by criticizing works that perpetuate sexual objectification and asking that more diverse mosaic tiles be added. In turn, this will change society in such a way that sexual objectification is not the norm. So in a sense, yes, you could argue that this is a form of suppression, but only insofar as stating that the societal changes that made racism not okay are suppressing racist mosaic tiles.
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
And whose to say that isn't what she wears when on her ship, in an extremely controlled environment? Or, you know, the obvious thought, what she has on underneath the armor?
Seriously, this reeks of tilting at windmills. There are actual examples of objectification that are far more worth time and effort criticizing than this.
No. That's completely incorrect, I'm sorry.
Telling someone not to consume a work is distinct and after the fact of a work being created. The artist 100% has the right to MAKE their work. However, nobody is obliged to CONSUME it. There's I don't know how many racist, shitty, awful books out there talking about some kind of New World Order and/or Nazi shit, and I don't plan to read a damn one, but it'd be wrong for me to say "You can't write that."
If I tell you you shouldn't read Twilight 'cause it's shit, it's an entirely different statement than going up to Stephanie Meyer and saying "Sorry, you can't write that; it's shit."
Telling someone they shouldn't do something doesn't infringe on their rights. Again, we have no actual authority on the matter.
No one has said can't in this thread. We have REPEATEDLY said that there's nothing we can or will do to prevent people from making what they want. But If I did meet Stephanie Meyer I totally would say "You shouldn't have written that, it's shit." which is perfectly valid.
You're making a cult out of semantics. Please stop.
Yes, various states of undress, meaning she removes more clothing the better you do.
I mean, sure, this eventually culminated in a skintight catsuit that she also wore around more often and fought in so you could see it regularly instead of just as a special bonus where you got to see her take off more clothing because you ~did so well~ and yeah it even grew giant wedge heels and had Miranda shots:
But no you're probably right it's not like sexism or anything.
Carry on I guess. Super Metroid is an example of the sexism permeating the modern video games industry and is on par with things like Dragon Crown, and is deserving of equal scorn and criticism.
my. mistake.
Yes, it does. You are saying they shouldn't create something in the way they choose. Just because you're not a legal authority doesn't mean you can't impinge on someone's freedom of expression.
Say "If you create X, well, we won't buy it.". Say "If you create X, we'll boycott." Say anything you want, so long as you speak of your actions in response to their creation.
For instance, to use that game with the Sorceress and whatnot as an example: That's pretty stupid. I ain't buying it. He can make it all he wants, but I ain't buying it. Assuming enough people feel the same way, and/or influence people to feel the same way, holy financial failure Batman, bet that'll learn him a lesson about the impact of his chosen art style. (Ideally, not buying it is accompanied by coherent communication as to "dude, you uh, got some issues..." so he knows what's up.)
And then that person is free to walk away from me. And I can say, "No, really, you're fucking awful," as they leave. Because that's how a conversation works. When you're having it with somebody who is actively contributing to negative societal influences.
There's a better version of this conversation where instead of getting insulted and aggressive at the first sign of criticism from an unexpected angle the artist listens and makes a decision based off learning something new, but it's kind of a white whale.
The problem with that figure is that it is a chess game.
A CHESS GAME. What possible reason is there for that witch to be sexy?
Yes, you're right, by itself, that sexy witch is not particularly objectionable. In a world in which the majority of videogame female character design was not "sexy for the sake of sexy", it wouldn't be a problem at all. But we don't live in such a world, and the last thing we need is one more stupid design of a woman being sexy for no reason in a game in which there is literally NO reason for it.