Or you're simply a censorship advocate yourself and you're willing to make excuses for her obvious attempts to censor something in the UN of all places. Quit being dishonest, thank you. Now blanked document, because it was so embarrassingly obvious attempt at censorship and everyone laughed about it, it cited sources such as these: http://21sci-tech.com/articles/New_violence.html

Remember, this document came along with Anita's UN representation of "cyber violence". Thats Anita in a representation that urges UN to make internet regulations stricter, with documents citing "Nintendo Killers"-articles as evidence. That is textbook attempt to censorship something. They very much support my point, that Anita, Kotaku and Polygon have supported censorship and tried to get something banned before. And are you seriously accusing me of falsifying evidence now? Do you live in India or some other country where Archive.is is banned? Then otherwise you should not have any problems viewing those links, that is not good enough dismissal for evidence. Yeah no, I'm done spoonfeeding you. I gave you examples that you immediatly dismiss as "low quality" for no good reasons given. It goes to show that you are not here to actually discuss the issue but to just waste everyone's time either arguing for the sake of arguing, or putting fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and saying you don't care about facts even after you specifically requested them.

Stop saying "you dont have evidence!" if you refuse to take a look at the links given to you. You're arguing with extreme bad faith here right now, you should be ashamed of yourself.

It's more a matter of why are you posting images (or archive.is links) of comments and pages in the first place? Are the original sources hidden away? I thought those horrible SJW whatevers would be loud and proud of their desire to ban and censor games, since that's people here are consistently claiming they want to do, despite them often explicitly stating otherwise. Why not show the source? Why is this a conspiracy? I should be able to go to the front page of somewhere like Kotaku, open a review of the latest game "non-darling" game, and see "This game should be banned!". I shouldn't have to browse images of comments from god knows where by god knows who in response to god knows what.

But even taking them at face value, how are images of "This game sucks!" or "You suck!" or "This thing is bloody and bad!" evidence of banning or censorship?

By not including it because you are afraid of the name calling and controversy it might trigger if you do. That's why I said that even thought it probably wont end up with an outright ban the current climate is favorable in devs self-censoring themselves... but in the end is the same end results.

I used "violence" as a random example, but similar arguments, with more or less subtlety, is often made for various aspects deemed "problematic".

Again, making the argument is one thing, it's repeating said argument over and over again as if it was some sort of fact, while name calling the non-believers, that is the issue.

That's the thing, I am all for more diversity in game genre, but it should means that devs are free to make the games they want to make, with the content and the characters they want to have, but if developers become afraid to touch some topics or genra, to describe/dress characters in a certain way, or feel forced to include certain type of character to meet some required "diversity" quota, then it's the very opposite of diversity.

Also promoting diversity in gaming genre is great, but it shouldn't be done by demeaning existing genre or games that are not considered progressive enough, especially when said finger pointing is parroted in most of the gaming press and on social media, if anything the only thing is does is makes some peoples more reluctant and aggressive toward those new games and it doesn't help at all the media grow as a whole.

Yes, you catch on quickly. Whenever they slip up, the original source gets quickly deleted. I had an example, the blanked document right there for you to see as a great example. I had few archive links because I do not want to give clicks to places like Kotaku but I can provide them for you if you really want to support their bad clickbait behaviour. No censor ever admits they're doing censorship in the history of censorship, because censorship is an ugly word. But what they will always do is say "this thing is harmful and we should do something about it", all the way from banning Harry Potter books to even invoke Godwin's Law, with nazis burning the book of jews. They weren't boasting that they love censorship, they were saying they "protected people from harmful texts". They try to disguise the censorship for something else than it is. They're not evidence of censorship, they are evidence of advocacy of censorship. Anita, Polygon and Kotaku want something to be changed or removed, just because they failed (except in the case of australian shops and GTA V) or just because their motivation might have been to make quick buck out of saying something controversial, doesn't mean that they didn't try to censor something.

I wasn't commenting on the usage of the example of violence, rather the phrasing of:
Rather than something like So then provide a countering view. Unfortunately, if your countering view is going to be lost in a huge ocean of harassment and knee-jerk "YOU'RE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY MY GAMES!", then only one side is going to come out sounding reasonable.

Devs are absolutely free to make whatever kind of game they want. And critics are absolutely free to discuss problematic aspects of it. And because we live in a culture and community, and the culture and community is constantly evolving and growing, if devs keep sticking to the same old tired cliched tropes, they'll keep getting called out for it. A hundred years from now, when a "Save the princess" plot would be considered weird and unique, it may even be praised. Right now it is just yet another uncreatively thought out story that is built on centuries of tropey story-telling, and it's going to be called out for that.

Criticism of something isn't advocating censoring it, especially when (for example in the case of Anita's video series), each video starts with an explicit statement that says as much, where she often mentions she LIKES the game in question. Besides, if I say that Mein Kampf advocates nazi ideology, does that automatically imply that I'm advocating the censorship of it?

If you actually have articles where the writer is explicitly stating that a game should be banned or censored (rather than criticising what they consider a problematic aspect of it), then yes, I'd like to see them, thenks!

But I was not citing Anitas videos was I? I was citing her statements and behaviour otherwise where she has proven to be advocating for censorship. She went to UN of all places to attempt to restrict internet with a document with her that cited that Nintendo creates serial killers. You cannot squirm your way out of this, that is textbook censorship advocacy. Stop making excuses. If you're trying to say that Mein Kampfs readers are evil, reading the book turns you evil or that Amazon should pull it off from its online store, yes you are advocating censorship. And yes, these "SJWs" really have attempted to do this already. https://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/12/targets-grand-theft-auto-v-ban-leaves-us-with-no-one-to-blame/

This is a Kotaku article, reasoning why game being banned from shop shelves is a good thing and we can't critisize the decision because "misogyny is a serious issue". What the petitioners were doing was also textbook censorship advocacy and Kotaku here is siding with them, turning the writer into a censorship advocate instantly.

How can I squirm out of something I cannot see? You have shared a blank document, and said it cited another document that you shared. What am I supposed to do with this information?

The bolded part is the only one that kinda comes close to advocating censorship.


Thanks!
Quotes from the article: I don't think this one qualifies.

First you could open your eyes and read the provided links for one and stop suggesting that I'm sending you falsified evidence, that is incredibly rude and makes you argue in bad faith yet again. Yeah no, suggesting fiction or literature is harmful is part of censorship. That is the reason why Russia bans any homosexual material, because the "homosexual content might be seen or read by children.". Censorship is always justified with that same argument, that the act of censorship protects *place a group of victims here* from "harmful" material.

Here, let me spoonfeed you some more since you don't seem to be aware of what censorship is:

I think this game is misogynistic and I don't like it.= Not censorship

I think this game is misogynistic and I hate the devs for making this game.= Not censorship.

This game is misogynistic and its harmful to the society= censorship.

This game is misogynistic and the developers should change it or they are harmful, evil people.= censorship.

This game is misogynistic and if you play it you turn into a misogynist.= censorship.

Do you understand the difference? When Polygon gives a bad score to Bayonetta 2 because "its misogyny", thats fine, its their misinformed and idiotic opinion. When Polygon makes an article that "Bayonetta 2 is not okay and the devs are horrible people", then thats advocacy for censorship. It qualifies by the third point where the writer defends the petition itself. A point which you conveniently ignored completely. Can you tell me why do you keep being dishonest even when I've repeatedly told you to stop being so?

Great example! Now, please, could you answer two subsequent questions:

1. What percent of GamerGate movement such people constitute? Were they a majority, as Anita, Wu and other game journalists in "Gamers are dead" articles suggested or just a fringe group on the sideline?

2. If you consider yourself entitled to mock and abuse such people, simply because they express virulent views, why other people can't do the same to people whose views they also see as virulent and toxic? Or can they?

learn from? who have talked about learning from games? if my better half wants to play a game that either do not alienate here or make her groan every five minutes - what have that got to do with learning?

Something being harassment would be considered harassment. Why would someone have to pretend something is harassment when they're actually getting harassed (to the level of cussing, rape threats and death threats)?

So what are you saying? That people shouldn't criticise what they consider problematic aspects of games they play?

Oh, absolutely, sure. And again, the video series by Anita said as much. The problem is the prevalence, specific use and intention of those tropes. It really seems like I'm the only one who actually went through her videos with an open mind, instead of closing it the second she criticised a game I liked!

Woah, calm down. Where did I claim you were falsifying evidence. You keep saying that I claim that. I've not laid any accusation against you about falsifying evidence.

So you can't suggest that something is harmful, because that would be censorship? :D
Sounds to me like you're advocating censorship!

Yeah, I don't think you understand what censorship is.
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by government authorities.

Adding or not adding "I think" to the start of your sentence doesn't change the censorship levels. You think every negative game review is censorship unless the author starts every sentence with "I think"?

You mean the point where the writer said that Target is a private company and can sell or not sell whatever it wants, and that doesn't count as censorship?

You really seem quite confrontational. I'm not out to get you. I don't even know you.

1) I don't know. I made no claim either way. You keep bringing up gamergate, when in that specific point, I was talking about "Gamers" as a group. I thought we already established in this thread that the "Gamers are dead" articles predated Gamergate, and that Gamergate came up in part as a response to them.
2) When someone tells you the sky is cow-piss yellow, you point up, and explain it isn't. If they continue to insist that the sky is cow-piss yellow, if you like them, you might dig out articles about the colour of the sky, or explain the scientific phenomenon behind it. If they yet still continue, you may possibly ignore them, or end up mocking them.
Now switch out "the sky is cow-piss yellow" with a toxic and harmful opinion such as "Black men want to rape our women". So yeah, I'd mock them, or just wait for them to die. They're beyond explaining at that point. They might mock me back, but I get the feeling that I'd have good sense and the majority at my back.
Do you have a better suggestion? Should I "tolerate" their opinion and allow them to spread it?

Oh, you're talking about the UN "Cyberviolence Report".

You already know Anita Sarkeesian didn't write jack shit for that.

You already know Zoë Tiberius Quinn didn't write jack shit for that.

So yeah, attributing shit to the wrong author in order to smear them, that's falsifying evidence.

And doing it again and again and again in full knowledge of the facts, that's dishonest and repulsive.

Heck, you possibly already know that Sarkeesian and Quinn's words at UN were a de facto pushback against the supposed internet regulation.

You're possibly fully aware that Sarkeesian mainly argued for self-regulation, ostracism of harassers amongst communities and by service providers instead of actual censorship via involvement of authorities.

You're possibly fully aware Quinn pleaded for online anonymity, which protects her harassers as well. You probably haven't read Crash Override, I assure you she describes legal measures as the Russian roulette of the internet.

But you don't give a shit, because it helps the gamergate outrage when you can indoctrinate more people with it.

You keep bringing this crap up because y'all know the uninformed mob is eating it up.

No you're just brushing off all linked evidence on a whim and still have the gall to demand more. Those promoting censorship should be the first ones to be silenced. Also, from your own googled definition of censorship: "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive

Suggesting that it is harmful is the very basis of censorship. Ah but when you explicitly state that its your opinion and not stating that it is legitimately harmful, you cannot be an advocate for censorship. I hate all rap music but I would never say that it should be removed from all music just because I don't like it. Because I acknowledge its right to exist even when I hate it. If I would try to say that rap music is harmful to the listener, then it plays to the basis of censorship that I mentioned above, making me a censorship advocate. No, I meant this part: "But it's of paramount importance to understand and accept that this petition was the work of women with serious, sincere concerns. Important concerns about the portrayal of women and the impact it would have on young men's attitudes to violence against women. These are ex-sex workers who have experienced sexual violence from men. Their concerns are more than valid."

The level of victimhood does not determine whether the cause is valid. Otherwise we couldn't critisize Russia from banning homosexuals from media because of their claim to "protect children". Frankly defending clear push for censorship because "their concerns are valid" immediatly turns you into a censorship advocate, which happened to this Kotaku writer. It could be because you're quick to brush off every shred of evidence with a short unsubstantiated and unexplained dismissal that its "low quality" and "not enough". Once again if you don't want people to show you the truth, don't ask for it.

To play the Devil's Advocate I don't think folks like Anita, Kotaku or Polygon are on a holy mission, their calls for censorship are there so they can milk money out of the controversy, thats why I think eventually GG turned counterproductive by constantly making huge fuss about clickbaiters and attention seekers. You deal with attention seekers the same way you deal with trolls, you ignore them instead of taking their bait.

Which ties into the very topic of this thread. The PR-rep of GOG took the bait of the perpetually offended professional victims and did the cardinal mistake of apologizing to them. And as a GOG customer I'm concerned, especially when the response from its competitor Valve was much better when confronted by these vultures. Next time both Valve and GOG have the same game on a sale with same amount of money, this incident might affect my purchasing decision when GOG has shown its ready to throw its own customerbase to the wolves.

Switch out "Black men want to rape our women" with "White straight men are a privileged class and opress everyone else" and you will be able to answer yourself.