But I cannot prove that you are right within the context of art any more (or less) definitively than somebody else can prove within the context of art that they are right not to like, say, curse words.
Nonsense. Art can be instructive, explanatory, and educational. Art exists within the context of our knowledge and culture. I can conclusively say racism is bad and wrong. I can conclusively say that art promoting racism is promoting something wrong. And unless they're pioneering some amazing artistic advance I'm fine saying that art is not worth supporting.
And somebody else can conclusively prove that, say, art promoting drug use is wrong.
"Sell everything" is kind of a ridiculous notion. It's physically impossible for physical storefronts and leads to ridiculous cruft on digital ones (and that's before you get into outright scams, see also the 15 billion copies of any popular app on the Play Store)
I know it's a long thread, but these arguments have already been addressed, and at some length. Briefly:
-Digital storefronts eliminate most of the physical limits that might otherwise necessitate active curation;
-The solution to "it is difficult to find the things I like in all the cruft" are better search engines, recommendation systems ("Players who like this game also like:"), and independent critics/listmakers outside of the store who can point you at things you know you'll enjoy;
-Art which is patently fraudulent does not fall under "just about everything", because there is a difference between "morally objectionable content" and basic product standards (which also cover things like "I installed the game, but the game just crashes instead of playing, and also it erased my hard drive").
I'd just like to point out that when you combine points #1 and points #2, the result is sort of the same. When there's more content than people can actually browse intelligently (say, like on the Web), and they need recommender systems (say, like Google search), then stuff the recommender system doesn't recommend is effectively absent (say, like RapGenius).
Google search is not a recommender system, it's a search; and things which are deliberately (I almost said maliciously) left off of the search will obviously vanish from the system. But that's the case right now--if I go to Steam and type "Call of Duty" into the search bar and Steam has for whatever reason decided to sell but not return search results for Call of Duty, Call of Duty isn't getting sold on Steam. (Even at Steam's current number of titles, nobody's going to browse through them all.)
On the other hand, if an actual recommendation system is not working for you, you can always go back to (hopefully robust) search options and try to find better stuff for yourself.
A content-based search is essentially a recommender system. I'm not talking about a text-based search here; most of the time, when you use Google, it's a recommdener system. It's only the really obscure searches where it reverts back into a text-based search. That's why your search results will vary from my search results, and can change depending on your location and your previous searches.
But semantics aside, however it's accessed, the point is that there's a defacto curation process - Steam will show you some games and not other games preferentially. I suppose if you type in the exact name of the game, "Hatred", and then insist on an exact match, if such an option is available, or just brute-force your way down through the list of results until you find the game, yeah, technically it's there. But I don't know that that's actually a resolution to the problem. It's akin to keeping certain books in the back, or stocking certain items in the far away back corner of the store... it's just 98% grey instead of black.
I would expect a game to be recommended to people who have enjoyed similar games, so people who own other violent shooters might have it recommended to them. It doesn't seem like you need a text-based search for this, just the basic keyword-matching stuff that Steam already does.
If the system only shows Hatred to the people who are interested in playing it (I don't imagine there are all that many), then that seems like the perfect system to me.
Right, but in the context of the argument that digital storefronts can just show infinity things, cuz it's all digital, I'm just trying to highlight that that's not true. Honestly, for many physical stores, if I understand properly, SHELF-space is more valuable than WAREHOUSE-space. Your local supermarket is more constrained by the number of items it can place on its shelves for your perusal than it is the number of items it can stock in the back.
Similarly for digital stores, people are only ever going to see X items, where X is a small number, ranging from say 10 - 50. As we talk about infinite content, X gets asymptotically infinitesimal, and then you start getting Google-like complaints about how certain items don't show up often enough because there's some obscure algorithm being used to recommend things. I think, generally, I'd prefer an explicit ban under clearly defined policies over an implicit shuffling to the back of the store, underneath the table, behind the washrooms, after you take a right.
But I cannot prove that you are right within the context of art any more (or less) definitively than somebody else can prove within the context of art that they are right not to like, say, curse words.
Nonsense. Art can be instructive, explanatory, and educational. Art exists within the context of our knowledge and culture. I can conclusively say racism is bad and wrong. I can conclusively say that art promoting racism is promoting something wrong. And unless they're pioneering some amazing artistic advance I'm fine saying that art is not worth supporting.
And somebody else can conclusively prove that, say, art promoting drug use is wrong.
Yes, that's how the system works. One side can't have a stranglehold on art.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
"Sell everything" is kind of a ridiculous notion. It's physically impossible for physical storefronts and leads to ridiculous cruft on digital ones (and that's before you get into outright scams, see also the 15 billion copies of any popular app on the Play Store)
I know it's a long thread, but these arguments have already been addressed, and at some length. Briefly:
-Digital storefronts eliminate most of the physical limits that might otherwise necessitate active curation;
-The solution to "it is difficult to find the things I like in all the cruft" are better search engines, recommendation systems ("Players who like this game also like:"), and independent critics/listmakers outside of the store who can point you at things you know you'll enjoy;
-Art which is patently fraudulent does not fall under "just about everything", because there is a difference between "morally objectionable content" and basic product standards (which also cover things like "I installed the game, but the game just crashes instead of playing, and also it erased my hard drive").
I'd just like to point out that when you combine points #1 and points #2, the result is sort of the same. When there's more content than people can actually browse intelligently (say, like on the Web), and they need recommender systems (say, like Google search), then stuff the recommender system doesn't recommend is effectively absent (say, like RapGenius).
Google search is not a recommender system, it's a search; and things which are deliberately (I almost said maliciously) left off of the search will obviously vanish from the system. But that's the case right now--if I go to Steam and type "Call of Duty" into the search bar and Steam has for whatever reason decided to sell but not return search results for Call of Duty, Call of Duty isn't getting sold on Steam. (Even at Steam's current number of titles, nobody's going to browse through them all.)
On the other hand, if an actual recommendation system is not working for you, you can always go back to (hopefully robust) search options and try to find better stuff for yourself.
A content-based search is essentially a recommender system. I'm not talking about a text-based search here; most of the time, when you use Google, it's a recommdener system. It's only the really obscure searches where it reverts back into a text-based search. That's why your search results will vary from my search results, and can change depending on your location and your previous searches.
But semantics aside, however it's accessed, the point is that there's a defacto curation process - Steam will show you some games and not other games preferentially. I suppose if you type in the exact name of the game, "Hatred", and then insist on an exact match, if such an option is available, or just brute-force your way down through the list of results until you find the game, yeah, technically it's there. But I don't know that that's actually a resolution to the problem. It's akin to keeping certain books in the back, or stocking certain items in the far away back corner of the store... it's just 98% grey instead of black.
I would expect a game to be recommended to people who have enjoyed similar games, so people who own other violent shooters might have it recommended to them. It doesn't seem like you need a text-based search for this, just the basic keyword-matching stuff that Steam already does.
If the system only shows Hatred to the people who are interested in playing it (I don't imagine there are all that many), then that seems like the perfect system to me.
Right, but in the context of the argument that digital storefronts can just show infinity things, cuz it's all digital, I'm just trying to highlight that that's not true. Honestly, for many physical stores, if I understand properly, SHELF-space is more valuable than WAREHOUSE-space. Your local supermarket is more constrained by the number of items it can place on its shelves for your perusal than it is the number of items it can stock in the back.
Similarly for digital stores, people are only ever going to see X items, where X is a small number, ranging from say 10 - 50. As we talk about infinite content, X gets asymptotically infinitesimal, and then you start getting Google-like complaints about how certain items don't show up often enough because there's some obscure algorithm being used to recommend things. I think, generally, I'd prefer an explicit ban under clearly defined policies over an implicit shuffling to the back of the store, underneath the table, behind the washrooms, after you take a right.
But the reasons why something is banned or "pseudo-banned" (by being in the back in a locked cabinet under the sign reading "Beware of Leopard") matter. If the algorithm is pseudo-banning anything with the f-bomb in it, that's a problem; but with the system as a whole, it's only stuff that's incredibly unpopular/uninteresting or things which are impossible to describe or categorize that are going to end up on the table behind the washrooms.
I mean, a large bookstore holds a vast number of books, but you can walk around and browse to find the section that interests you. Finding ways to recreate that experience digitally is a challenge, but not an insurmountable one. Maybe I'm seeing the top 10 best-sellers on the front page, but if I add a half-dozen filters so that I'm now browsing a Netflix-style "Melancholy British Indie Platformers for OSX Under $10" sorted by average user review (minimum 50 reviews) and click here to filter out games with no controller support--even if I'm only seeing the top 10 best-sellers in that, that's a way better result for me.
But I cannot prove that you are right within the context of art any more (or less) definitively than somebody else can prove within the context of art that they are right not to like, say, curse words.
Nonsense. Art can be instructive, explanatory, and educational. Art exists within the context of our knowledge and culture. I can conclusively say racism is bad and wrong. I can conclusively say that art promoting racism is promoting something wrong. And unless they're pioneering some amazing artistic advance I'm fine saying that art is not worth supporting.
And somebody else can conclusively prove that, say, art promoting drug use is wrong.
Yes, that's how the system works. One side can't have a stranglehold on art.
But why is that system preferable to you over a system where nobody has to try and strangle anybody?
Not necessarily a redeeming quailty, but one I acknowledge can be important. I feel it's important there be space for the controversial. Even on a milder note, today's Halo is yesterday's Murder Simulator teaching our young to kill. Today's tasteful nudity is, in another time, a horrid breach of morality. Shutting th doors on all the stuff that offends or disturbs us, I think ultimately hurts us.
The rest of you have made interesting posts which I will try to get to after work. Particularly Dresden. Apologies to leave some hanging, I always forget how much time these threads take.
It can be is extremely different from "you understand why we must support controversial art." We should support controversial art if it's worthwhile, not just because it's controversial. Controversial means nothing without, once again, context.
I don't think so. Controversial content can be important, but is not necessarily important for that reason alone. It follows that we leave room for such content to exist, assuming that the net balance will be on the whole good for humanity. I feel this process is absolutely essential, it ensures that important content is not culled for failing to appease the majority or certain powerful minorities. And at the very least, it brings about public discourse which I also find to be of great value to our society
edit : plus, by definition controversial content means that there are people both for and against it.
There's always people for or against something. That's a meaningless statement.
In reference to art, it's not meaningless at all. If there is significant resistance on both sides of an argument about any given piece of art, it becomes more important that the art not be denied whatever platform it has obtained. Most importantly, because it affirms that art will not be censored or suppressed simply because a majority or set of minority gatekeepers deem it to be worthy of censure. Last but not least, because it recognizes the the sheer variety in human taste and understanding, allowing for people with tastes not entirely mainstream the freedom to find or establish niches.
I don't care if there's a significant number of people who want to see a woman raped.
Their taste is demonstrably hurtful and I would be more than happy if Steam decided not to sell the games they wanted. I would in fact consider Steam right for doing so.
And of course, for the perfectly normal people who have these kinds of fantasies and are maybe just a little worn down from all the constant shaming, that is just one more advantage of a more permissive bookstore model. No need to worry about busybodies poking their head into your media or your bedroom and expressing their outrage at your unapproved sexual tastes.
Not necessarily a redeeming quailty, but one I acknowledge can be important. I feel it's important there be space for the controversial. Even on a milder note, today's Halo is yesterday's Murder Simulator teaching our young to kill. Today's tasteful nudity is, in another time, a horrid breach of morality. Shutting th doors on all the stuff that offends or disturbs us, I think ultimately hurts us.
The rest of you have made interesting posts which I will try to get to after work. Particularly Dresden. Apologies to leave some hanging, I always forget how much time these threads take.
It can be is extremely different from "you understand why we must support controversial art." We should support controversial art if it's worthwhile, not just because it's controversial. Controversial means nothing without, once again, context.
I don't think so. Controversial content can be important, but is not necessarily important for that reason alone. It follows that we leave room for such content to exist, assuming that the net balance will be on the whole good for humanity. I feel this process is absolutely essential, it ensures that important content is not culled for failing to appease the majority or certain powerful minorities. And at the very least, it brings about public discourse which I also find to be of great value to our society
edit : plus, by definition controversial content means that there are people both for and against it.
There's always people for or against something. That's a meaningless statement.
In reference to art, it's not meaningless at all. If there is significant resistance on both sides of an argument about any given piece of art, it becomes more important that the art not be denied whatever platform it has obtained. Most importantly, because it affirms that art will not be censored or suppressed simply because a majority or set of minority gatekeepers deem it to be worthy of censure. Last but not least, because it recognizes the the sheer variety in human taste and understanding, allowing for people with tastes not entirely mainstream the freedom to find or establish niches.
I don't care if there's a significant number of people who want to see a woman raped.
Their taste is demonstrably hurtful and I would be more than happy if Steam decided not to sell the games they wanted. I would in fact consider Steam right for doing so.
And of course, for the perfectly normal people who have these kinds of fantasies and are maybe just a little worn down from all the constant shaming, that is just one more advantage of a more permissive bookstore model. No need to worry about busybodies poking their head into your media or your bedroom and expressing their outrage at your unapproved sexual tastes.
Which is what will happen by having this in a book store. More people will know about it and react. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong on this but giving a subject like that a higher profile is going to do the opposite of what what you want.
Not necessarily a redeeming quailty, but one I acknowledge can be important. I feel it's important there be space for the controversial. Even on a milder note, today's Halo is yesterday's Murder Simulator teaching our young to kill. Today's tasteful nudity is, in another time, a horrid breach of morality. Shutting th doors on all the stuff that offends or disturbs us, I think ultimately hurts us.
The rest of you have made interesting posts which I will try to get to after work. Particularly Dresden. Apologies to leave some hanging, I always forget how much time these threads take.
It can be is extremely different from "you understand why we must support controversial art." We should support controversial art if it's worthwhile, not just because it's controversial. Controversial means nothing without, once again, context.
I don't think so. Controversial content can be important, but is not necessarily important for that reason alone. It follows that we leave room for such content to exist, assuming that the net balance will be on the whole good for humanity. I feel this process is absolutely essential, it ensures that important content is not culled for failing to appease the majority or certain powerful minorities. And at the very least, it brings about public discourse which I also find to be of great value to our society
edit : plus, by definition controversial content means that there are people both for and against it.
There's always people for or against something. That's a meaningless statement.
In reference to art, it's not meaningless at all. If there is significant resistance on both sides of an argument about any given piece of art, it becomes more important that the art not be denied whatever platform it has obtained. Most importantly, because it affirms that art will not be censored or suppressed simply because a majority or set of minority gatekeepers deem it to be worthy of censure. Last but not least, because it recognizes the the sheer variety in human taste and understanding, allowing for people with tastes not entirely mainstream the freedom to find or establish niches.
I don't care if there's a significant number of people who want to see a woman raped.
Their taste is demonstrably hurtful and I would be more than happy if Steam decided not to sell the games they wanted. I would in fact consider Steam right for doing so.
You could say the same thing about people wanting to see humans killed or tortured, but hey, we've got plenty of those getting prime time advertisements as we speak. I'd be interested to see what justification you have for separating depictions of rape from depictions of graphic torture and death.
This is, I think, a personal or ideological thing for you. There's no leg to stand on beyond "I find this to be bad and therefore it should not be" and I shouldn't have to elaborate how ridiculously abusable that argument is.
Edit: I should note I blame no one for avoiding images or ideas they find distasteful, we all do this and it is our right. I only take issue here with individuals or groups who attempt to push these preferences onto others and control the things they see and experience.
Not necessarily a redeeming quailty, but one I acknowledge can be important. I feel it's important there be space for the controversial. Even on a milder note, today's Halo is yesterday's Murder Simulator teaching our young to kill. Today's tasteful nudity is, in another time, a horrid breach of morality. Shutting th doors on all the stuff that offends or disturbs us, I think ultimately hurts us.
The rest of you have made interesting posts which I will try to get to after work. Particularly Dresden. Apologies to leave some hanging, I always forget how much time these threads take.
It can be is extremely different from "you understand why we must support controversial art." We should support controversial art if it's worthwhile, not just because it's controversial. Controversial means nothing without, once again, context.
I don't think so. Controversial content can be important, but is not necessarily important for that reason alone. It follows that we leave room for such content to exist, assuming that the net balance will be on the whole good for humanity. I feel this process is absolutely essential, it ensures that important content is not culled for failing to appease the majority or certain powerful minorities. And at the very least, it brings about public discourse which I also find to be of great value to our society
edit : plus, by definition controversial content means that there are people both for and against it.
There's always people for or against something. That's a meaningless statement.
In reference to art, it's not meaningless at all. If there is significant resistance on both sides of an argument about any given piece of art, it becomes more important that the art not be denied whatever platform it has obtained. Most importantly, because it affirms that art will not be censored or suppressed simply because a majority or set of minority gatekeepers deem it to be worthy of censure. Last but not least, because it recognizes the the sheer variety in human taste and understanding, allowing for people with tastes not entirely mainstream the freedom to find or establish niches.
I don't care if there's a significant number of people who want to see a woman raped.
Their taste is demonstrably hurtful and I would be more than happy if Steam decided not to sell the games they wanted. I would in fact consider Steam right for doing so.
And of course, for the perfectly normal people who have these kinds of fantasies and are maybe just a little worn down from all the constant shaming, that is just one more advantage of a more permissive bookstore model. No need to worry about busybodies poking their head into your media or your bedroom and expressing their outrage at your unapproved sexual tastes.
Which is what will happen by having this in a book store. More people will know about it and react. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong on this but giving a subject like that a higher profile is going to do the opposite of what what you want.
Eh, people said that 20 years ago about buying D&D books in bookstores too, now fantasy and nerd stuff is pretty mainstream. Turns out that a lot of people actually liked it, and the censors and bullies were the minority.
If there's a negative reaction to such media, the answer to that is to tell the people having the negative reaction to go read something else and stop bothering people. Hiding the media away just suggests to people that it is shameful, and empowers the bullies who want to use it as a weapon against targets of their choice.
Squidget0 on
+4
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
But why is that system preferable to you over a system where nobody has to try and strangle anybody?
Because there's nothing wrong with it.
There have been many, many instances of good, important art being made more difficult to access because a group who disliked it applied pressure.
Besides, you've yet to show me a convincing method for how your new system is going to replace the current one.
Isn't Hatred an example of just that? Rather than consumers pressuring distributors to sell or not sell specific titles, I would rather they pressure distributors to embrace principles of inclusivity and fairness. It's the same mechanism, just a different goal.
Not necessarily a redeeming quailty, but one I acknowledge can be important. I feel it's important there be space for the controversial. Even on a milder note, today's Halo is yesterday's Murder Simulator teaching our young to kill. Today's tasteful nudity is, in another time, a horrid breach of morality. Shutting th doors on all the stuff that offends or disturbs us, I think ultimately hurts us.
The rest of you have made interesting posts which I will try to get to after work. Particularly Dresden. Apologies to leave some hanging, I always forget how much time these threads take.
It can be is extremely different from "you understand why we must support controversial art." We should support controversial art if it's worthwhile, not just because it's controversial. Controversial means nothing without, once again, context.
I don't think so. Controversial content can be important, but is not necessarily important for that reason alone. It follows that we leave room for such content to exist, assuming that the net balance will be on the whole good for humanity. I feel this process is absolutely essential, it ensures that important content is not culled for failing to appease the majority or certain powerful minorities. And at the very least, it brings about public discourse which I also find to be of great value to our society
edit : plus, by definition controversial content means that there are people both for and against it.
There's always people for or against something. That's a meaningless statement.
In reference to art, it's not meaningless at all. If there is significant resistance on both sides of an argument about any given piece of art, it becomes more important that the art not be denied whatever platform it has obtained. Most importantly, because it affirms that art will not be censored or suppressed simply because a majority or set of minority gatekeepers deem it to be worthy of censure. Last but not least, because it recognizes the the sheer variety in human taste and understanding, allowing for people with tastes not entirely mainstream the freedom to find or establish niches.
I don't care if there's a significant number of people who want to see a woman raped.
Their taste is demonstrably hurtful and I would be more than happy if Steam decided not to sell the games they wanted. I would in fact consider Steam right for doing so.
And of course, for the perfectly normal people who have these kinds of fantasies and are maybe just a little worn down from all the constant shaming, that is just one more advantage of a more permissive bookstore model. No need to worry about busybodies poking their head into your media or your bedroom and expressing their outrage at your unapproved sexual tastes.
Which is what will happen by having this in a book store. More people will know about it and react. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong on this but giving a subject like that a higher profile is going to do the opposite of what what you want.
Eh, people said that 20 years ago about buying D&D books in bookstores too, now fantasy and nerd stuff is pretty mainstream. Turns out that a lot of people actually liked it, and the censors and bullies were the minority.
If there's a negative reaction to such media, the answer to that is to tell the people having the negative reaction to go read something else. Hiding the media away just suggests to people that it is shameful, and empowers the bullies who want to use it as a weapon against targets of their choice.
I agree. Things change, but putting it in the open isn't going to protect those books, or media, it'll make them red meat for people to attack then the public will react to the material. There's no getting around it.
But why is that system preferable to you over a system where nobody has to try and strangle anybody?
Because there's nothing wrong with it.
There have been many, many instances of good, important art being made more difficult to access because a group who disliked it applied pressure.
True. I said before the system sometimes doesn't react like I'd prefer, yet it is the system. We lose a battle, and continue forward.
Isn't Hatred an example of just that? Rather than consumers pressuring distributors to sell or not sell specific titles, I would rather they pressure distributors to embrace principles of inclusivity and fairness. It's the same mechanism, just a different goal.
No. Hatred isn't changing anything. You're talking about a sea change in society's habits on a grand scale, that's how big a task you're advocating. What's Hatred doing that makes you think it's going to alter that?
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
But why is that system preferable to you over a system where nobody has to try and strangle anybody?
Because there's nothing wrong with it.
There have been many, many instances of good, important art being made more difficult to access because a group who disliked it applied pressure.
True. I said before the system sometimes doesn't react like I'd prefer, yet it is the system. We lose a battle, and continue forward.
So... there is something wrong with the system?
Isn't Hatred an example of just that? Rather than consumers pressuring distributors to sell or not sell specific titles, I would rather they pressure distributors to embrace principles of inclusivity and fairness. It's the same mechanism, just a different goal.
No. Hatred isn't changing anything. You're talking about a sea change in society's habits on a grand scale, that's how big a task you're advocating. What's Hatred doing that makes you think it's going to alter that?
I guess I'm not sure what you're talking about. What grand sea change? I'm just pushing for more inclusivity, more situations where distributors stand up to those who would pressure them not to carry specific works. As far as I can tell, we're already heading there in some respects thanks to the rise of digital distribution and mass marketplaces like Amazon.
I don't think ANYONE has said they wanted Steam to avoid controversial games. That's just how people like Quid and me have been repeatedly 'rephrased'.
I want Steam to avoid games that I think are harmful in some sense, and I want them to feel free to sell what they think is right to sell. I couldn't care less if it's controversial or not.
But why is that system preferable to you over a system where nobody has to try and strangle anybody?
Because there's nothing wrong with it.
There have been many, many instances of good, important art being made more difficult to access because a group who disliked it applied pressure.
True. I said before the system sometimes doesn't react like I'd prefer, yet it is the system. We lose a battle, and continue forward.
So... there is something wrong with the system?
No. The system not doing what I want it to do what I want doesn't mean the system is faulty.
I guess I'm not sure what you're talking about. What grand sea change?
You've been talking about changing how the public and companies should alter how they react to controversial art. Unless I'm confusing you with Frankie on what you're driving at.
I'm just pushing for more inclusivity, more situations where distributors stand up to those who would pressure them not to carry specific works. As far as I can tell, we're already heading there in some respects thanks to the rise of digital distribution and mass marketplaces like Amazon.
Isn't that changing the status quo? Amazon has existed for years before this and digital distribution is an alternative method, so what's the problem again?
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I don't think ANYONE has said they wanted Steam to avoid controversial games. That's just how people like Quid and me have been repeatedly 'rephrased'.
I want Steam to avoid games that I think are harmful in some sense, and I want them to feel free to sell what they think is right to sell. I couldn't care less if it's controversial or not.
I think it's just semantic confusion happening because there's no good way to say "the subset of games we're talking about here."
But why is that system preferable to you over a system where nobody has to try and strangle anybody?
Because there's nothing wrong with it.
There have been many, many instances of good, important art being made more difficult to access because a group who disliked it applied pressure.
True. I said before the system sometimes doesn't react like I'd prefer, yet it is the system. We lose a battle, and continue forward.
So... there is something wrong with the system?
No. The system not doing what I want it to do what I want doesn't mean the system is faulty.
That doesn't make sense to me. "The justice system sometimes convicts innocent people, something I'm against. That said, the justice system is perfect." Either you agree with all results of a particular system or you must believe the system to be flawed (even if you think the flaws can't be fixed, or that the system can't be improved upon). Or, I suppose, you believe that your own preferences are wrong, which is a weird way to think.
I guess I'm not sure what you're talking about. What grand sea change?
You've been talking about changing how the public and companies should alter how they react to controversial art. Unless I'm confusing you with Frankie on what you're driving at.
I can't speak for Frankie, and I'm not talking about changing how the public reacts to controversial art. I'm talking about encouraging distribution companies to be more fair and inclusive when it comes to controversial art as a general rule. I really don't think that's a massive change the way you're portraying it--far less grand than, say, changing how companies react to environmental concerns--and anyway, the relative difficulty of a task does not necessarily mean that task isn't worth attempting.
I'm just pushing for more inclusivity, more situations where distributors stand up to those who would pressure them not to carry specific works. As far as I can tell, we're already heading there in some respects thanks to the rise of digital distribution and mass marketplaces like Amazon.
Isn't that changing the status quo? Amazon has existed for years before this and digital distribution is an alternative method, so what's the problem again?
The status quo is in a state of flux as new companies and companies in new spaces consider certain ethical questions. I would encourage them to come around to my answers to those questions.
“In the sequence of game play footage titled Midnight Animal, the protagonist character bursts into what appears to be a movie set and explicitly kills 4 people, who collapse to the floor in a pool of copious blood, often accompanied by blood splatter. After stomping on the head of a fifth male character, he strikes a female character wearing red underwear. She is knocked to the floor and is viewed lying face down in a pool of copious blood. The male character is viewed with his pants halfway down, partially exposing his buttocks. He is viewed pinning the female down by the arms and lying on top of her thrusting, implicitly raping her (either rear entry or anally) while her legs are viewed kicking as she struggles beneath him. This visual depiction of implied sexual violence is emphasized by it being mid-screen, with a red backdrop pulsating and the remainder of the screen being surrounded by black.”
Maybe it shouldn't be as well.
Ok syphon pointed out to me this is a "fake" rape in a way and you can skip it, but I'm still a bit squicky on the whole thing. As a consumer of popular culture in america I'm not really comforable with how sexual violence is rearing its head up in all forms of media as some kind of go to shock factor.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I apologize if my Hedbo comparison was too strong, but I do think it's apt. I'm not talking here about critics of controversial art, I don't think art can *be* controversial without critics.
Except it isn't. You can't compare actual critics of art with terrorists. No one is is siding with terrorists over Hedbo, even if they loathe the art the magazine did.
I'm talking about people who see content they dislike and want it gone. People who, earlier in the thread, talked about boycotting Steam simply for hosting a single game they disliked. Granted, you're not on that track of thought, I think, but I do want to clarify where I'm coming from with that. I've had bad experiences with this sort of thing, hell, even one of my best friends nearly had her livelihood ruined when people who didn't like her art couldn't leave it at that, but pressured the website to remove her work and shut her down. I don't mind criticism, I think it's healthy and important. But there seems to a be a strong line of thought these days where art you dislike isn't just art you should avoid, it's art you should fight. And I can never agree with that.
That's how it's always been. Boycotting isn't a new instrument for critics to wield against artists.
I think, in the end, I fall a bit more on the generous side than you were thinking in terms of how much i want controversial art to be received by society. As far as I'm concerned, if it has an audience and a platform, it ought not be pressured to lose either. If it's a bad idea, let it have its platform, let it be exposed and ridiculed. If it's somewhere in the grey middle, where our modern sense of morality intersects with human need and boundary pushing, let it be. I don't care if it's My Little Pony or snuff porn.
Typically controversial art does get its day in the sun and it gets blow back for being controversial. This means it's open to being boycotted, which you disagree with critics doing. Not that every piece of art gets a right to be produced or distributed, companies and distributed do tell artists when to knock it off when they find the need.
Eh, not disagreeing much on this. I'm trying to leave the financial aspect alone because I see it as mostly separate from the more abstract line of thought I'm on. If you have a direct question on it, though, I'm sure we can get into that.
It isn't separate, though. Unless artists are selling their wares for free they can't be severed from it's influence. That's why it's a powerful tool for critics. This isn't about a separate question, I'm telling you you can't divide artists from finance on this.
As far as I'm concerned, suppressing art is black and white, in that while there are varying degrees of it I'm unhappy with pretty much all of them.
Then you're screwed. Being an artist means having your work judged, there's no way around it. To court controversy only ratchets up the uproar from the public, which you've said you gladly do. There's nothing wrong with that stance, but it comes with a price.
I'm not so much fearing the future as I am unhappy with the present and seeing trends within that make me uneasy with their potential. But, that potential need not even be fulfilled for me to be dissatisfied with our current treatment of this whole thing.
The trends aren't that different from the past. The difference is the left and minority groups have greater influence with art, rather than the right wing. Who use identical platforms to create the art they want. The American Family Values organization boycotted various organizations, like 7/11 for selling Playboys in 1986, Madonna for "Like a Prayer" in 1989 and NYPD Blue in 1993. The Last Temptation of Christ various Christian fundamental groups boycotted it in 1988, Dogma got boycotts from the Catholic League in 1999. You're fretting over nothing. Art isn't coming to an end.
I hold by the idea that to have the art you like you need to defend the art you don't like. Because morality changes, or the public perception of it does. People who bet on the majority view always backing them up usually end up unhappily surprised.
Perception does change, so society must change with it. That doesn't mean you can't defend controversial art right now. You don't need to do anything. It does, however, help your cause to defend controversial art for a reason rather then because it's controversial.
That doesn't make sense to me. "The justice system sometimes convicts innocent people, something I'm against. That said, the justice system is perfect." Either you agree with all results of a particular system or you must believe the system to be flawed (even if you think the flaws can't be fixed, or that the system can't be improved upon). Or, I suppose, you believe that your own preferences are wrong, which is a weird way to think.
This isn't comparable to the justice system, it's the free market in action. I can be against my opponents but agree with their tactics in how they get what they want, which is the case here.
I can't speak for Frankie, and I'm not talking about changing how the public reacts to controversial art. I'm talking about encouraging distribution companies to be more fair and inclusive when it comes to controversial art as a general rule. I really don't think that's a massive change the way you're portraying it--far less grand than, say, changing how companies react to environmental concerns--and anyway, the relative difficulty of a task does not necessarily mean that task isn't worth attempting.
Okay. I don't have many reservations against that, though I'd probably judge controversial art on a case by case basis since they're not all equal.
The status quo is in a state of flux as new companies and companies in new spaces consider certain ethical questions. I would encourage them to come around to my answers to those questions.
Okay. Sorry for getting you and Frankie's arguments mixed up.
“In the sequence of game play footage titled Midnight Animal, the protagonist character bursts into what appears to be a movie set and explicitly kills 4 people, who collapse to the floor in a pool of copious blood, often accompanied by blood splatter. After stomping on the head of a fifth male character, he strikes a female character wearing red underwear. She is knocked to the floor and is viewed lying face down in a pool of copious blood. The male character is viewed with his pants halfway down, partially exposing his buttocks. He is viewed pinning the female down by the arms and lying on top of her thrusting, implicitly raping her (either rear entry or anally) while her legs are viewed kicking as she struggles beneath him. This visual depiction of implied sexual violence is emphasized by it being mid-screen, with a red backdrop pulsating and the remainder of the screen being surrounded by black.”
Maybe it shouldn't be as well.
Ok syphon pointed out to me this is a "fake" rape in a way and you can skip it, but I'm still a bit squicky on the whole thing. As a consumer of popular culture in america I'm not really comforable with how sexual violence is rearing its head up in all forms of media as some kind of go to shock factor.
Stuff like half life scientists getting mulched used to be shocking but we're used to that now.Now people are getting immune to silent hill levels of intensity. What's left?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
“In the sequence of game play footage titled Midnight Animal, the protagonist character bursts into what appears to be a movie set and explicitly kills 4 people, who collapse to the floor in a pool of copious blood, often accompanied by blood splatter. After stomping on the head of a fifth male character, he strikes a female character wearing red underwear. She is knocked to the floor and is viewed lying face down in a pool of copious blood. The male character is viewed with his pants halfway down, partially exposing his buttocks. He is viewed pinning the female down by the arms and lying on top of her thrusting, implicitly raping her (either rear entry or anally) while her legs are viewed kicking as she struggles beneath him. This visual depiction of implied sexual violence is emphasized by it being mid-screen, with a red backdrop pulsating and the remainder of the screen being surrounded by black.”
Maybe it shouldn't be as well.
Ok syphon pointed out to me this is a "fake" rape in a way and you can skip it, but I'm still a bit squicky on the whole thing. As a consumer of popular culture in america I'm not really comforable with how sexual violence is rearing its head up in all forms of media as some kind of go to shock factor.
My favorite part of that hyperbole is where they sensationalize the camera focusing on the protagonist. I personally prefer when, during a scene, the camera instead zooms in on a clothing washing instructions tag, because I'm dying to know if that shirt is a cold water or warm water wash.
Policing fictional versions of fictional crimes committed against imaginary characters is so utterly masturbatory and inconsequential, it puts most first world problems to shame. Time spent worrying about this could be time spent running a charity service where you exchanges Cokes for Pepsi and vice versa.
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
Isn't that how COD: Modern Warfare 2 worked? The game gave you an option when starting a new game to skip a level involving you gunning down civilians in a Russian airport. I never played Modern Warfare 2 because of that level even though I loved the first one. MW2 is available on Steam.
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
Is not buying products from a distributor because they sell things that make you not want to purchase from them a punishment?
Because it seems like that implies they're entitled to your business.
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
What do you mean by go after here? What do you think an individual can do to a developer other than not buy their products? And why would you seemingly deny them that right to protect some nebulous concept of free speech that is harmed by not purchasing products from one developer because you disagreed with a product they offered?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
A distributor is closer to the game than Obama or random rape victims are. It's an unusual tactic, yet it is an organization that is vital to the game's success. Much like how targeting advertisers is, which isn't a new tactic for financially hurting another product/company.
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
Because they'd be making money off of content I don't want to support (hypothetically).
Say there's a sexual abuse simulator, and I don't want to in any way shape or form contribute money to anyone profiting off of it.
Is that a punishment, or is that me not rewarding business practices I don't want to support?
I'm not going after anyone by not purchasing things.
Basically my problem with your question is that it assumes the default state is support.
That isn't the case.
How is stream benefiting financially from you not buying the game? The state government and federal government also benefit from the game in terms of taxes, should we also be boycotting any programs they use that tax money for?
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
A distributor is closer to the game than Obama or random rape victims are. It's an unusual tactic, yet it is an organization that is vital to the game's success. Much like how targeting advertisers is, which isn't a new tactic for financially hurting another product/company.
Making a law that prohibited the creation and distribution of such a game is also a way to hurt a product/company. One that most people would agree would be a bad thing. I am saying that boycotting a distributor is closer to censorship than criticism in terms of effects, and should be avoided.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Basically my problem with your question is that it assumes the default state is support.
That isn't the case.
How is stream benefiting financially from you not buying the game? The state government and federal government also benefit from the game in terms of taxes, should we also be boycotting any programs they use that tax money for?
They're benefiting financially from selling the game. I'm supporting a company that benefits financially from selling something I don't want to support if I purchase from them (in this hypothetical situation).
Basically, if I don't agree with how, or from what, a company makes profit I don't support them.
A company has to earn business. Getting my business isn't the default state.
Basically my problem with your question is that it assumes the default state is support.
That isn't the case.
How is stream benefiting financially from you not buying the game?
They give it a platform to sell it on. By taking away the platform it's harder for the game to make a profit. It's like targeting advertisements.
The state government and federal government also benefit from the game in terms of taxes, should we also be boycotting any programs they use that tax money for?
You can try, I wouldn't recommend it.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
A distributor is closer to the game than Obama or random rape victims are. It's an unusual tactic, yet it is an organization that is vital to the game's success. Much like how targeting advertisers is, which isn't a new tactic for financially hurting another product/company.
Making a law that prohibited the creation and distribution of such a game is also a way to hurt a product/company. One that most people would agree would be a bad thing. I am saying that boycotting a distributor is closer to censorship than criticism in terms of effects, and should be avoided.
This is a weird sentiment that I've seen come up a few times.
Boycotting is basically a neutral action. To not boycot a company, you'd have to actively go and spend money there.
I almost exclusively shop at certain stores over others, or buy certain brand or products over others. And for some extremely frivilous reasons.
Posts
And somebody else can conclusively prove that, say, art promoting drug use is wrong.
Right, but in the context of the argument that digital storefronts can just show infinity things, cuz it's all digital, I'm just trying to highlight that that's not true. Honestly, for many physical stores, if I understand properly, SHELF-space is more valuable than WAREHOUSE-space. Your local supermarket is more constrained by the number of items it can place on its shelves for your perusal than it is the number of items it can stock in the back.
Similarly for digital stores, people are only ever going to see X items, where X is a small number, ranging from say 10 - 50. As we talk about infinite content, X gets asymptotically infinitesimal, and then you start getting Google-like complaints about how certain items don't show up often enough because there's some obscure algorithm being used to recommend things. I think, generally, I'd prefer an explicit ban under clearly defined policies over an implicit shuffling to the back of the store, underneath the table, behind the washrooms, after you take a right.
Yes, that's how the system works. One side can't have a stranglehold on art.
But the reasons why something is banned or "pseudo-banned" (by being in the back in a locked cabinet under the sign reading "Beware of Leopard") matter. If the algorithm is pseudo-banning anything with the f-bomb in it, that's a problem; but with the system as a whole, it's only stuff that's incredibly unpopular/uninteresting or things which are impossible to describe or categorize that are going to end up on the table behind the washrooms.
I mean, a large bookstore holds a vast number of books, but you can walk around and browse to find the section that interests you. Finding ways to recreate that experience digitally is a challenge, but not an insurmountable one. Maybe I'm seeing the top 10 best-sellers on the front page, but if I add a half-dozen filters so that I'm now browsing a Netflix-style "Melancholy British Indie Platformers for OSX Under $10" sorted by average user review (minimum 50 reviews) and click here to filter out games with no controller support--even if I'm only seeing the top 10 best-sellers in that, that's a way better result for me.
--
But why is that system preferable to you over a system where nobody has to try and strangle anybody?
Because there's nothing wrong with it. Besides, you've yet to show me a convincing method for how your new system is going to replace the current one.
Fantastic example. Ravishment is ranked among the most common sexual fantasies, particularly for women who report having such fantasies at a rate of about 60%. It is an extremely common subject among erotic fiction authors, and is used by some abuse survivors to heal (possibly NSFW images in the last two links.) The vast vast majority of people who experience these fantasies clearly do not go on to harm anyone, nor are they demographically the creepy misogynists and weirdos you are imagining.
And of course, for the perfectly normal people who have these kinds of fantasies and are maybe just a little worn down from all the constant shaming, that is just one more advantage of a more permissive bookstore model. No need to worry about busybodies poking their head into your media or your bedroom and expressing their outrage at your unapproved sexual tastes.
Which is what will happen by having this in a book store. More people will know about it and react. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong on this but giving a subject like that a higher profile is going to do the opposite of what what you want.
You could say the same thing about people wanting to see humans killed or tortured, but hey, we've got plenty of those getting prime time advertisements as we speak. I'd be interested to see what justification you have for separating depictions of rape from depictions of graphic torture and death.
This is, I think, a personal or ideological thing for you. There's no leg to stand on beyond "I find this to be bad and therefore it should not be" and I shouldn't have to elaborate how ridiculously abusable that argument is.
Edit: I should note I blame no one for avoiding images or ideas they find distasteful, we all do this and it is our right. I only take issue here with individuals or groups who attempt to push these preferences onto others and control the things they see and experience.
Eh, people said that 20 years ago about buying D&D books in bookstores too, now fantasy and nerd stuff is pretty mainstream. Turns out that a lot of people actually liked it, and the censors and bullies were the minority.
If there's a negative reaction to such media, the answer to that is to tell the people having the negative reaction to go read something else and stop bothering people. Hiding the media away just suggests to people that it is shameful, and empowers the bullies who want to use it as a weapon against targets of their choice.
There have been many, many instances of good, important art being made more difficult to access because a group who disliked it applied pressure.
Isn't Hatred an example of just that? Rather than consumers pressuring distributors to sell or not sell specific titles, I would rather they pressure distributors to embrace principles of inclusivity and fairness. It's the same mechanism, just a different goal.
I agree. Things change, but putting it in the open isn't going to protect those books, or media, it'll make them red meat for people to attack then the public will react to the material. There's no getting around it.
True. I said before the system sometimes doesn't react like I'd prefer, yet it is the system. We lose a battle, and continue forward.
No. Hatred isn't changing anything. You're talking about a sea change in society's habits on a grand scale, that's how big a task you're advocating. What's Hatred doing that makes you think it's going to alter that?
So... there is something wrong with the system?
I guess I'm not sure what you're talking about. What grand sea change? I'm just pushing for more inclusivity, more situations where distributors stand up to those who would pressure them not to carry specific works. As far as I can tell, we're already heading there in some respects thanks to the rise of digital distribution and mass marketplaces like Amazon.
I want Steam to avoid games that I think are harmful in some sense, and I want them to feel free to sell what they think is right to sell. I couldn't care less if it's controversial or not.
No. The system not doing what I want it to do what I want doesn't mean the system is faulty.
You've been talking about changing how the public and companies should alter how they react to controversial art. Unless I'm confusing you with Frankie on what you're driving at.
Isn't that changing the status quo? Amazon has existed for years before this and digital distribution is an alternative method, so what's the problem again?
I think it's just semantic confusion happening because there's no good way to say "the subset of games we're talking about here."
--
That doesn't make sense to me. "The justice system sometimes convicts innocent people, something I'm against. That said, the justice system is perfect." Either you agree with all results of a particular system or you must believe the system to be flawed (even if you think the flaws can't be fixed, or that the system can't be improved upon). Or, I suppose, you believe that your own preferences are wrong, which is a weird way to think.
I can't speak for Frankie, and I'm not talking about changing how the public reacts to controversial art. I'm talking about encouraging distribution companies to be more fair and inclusive when it comes to controversial art as a general rule. I really don't think that's a massive change the way you're portraying it--far less grand than, say, changing how companies react to environmental concerns--and anyway, the relative difficulty of a task does not necessarily mean that task isn't worth attempting.
The status quo is in a state of flux as new companies and companies in new spaces consider certain ethical questions. I would encourage them to come around to my answers to those questions.
Is hotline Miami 2 on steam?
Maybe it shouldn't be as well.
Ok syphon pointed out to me this is a "fake" rape in a way and you can skip it, but I'm still a bit squicky on the whole thing. As a consumer of popular culture in america I'm not really comforable with how sexual violence is rearing its head up in all forms of media as some kind of go to shock factor.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And yeah, that description makes me severely uncomfortable.
Except it isn't. You can't compare actual critics of art with terrorists. No one is is siding with terrorists over Hedbo, even if they loathe the art the magazine did.
That's how it's always been. Boycotting isn't a new instrument for critics to wield against artists.
Typically controversial art does get its day in the sun and it gets blow back for being controversial. This means it's open to being boycotted, which you disagree with critics doing. Not that every piece of art gets a right to be produced or distributed, companies and distributed do tell artists when to knock it off when they find the need.
It isn't separate, though. Unless artists are selling their wares for free they can't be severed from it's influence. That's why it's a powerful tool for critics. This isn't about a separate question, I'm telling you you can't divide artists from finance on this.
Then you're screwed. Being an artist means having your work judged, there's no way around it. To court controversy only ratchets up the uproar from the public, which you've said you gladly do. There's nothing wrong with that stance, but it comes with a price.
The trends aren't that different from the past. The difference is the left and minority groups have greater influence with art, rather than the right wing. Who use identical platforms to create the art they want. The American Family Values organization boycotted various organizations, like 7/11 for selling Playboys in 1986, Madonna for "Like a Prayer" in 1989 and NYPD Blue in 1993. The Last Temptation of Christ various Christian fundamental groups boycotted it in 1988, Dogma got boycotts from the Catholic League in 1999. You're fretting over nothing. Art isn't coming to an end.
Perception does change, so society must change with it. That doesn't mean you can't defend controversial art right now. You don't need to do anything. It does, however, help your cause to defend controversial art for a reason rather then because it's controversial.
This isn't comparable to the justice system, it's the free market in action. I can be against my opponents but agree with their tactics in how they get what they want, which is the case here.
Okay. I don't have many reservations against that, though I'd probably judge controversial art on a case by case basis since they're not all equal.
Okay. Sorry for getting you and Frankie's arguments mixed up.
Stuff like half life scientists getting mulched used to be shocking but we're used to that now.Now people are getting immune to silent hill levels of intensity. What's left?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
My favorite part of that hyperbole is where they sensationalize the camera focusing on the protagonist. I personally prefer when, during a scene, the camera instead zooms in on a clothing washing instructions tag, because I'm dying to know if that shirt is a cold water or warm water wash.
Here's Devolver's post on it: http://www.devolverdigital.com/blog/view/hotline-miami-2-australian-classification
Policing fictional versions of fictional crimes committed against imaginary characters is so utterly masturbatory and inconsequential, it puts most first world problems to shame. Time spent worrying about this could be time spent running a charity service where you exchanges Cokes for Pepsi and vice versa.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
Isn't that how COD: Modern Warfare 2 worked? The game gave you an option when starting a new game to skip a level involving you gunning down civilians in a Russian airport. I never played Modern Warfare 2 because of that level even though I loved the first one. MW2 is available on Steam.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
Is not buying products from a distributor because they sell things that make you not want to purchase from them a punishment?
Because it seems like that implies they're entitled to your business.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
pleasepaypreacher.net
A distributor is closer to the game than Obama or random rape victims are. It's an unusual tactic, yet it is an organization that is vital to the game's success. Much like how targeting advertisers is, which isn't a new tactic for financially hurting another product/company.
Because they'd be making money off of content I don't want to support (hypothetically).
Say there's a sexual abuse simulator, and I don't want to in any way shape or form contribute money to anyone profiting off of it.
Is that a punishment, or is that me not rewarding business practices I don't want to support?
I'm not going after anyone by not purchasing things.
That isn't the case.
How is stream benefiting financially from you not buying the game? The state government and federal government also benefit from the game in terms of taxes, should we also be boycotting any programs they use that tax money for?
Making a law that prohibited the creation and distribution of such a game is also a way to hurt a product/company. One that most people would agree would be a bad thing. I am saying that boycotting a distributor is closer to censorship than criticism in terms of effects, and should be avoided.
They're benefiting financially from selling the game. I'm supporting a company that benefits financially from selling something I don't want to support if I purchase from them (in this hypothetical situation).
Basically, if I don't agree with how, or from what, a company makes profit I don't support them.
A company has to earn business. Getting my business isn't the default state.
They give it a platform to sell it on. By taking away the platform it's harder for the game to make a profit. It's like targeting advertisements.
You can try, I wouldn't recommend it.
This is a weird sentiment that I've seen come up a few times.
Boycotting is basically a neutral action. To not boycot a company, you'd have to actively go and spend money there.
I almost exclusively shop at certain stores over others, or buy certain brand or products over others. And for some extremely frivilous reasons.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious