It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
The JRPG Days are not over yet!
You've been playing Zwei: The Arges Adventure and Legrand Legacy: Tale of the Fatebounds while snagging genre classics on the cheap from our jRPG Days sale. Now it's time to take a look behind the scenes: team leader Ken Berry and localization producer Thomas Lipschultz have taken some time to chat with us about how XSEED handles the release and localization of their beloved JRPG series.
The interview is broken down into two parts, for convenience. Stay tuned for Part 2 tomorrow, January 30.

So, let's start with a quick year in review – from your professional point of view, has 2017 been good to Japanese games in the West?

Ken: Yes, I would say that 2017 has been a very good year for Japanese games in the West. The obvious big winner is Nintendo with their extremely successful launch of the Switch, as I remember some Japanese executives being concerned whether the idea of one machine being both a home console and a portable machine could succeed in North America where public transportation is not nearly as prevalent as Japan.
The PC platform also continues to get more support from the Japanese gaming industry. Not only are you seeing more instances of simultaneous PC launches with the console release, but they seem to be gradually accepting the idea of DRM-free on PC as well, which had always been a huge challenge in the past because they would often mistakenly equate “DRM-free” to “free.”

A lot can be said about different sensibilities in Japan vs. the West. In the past year, maybe more than ever, sexuality, sexualization, and consent, are talked about in mainstream Western culture – taboos are being broken and lines being drawn. Has this had an impact on your approach and your work?

Tom: As a company, I think it’s definitely made us stop and take stock of a game’s content a lot earlier in the process than ever before, so we know well in advance whether there will be any potentially problematic content, and can prepare ourselves to deal with that content as production ramps up.
For me specifically, it’s been kind of an inner struggle, as I think a lot of people are aware that I have a personal zero-tolerance policy for censorship in video games, along with a fairly broad definition of what constitutes censorship (for me, it consists of any content changes made not out of legal or contractual necessity, but solely in an attempt to avoid offending or upsetting members of the target audience). Despite this, I do fully understand that from a business standpoint – and even from a moral standpoint – it’s always best to avoid upsetting your fans, because obviously, an upset fan is not going to remain a fan for very long, and signing off on upsetting or troublesome language or imagery is never something anyone wants to do!
The problem I have, though, is that I truly do consider video games – ALL video games – to be art, and just as it wouldn’t feel right to me if someone painted over offensive material in a painting, edited out offensive material in a book, or cut offensive material from a film, I don’t want to see anyone (least of all us) editing out offensive material in games. My thought is, if it’s that offensive, then we probably shouldn’t be releasing the game at all – though that’s obviously not always a realistic option.
Recently, however, with all the news that’s come out about systemic sexual harassment and abuse in Hollywood and elsewhere, as well as the issues being faced by the LGBTQ community in this modern political climate, it’s become much harder to justify maintaining a zero-tolerance approach – and with a lot of Japanese games starting to really push the boundaries of “good taste” more and more, the looming threat of censorship has become much larger and more imposing than ever, and certainly more of a beast to fight on multiple levels. And it’s really not a battle I WANT to fight – I’d rather just localize games that everybody can enjoy!
I still hold firm in my belief, however, that if we want video games to be classified as an art form on par with books, films, and paintings, we need to maintain zero tolerance for censorship in localization, no matter how offensive the content we’re localizing may be. And if there’s any positive to be gained by doing so, it’s that the presence of offensive content in localized titles will spark much-needed discussion about those topics, and hopefully lead to a dialogue on the state of the industry in Japan, possibly even resulting in creators being a little more cognizant of people outside their tight-knit circle of acquaintances when designing new titles from here on out.
But for the immediate future, I believe content alteration will occur a little more often in the West than it has before (hopefully not by us, but regrettably, that isn’t outside the realm of possibility!), while little else will change for the industry overseas. My solace lies in the thought that we’ll just keep getting more games like the Zwei titles to work on: superb examples of classic action JRPG design with content that’s often snarky and a little mischievous, but never crosses the line into offensive territory, and thus isn’t at any risk of being toned down in localization. Those remain a joy to work on, and the more games of that sort I’m given, the less worried I’ll be about censorship moving forward.

The titles. We need to talk about the game titles...
What is it that makes Japanese naming conventions so different? How do you approach localizing a game's title, and what does it take to make it work in the West?


Tom: I don’t think most Japanese naming conventions are all that different, honestly, save for the fact that they’re usually much longer than the names we tend to see here (with subtitles on top of subtitles, e.g. “Corpse Party: BloodCovered: …Repeated Fear”). Which, I believe, is mostly attributable to some general differences in the way games are advertised in Japan, with more text meaning a bigger poster on the wall and more space allotted to discuss the game in print… not to mention the ability to strike a pose and rattle off a long name, looking and sounding kind of dorkily awesome in the process!
In the Western world, though, we’re definitely all about succinct naming: something short and to the point, that rolls off the tongue, with one or two words being the ideal. Especially if it’s unique enough to be Googlable! We want the name to be easy to remember so that prospective fans can always find information on it at a moment’s notice, even if they haven’t heard anyone talking about the game for quite some time.
I assume you’re speaking more in terms of translations, though (“Sen no Kiseki” → “Trails of Cold Steel”), as well as the rare addition of subtitles (“Zwei!!” → “Zwei: The Arges Adventure”). In the former case, the goal is to come up with something that remains relatively true to the original Japanese but still sounds snappy and natural in English, with bonus points for picking a name that perfectly fits the tone and content of the game (as “Trails of Cold Steel” most definitely does).
And in the latter case, we were really just trying to avoid drawing attention to the fact that we were releasing “Zwei II” before “Zwei” – a luxury afforded us by the fact that the two games tell standalone stories, and necessitated by the fact that Zwei II was finished and ready for release quite a bit sooner. We considered numerous possible subtitles for both games, but ultimately chose “The Ilvard Insurrection” for Zwei II because… well, it preserved the acronym, “Zwei:II”!
We attempted something similar with the first game, but despite our best attempts, we couldn’t come up with any viable names that would form the acronyms ONE, EINS, or even WAN, nor any single-word subtitles beginning with the letter I. We settled on AA to preserve the double lettering of Ilvard Insurrection, and because A is the first letter of the alphabet… and also because the first Zwei is a pretty tough game, so we anticipated a lot of people would be saying “AAAAAA” when playing it!
Post edited January 29, 2018 by maladr0Id
avatar
RoseLegion: The groups I referenced in my prior post were in fact political, and dialogues were very much had (some terse but still worthwhile). And it was groups in the plural, some without a specific party affiliation and at least one with each of the 4 (yep not giving the Rep & Dem folks the only place on the stage) major parties in the USA.
There were lots of differences, and there was quite a bit of common ground found even when some of those differences were intractable.
avatar
kohlrak: It might be possible to have a dialogue, but overton window suggests that there are times where it's just a generally bad idea. Some groups are dumb enough to immediately take your whole arm when you offer a hand. Some smarter groups act disgruntled now, ask for a hand, pretend to be satisfied, wait a year or so, and start being disgruntled again.
The window of discourse is not a static thing either in time or culture. It's likely to be identical between any two times or contexts.
Further stepping outside of the average or centrist space where it might exist is one of the primary ways to introduce any new ideas, discourse, or change.
Even granting that there are times when it may be a bad idea to try and start a conversation that in no way makes it a good, or even neutral, idea to employ categorical or prejudicial language and labels. Use of labelling and/or generalizing more likely to compress the window of discourse than to maintain or expand it.
Further adopting the posture of assuming possible conversation partners will act in bad faith seems rather self defeating, what other options are left if one preemptively rules out discourse, reliance on force to eradicate differences? Reliance on an external actor - be that group or abstract - to smother ideas or lifestyles out of sync with ones own?
I do not pretend to know what your advocacy is, but personally I'll operate under the assumption that 'within' most 'groups' there are people of having enough of a conversation to reach "live and let live" territory. After all, if there aren't then we have bigger problems than economics or what games we play.
low rated
Some examples I've thought of when it comes to censorship:

"good" censorship: In SaGa 2, there is a world where the plot involves trafficking an illegal drug. In hte English version (Final Fantasy Legend 2), the illegal drug was changed to bananas, with a rather humorous effect.

Bad censorship: In Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, Vivian's sex was changed in the localization.

Not censorship: Back to SaGa 2, in the world in question, there is a classroom, and in that classroom is a bird who says an untranslatable joke; the bird says, written in katakana, the English sentence "please don't play this game". In the US version, this was changed to something like "Hello! How are you! I am learning to speak English... How come you can understand me?" (Incidentally, in the Japanese DS remake, the bird's message is "please don't this game..." followed by the bird giving up and just saying it in Japanese. To understand this joke, it's important to know that, in Japanese, the verb goes at the end of the sentence; this can cause a Japanese learner of English to make this sort of mistake.)

Also not censorship: In Final Fantasy 5, there is a part where the character tries to look up a porn (or something like that book) in a library; in the English GBA version, that was changed to looking up "ass" and finding out that it's about donkeys. (In this context, the word had to start with a letter at the beginning of the alphabet.) (In the English PSX version, the translation failed as a joke and didn't make sense, but that translation is notoriously bad.)

avatar
RoseLegion: The window of discourse is not a static thing either in time or culture. It's likely to be identical between any two times or contexts.
These two sentences contradict each other. Maybe you want to say "unlikely" instead of "likely"?

(The other possible fix would be to remove the word "not" in the first sentence, but then it would be at odds with the rest of your post.)
Post edited January 30, 2018 by dtgreene
avatar
kohlrak: It might be possible to have a dialogue, but overton window suggests that there are times where it's just a generally bad idea. Some groups are dumb enough to immediately take your whole arm when you offer a hand. Some smarter groups act disgruntled now, ask for a hand, pretend to be satisfied, wait a year or so, and start being disgruntled again.
avatar
RoseLegion: The window of discourse is not a static thing either in time or culture. It's likely to be identical between any two times or contexts.
Further stepping outside of the average or centrist space where it might exist is one of the primary ways to introduce any new ideas, discourse, or change.
Even granting that there are times when it may be a bad idea to try and start a conversation that in no way makes it a good, or even neutral, idea to employ categorical or prejudicial language and labels. Use of labelling and/or generalizing more likely to compress the window of discourse than to maintain or expand it.
Further adopting the posture of assuming possible conversation partners will act in bad faith seems rather self defeating, what other options are left if one preemptively rules out discourse, reliance on force to eradicate differences? Reliance on an external actor - be that group or abstract - to smother ideas or lifestyles out of sync with ones own?
I do not pretend to know what your advocacy is, but personally I'll operate under the assumption that 'within' most 'groups' there are people of having enough of a conversation to reach "live and let live" territory. After all, if there aren't then we have bigger problems than economics or what games we play.
While I agree that playing the label game isn't justified in all cases, there comes a point where it becomes useful enough (and this is most certainly it). I'm against the initiation of violence (except in cases where defense is only viable preemptively [such as with invasion forces and nuclear weapons]). I'll make that very clear from the get go. But, the thing is, if I make something, why should I be forced to hold a dialogue with those whom i know I won't meet common ground with in an attempt to persuade me to change my mind, only when after the dialogue it becomes an issue where "we need to open up a dialogue"? Do i have to keep succumbing to dialogue until they leave me alone, just to avoid them becoming violent over that which is none of their business? Give your opinion with your money or lack of. No, you cannot be violent with me over something i choose not to censor out of a game or something then choose to say you were justified because i refused to open a dialogue. Meet violence with violence or lesser. Meet words with words or lesser. There's no reason words should ever escalate to violence.
avatar
RoseLegion: The window of discourse is not a static thing either in time or culture. It's likely to be identical between any two times or contexts.
Further stepping outside of the average or centrist space where it might exist is one of the primary ways to introduce any new ideas, discourse, or change.
Even granting that there are times when it may be a bad idea to try and start a conversation that in no way makes it a good, or even neutral, idea to employ categorical or prejudicial language and labels. Use of labelling and/or generalizing more likely to compress the window of discourse than to maintain or expand it.
Further adopting the posture of assuming possible conversation partners will act in bad faith seems rather self defeating, what other options are left if one preemptively rules out discourse, reliance on force to eradicate differences? Reliance on an external actor - be that group or abstract - to smother ideas or lifestyles out of sync with ones own?
I do not pretend to know what your advocacy is, but personally I'll operate under the assumption that 'within' most 'groups' there are people of having enough of a conversation to reach "live and let live" territory. After all, if there aren't then we have bigger problems than economics or what games we play.
avatar
kohlrak: While I agree that playing the label game isn't justified in all cases, there comes a point where it becomes useful enough (and this is most certainly it). I'm against the initiation of violence (except in cases where defense is only viable preemptively [such as with invasion forces and nuclear weapons]). I'll make that very clear from the get go. But, the thing is, if I make something, why should I be forced to hold a dialogue with those whom i know I won't meet common ground with in an attempt to persuade me to change my mind, only when after the dialogue it becomes an issue where "we need to open up a dialogue"? Do i have to keep succumbing to dialogue until they leave me alone, just to avoid them becoming violent over that which is none of their business? Give your opinion with your money or lack of. No, you cannot be violent with me over something i choose not to censor out of a game or something then choose to say you were justified because i refused to open a dialogue. Meet violence with violence or lesser. Meet words with words or lesser. There's no reason words should ever escalate to violence.
Fair enough, but your summery here makes it very clear that your reply to my comment to another poster in this thread (which was the inception point of this exchange) isn't really relevant to what I was saying in any meaningful way.

Here you are talking about being the creator of a given work and choosing to engadge or not with people who are objecting to the content of that theortical work. That is a starkly diffrent context from someone discussing the larger and nonspecific ideas surrounding cencorship.

I also am not sure how you define "useful enough" with respect to employing group labels, but as it stands now I simply cannot agree that it is useful in this context, especially if one is looking to have a meaningful conversation which the poster I was responding to voiced the desire to do.

If you simply do not wish to engadge with a given individual or group the by all means don't, if you do wish to engadge then I advise doing so without labels and terms (or other methods of framing) which could increase tension or reduce clearity (broad fuzzy terms are great and doing both of those things).
I'd also advise against talking at or about someone rather than to or with them, because that tends to escalate conflict rather than foster the potental for resolution.
avatar
dtgreene: Some examples I've thought of when it comes to censorship:

"good" censorship: In SaGa 2, there is a world where the plot involves trafficking an illegal drug. In hte English version (Final Fantasy Legend 2), the illegal drug was changed to bananas, with a rather humorous effect.

Bad censorship: In Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, Vivian's sex was changed in the localization.

Not censorship: Back to SaGa 2, in the world in question, there is a classroom, and in that classroom is a bird who says an untranslatable joke; the bird says, written in katakana, the English sentence "please don't play this game". In the US version, this was changed to something like "Hello! How are you! I am learning to speak English... How come you can understand me?" (Incidentally, in the Japanese DS remake, the bird's message is "please don't this game..." followed by the bird giving up and just saying it in Japanese. To understand this joke, it's important to know that, in Japanese, the verb goes at the end of the sentence; this can cause a Japanese learner of English to make this sort of mistake.)

Also not censorship: In Final Fantasy 5, there is a part where the character tries to look up a porn (or something like that book) in a library; in the English GBA version, that was changed to looking up "ass" and finding out that it's about donkeys. (In this context, the word had to start with a letter at the beginning of the alphabet.) (In the English PSX version, the translation failed as a joke and didn't make sense, but that translation is notoriously bad.)

avatar
RoseLegion: The window of discourse is not a static thing either in time or culture. It's likely to be identical between any two times or contexts.
avatar
dtgreene: These two sentences contradict each other. Maybe you want to say "unlikely" instead of "likely"?

(The other possible fix would be to remove the word "not" in the first sentence, but then it would be at odds with the rest of your post.)
Yep that's a typeo, should read "it's unlikely to be identical..."

I'm not of the mind that there is such a thing as "good censorship".
I am also not of the mind that there is always a perfect translation from one language to another, or that as humans translators are incabable of simple honest error.

Many of the things you've mentioned sound like struggles with language translation rather than content being sliced out. Your first example is an exception and even granding that the transition do bananas had humor value (I don't know I haven't played it) I don't support altering creators intent.

To your earlier post; I see no problem with things like dustjackes on books (which provide content summries) or even a more itemized list of aspects, as methods to inform people. When the become framed as "warnings" or become mandated such that a creator who doesn't include X given item could face punitive action then I cannot muster any support for it at all. Those who want the potentially spolier laden labels and descriptions shouldn't have that information hidden from them, those who don't want the potential surprises ruined shouldn't have that information forced on them. (ESRB could use some polish IMO, it's not as badly implimented as the ratings system for movies in the USA, but it could be improved in a number of ways)
avatar
kohlrak: While I agree that playing the label game isn't justified in all cases, there comes a point where it becomes useful enough (and this is most certainly it). I'm against the initiation of violence (except in cases where defense is only viable preemptively [such as with invasion forces and nuclear weapons]). I'll make that very clear from the get go. But, the thing is, if I make something, why should I be forced to hold a dialogue with those whom i know I won't meet common ground with in an attempt to persuade me to change my mind, only when after the dialogue it becomes an issue where "we need to open up a dialogue"? Do i have to keep succumbing to dialogue until they leave me alone, just to avoid them becoming violent over that which is none of their business? Give your opinion with your money or lack of. No, you cannot be violent with me over something i choose not to censor out of a game or something then choose to say you were justified because i refused to open a dialogue. Meet violence with violence or lesser. Meet words with words or lesser. There's no reason words should ever escalate to violence.
avatar
RoseLegion: Fair enough, but your summery here makes it very clear that your reply to my comment to another poster in this thread (which was the inception point of this exchange) isn't really relevant to what I was saying in any meaningful way.

Here you are talking about being the creator of a given work and choosing to engadge or not with people who are objecting to the content of that theortical work. That is a starkly diffrent context from someone discussing the larger and nonspecific ideas surrounding cencorship.
Censorship is very much that very thing. Words are for words. If i said i hate all people of a particular race and wish them to cease to exist, that's still words. If i start amassing weapons, handing them out to people saying "kill the jews," then coming after me is not censorship. However, until I act upon my words, we can sit here all day arguing over what words justify violence. If i'm a dumb person with dumb ideas, it's all the better to put me on a platform. It's like the flat earthers. Give them a microphone and let them speak, thus when we show that the world is not flat, everyone will know what an idiot looks and sounds like, then.
I also am not sure how you define "useful enough" with respect to employing group labels, but as it stands now I simply cannot agree that it is useful in this context, especially if one is looking to have a meaningful conversation which the poster I was responding to voiced the desire to do.

If you simply do not wish to engadge with a given individual or group the by all means don't, if you do wish to engadge then I advise doing so without labels and terms (or other methods of framing) which could increase tension or reduce clearity (broad fuzzy terms are great and doing both of those things).
I'd also advise against talking at or about someone rather than to or with them, because that tends to escalate conflict rather than foster the potental for resolution.
What if the group is predisposed to conflict? If a violent person is violent, they should expect violence, not dialogue. If a person can talk, they can show themselves different from the labels. For example, when the left is using antifa, they're not speaking out against the violence. So, as far as i'm concerned, the average person on the left is violent, which is congruent with my experiences of people very much acting violent towards me when i merely use words. Meanwhile, the right is constantly putting nazis and the KKK in their place, despite the left insisting on equating us (i think they're just trying to make us look as bad as them, frankly). I do not initiate force against leftists, but I do know they're violent, so I expect as much when we engage in words and i start winning the argument. If they can show any inkling of being smarter than the average propagandist, we continue with words. If they continue to spout the propaganda, I'll dissect it in font of the audience if one is present, otherwise tell them to take a hike. I'll always talk, but i think ti's only fair that if i'm about to turn my back on you for being a propagandist that i come right out and tell you what i think of you.
avatar
kohlrak: It might be possible to have a dialogue, but overton window suggests that there are times where it's just a generally bad idea. Some groups are dumb enough to immediately take your whole arm when you offer a hand. Some smarter groups act disgruntled now, ask for a hand, pretend to be satisfied, wait a year or so, and start being disgruntled again.
avatar
RoseLegion: The window of discourse is not a static thing either in time or culture. It's likely to be identical between any two times or contexts.
Further stepping outside of the average or centrist space where it might exist is one of the primary ways to introduce any new ideas, discourse, or change.
Even granting that there are times when it may be a bad idea to try and start a conversation that in no way makes it a good, or even neutral, idea to employ categorical or prejudicial language and labels. Use of labelling and/or generalizing more likely to compress the window of discourse than to maintain or expand it.
Further adopting the posture of assuming possible conversation partners will act in bad faith seems rather self defeating, what other options are left if one preemptively rules out discourse, reliance on force to eradicate differences? Reliance on an external actor - be that group or abstract - to smother ideas or lifestyles out of sync with ones own?
I do not pretend to know what your advocacy is, but personally I'll operate under the assumption that 'within' most 'groups' there are people of having enough of a conversation to reach "live and let live" territory. After all, if there aren't then we have bigger problems than economics or what games we play.
Nevertheless, communication necessitates being able to listen, and think rationally.

avatar
kohlrak: What if the group is predisposed to conflict? If a violent person is violent, they should expect violence, not dialogue. If a person can talk, they can show themselves different from the labels. For example, when the left is using antifa, they're not speaking out against the violence. So, as far as i'm concerned, the average person on the left is violent, which is congruent with my experiences of people very much acting violent towards me when i merely use words. Meanwhile, the right is constantly putting nazis and the KKK in their place, despite the left insisting on equating us (i think they're just trying to make us look as bad as them, frankly). I do not initiate force against leftists, but I do know they're violent, so I expect as much when we engage in words and i start winning the argument. If they can show any inkling of being smarter than the average propagandist, we continue with words. If they continue to spout the propaganda, I'll dissect it in font of the audience if one is present, otherwise tell them to take a hike. I'll always talk, but i think ti's only fair that if i'm about to turn my back on you for being a propagandist that i come right out and tell you what i think of you.
That's exactly how the establishment wants "the left" and "the right" to see each other.
Post edited January 30, 2018 by richlind33
avatar
stullz: I would love nothing more than a meaningful dialogue between the two sides.
avatar
RoseLegion: Could I perhaps politely suggest that attaining a meaningful dialogue between any given set of groups or people (whether two or more) is more likely sans the use of categorical statements and group/social agenda labels?


Cheers :)
You can suggest it yes :) , but like the other fellow mentioned, the Overton window definitely comes into play. It's one of the reasons why I mention going in to discussions that it's understood that the line is drawn. That the discussion is not going to change the business but to allow explanations. Otherwise we all wind up losing when the next gaming site decides to start name calling. (see the numerous articles on gamers are dead or Kotaku's recent comments about the 'hardcore' all being 'bigots')
avatar
RoseLegion: Fair enough, but your summery here makes it very clear that your reply to my comment to another poster in this thread (which was the inception point of this exchange) isn't really relevant to what I was saying in any meaningful way.

Here you are talking about being the creator of a given work and choosing to engadge or not with people who are objecting to the content of that theortical work. That is a starkly diffrent context from someone discussing the larger and nonspecific ideas surrounding cencorship.
avatar
kohlrak: Censorship is very much that very thing. Words are for words. If i said i hate all people of a particular race and wish them to cease to exist, that's still words. If i start amassing weapons, handing them out to people saying "kill the jews," then coming after me is not censorship. However, until I act upon my words, we can sit here all day arguing over what words justify violence. If i'm a dumb person with dumb ideas, it's all the better to put me on a platform. It's like the flat earthers. Give them a microphone and let them speak, thus when we show that the world is not flat, everyone will know what an idiot looks and sounds like, then.

I also am not sure how you define "useful enough" with respect to employing group labels, but as it stands now I simply cannot agree that it is useful in this context, especially if one is looking to have a meaningful conversation which the poster I was responding to voiced the desire to do.

If you simply do not wish to engadge with a given individual or group the by all means don't, if you do wish to engadge then I advise doing so without labels and terms (or other methods of framing) which could increase tension or reduce clearity (broad fuzzy terms are great and doing both of those things).
I'd also advise against talking at or about someone rather than to or with them, because that tends to escalate conflict rather than foster the potental for resolution.
avatar
kohlrak: What if the group is predisposed to conflict? If a violent person is violent, they should expect violence, not dialogue. If a person can talk, they can show themselves different from the labels. For example, when the left is using antifa, they're not speaking out against the violence. So, as far as i'm concerned, the average person on the left is violent, which is congruent with my experiences of people very much acting violent towards me when i merely use words. Meanwhile, the right is constantly putting nazis and the KKK in their place, despite the left insisting on equating us (i think they're just trying to make us look as bad as them, frankly). I do not initiate force against leftists, but I do know they're violent, so I expect as much when we engage in words and i start winning the argument. If they can show any inkling of being smarter than the average propagandist, we continue with words. If they continue to spout the propaganda, I'll dissect it in font of the audience if one is present, otherwise tell them to take a hike. I'll always talk, but i think ti's only fair that if i'm about to turn my back on you for being a propagandist that i come right out and tell you what i think of you.
What if how you define a group label and how someone who identifies what that same term aren't identical?
What if you add more "predisposed to conflict" people to the mix by making statements which are inaccurate to them but they perceive you apply to them because of your use of group labels? What if being congruent with your experience isn't the same a congruent with the scope of people in the world, or your nation, or your state?

In your estimation how has your use of group labels - along with some ad hominem commentary about intelligence - improved your own situation, the situation of general discourse, or the context of specific discourse about censorship?

As to your "words are words" tautology it once again misrepresents, or perhaps misunderstands, what my initial comment was talking about. And while censorship is certainly a word not all contexts when confronting it are the same, the negative experience of someone having their work censored differs from the negative experience of reading/watching/playing a censored work. So approaching my comment - which was in response to someone saying they wanted a meaningful conversation 'between the two sides' - that labelling groups could be counter productive, with your theoretical context of how to respond if you are a content creator and someone is trying to censor your work, is a different context.
avatar
RoseLegion: The window of discourse is not a static thing either in time or culture. It's likely to be identical between any two times or contexts.
Further stepping outside of the average or centrist space where it might exist is one of the primary ways to introduce any new ideas, discourse, or change.
Even granting that there are times when it may be a bad idea to try and start a conversation that in no way makes it a good, or even neutral, idea to employ categorical or prejudicial language and labels. Use of labelling and/or generalizing more likely to compress the window of discourse than to maintain or expand it.
Further adopting the posture of assuming possible conversation partners will act in bad faith seems rather self defeating, what other options are left if one preemptively rules out discourse, reliance on force to eradicate differences? Reliance on an external actor - be that group or abstract - to smother ideas or lifestyles out of sync with ones own?
I do not pretend to know what your advocacy is, but personally I'll operate under the assumption that 'within' most 'groups' there are people of having enough of a conversation to reach "live and let live" territory. After all, if there aren't then we have bigger problems than economics or what games we play.
avatar
richlind33: Nevertheless, communication necessitates being able to listen, and think rationally.

avatar
kohlrak: What if the group is predisposed to conflict? If a violent person is violent, they should expect violence, not dialogue. If a person can talk, they can show themselves different from the labels. For example, when the left is using antifa, they're not speaking out against the violence. So, as far as i'm concerned, the average person on the left is violent, which is congruent with my experiences of people very much acting violent towards me when i merely use words. Meanwhile, the right is constantly putting nazis and the KKK in their place, despite the left insisting on equating us (i think they're just trying to make us look as bad as them, frankly). I do not initiate force against leftists, but I do know they're violent, so I expect as much when we engage in words and i start winning the argument. If they can show any inkling of being smarter than the average propagandist, we continue with words. If they continue to spout the propaganda, I'll dissect it in font of the audience if one is present, otherwise tell them to take a hike. I'll always talk, but i think ti's only fair that if i'm about to turn my back on you for being a propagandist that i come right out and tell you what i think of you.
avatar
richlind33: That's exactly how the establishment wants "the left" and "the right" to see each other.
Well, if the left is different, they need to separate themselves first. The right is doing a good job, yet the left is blatantly ignoring it, putting their fingers in their ears, and screaming "la la la la la la la," even if we point it out to them. Meanwhile in places where "personal attacks are not allowed," we see leftists getting the rules applied to them selectively (egosoft forums, i'm looking at you, as well as any number of other websites). Until the massive swathes of the left start banding together against this sort of thing just like the right has, it's very hard for me to see that it isn't the left who is the establishment, especially given the huge support of the left from the boomer generation. Unlike most times throughout history, the boomers still support the left in their old age, which gave the left unprecedented control in becoming the establishment.
avatar
RoseLegion: That's exactly how the establishment wants "the left" and "the right" to see each other.
It's also how they see centrists/moderates. Both deal only in absolutes (though this is one instance where I see this mentality being far more prevalent on the left than the right). And when those are the groups you're trying to deal with... well... it never gets anything done.
avatar
RoseLegion: Could I perhaps politely suggest that attaining a meaningful dialogue between any given set of groups or people (whether two or more) is more likely sans the use of categorical statements and group/social agenda labels?

Cheers :)
avatar
stullz: You can suggest it yes :) , but like the other fellow mentioned, the Overton window definitely comes into play. It's one of the reasons why I mention going in to discussions that it's understood that the line is drawn. That the discussion is not going to change the business but to allow explanations. Otherwise we all wind up losing when the next gaming site decides to start name calling. (see the numerous articles on gamers are dead or Kotaku's recent comments about the 'hardcore' all being 'bigots')
In my experience that window isn't a static thing, and I've found that choosing less or non-labelling/combative framing doesn't change my advocacy or point of view one iota but it does change how often it is received with conversation or even contemplation rather than simply contradiction or condemnation.

Since I perceive you to be someone who - like myself - would like to see censorship dismantled rather than gaining in prevalence, I figured I would proffer a useful tool I've found in hopes it could provide value to you as well.

Hopefully it does :)
avatar
kohlrak: Censorship is very much that very thing. Words are for words. If i said i hate all people of a particular race and wish them to cease to exist, that's still words. If i start amassing weapons, handing them out to people saying "kill the jews," then coming after me is not censorship. However, until I act upon my words, we can sit here all day arguing over what words justify violence. If i'm a dumb person with dumb ideas, it's all the better to put me on a platform. It's like the flat earthers. Give them a microphone and let them speak, thus when we show that the world is not flat, everyone will know what an idiot looks and sounds like, then.

What if the group is predisposed to conflict? If a violent person is violent, they should expect violence, not dialogue. If a person can talk, they can show themselves different from the labels. For example, when the left is using antifa, they're not speaking out against the violence. So, as far as i'm concerned, the average person on the left is violent, which is congruent with my experiences of people very much acting violent towards me when i merely use words. Meanwhile, the right is constantly putting nazis and the KKK in their place, despite the left insisting on equating us (i think they're just trying to make us look as bad as them, frankly). I do not initiate force against leftists, but I do know they're violent, so I expect as much when we engage in words and i start winning the argument. If they can show any inkling of being smarter than the average propagandist, we continue with words. If they continue to spout the propaganda, I'll dissect it in font of the audience if one is present, otherwise tell them to take a hike. I'll always talk, but i think ti's only fair that if i'm about to turn my back on you for being a propagandist that i come right out and tell you what i think of you.
avatar
RoseLegion: What if how you define a group label and how someone who identifies what that same term aren't identical?
Welcome to the nature of human interactions as a whole. In theory, this is a huge problem, in practice it really isn't.
What if you add more "predisposed to conflict" people to the mix by making statements which are inaccurate to them but they perceive you apply to them because of your use of group labels? What if being congruent with your experience isn't the same a congruent with the scope of people in the world, or your nation, or your state?
If i said that chinese people are short, is it the short chinese people or the tall chinese people who are likely to get offended? Given that it's right over 50% of the time, i think it'd be the select few short people that aren't happy being short. The tall person laughs and say, "yo, what about me?"
In your estimation how has your use of group labels - along with some ad hominem commentary about intelligence - improved your own situation, the situation of general discourse, or the context of specific discourse about censorship?
Third parties watching the exchanges have actually started to side with me more, and I waste my time less in dealing with repeated conversations. Overall, it's actually improved immensely. Unfortunately, it's given me more time than i know what to do with.
As to your "words are words" tautology it once again misrepresents, or perhaps misunderstands, what my initial comment was talking about. And while censorship is certainly a word not all contexts when confronting it are the same, the negative experience of someone having their work censored differs from the negative experience of reading/watching/playing a censored work. So approaching my comment - which was in response to someone saying they wanted a meaningful conversation 'between the two sides' - that labelling groups could be counter productive, with your theoretical context of how to respond if you are a content creator and someone is trying to censor your work, is a different context.
It's quite productive. Instead of listening to a Christian, for example, rattle off on how they believe in Jesus Christ, that people are bad, etc, we could actually focus on where he's different from the mainstream, which is far more useful: Maybe he admits the bible was edited? Maybe he acknowledges translation errors can exist? Maybe he admits story X was a story and not a rule and, thus, not part of the big message of the bible? It's quite helpful. Also, if my label is wrong, you'll find a new label that you can identify with, then tell me all about how you're not exactly fit into that category, either. Quite useful, actually. If you get offended, maybe you should take stock and ask yourself why you fit the label so well in someone else's eyes if you don't like the label.
avatar
stullz: You can suggest it yes :) , but like the other fellow mentioned, the Overton window definitely comes into play. It's one of the reasons why I mention going in to discussions that it's understood that the line is drawn. That the discussion is not going to change the business but to allow explanations. Otherwise we all wind up losing when the next gaming site decides to start name calling. (see the numerous articles on gamers are dead or Kotaku's recent comments about the 'hardcore' all being 'bigots')
avatar
RoseLegion: In my experience that window isn't a static thing, and I've found that choosing less or non-labelling/combative framing doesn't change my advocacy or point of view one iota but it does change how often it is received with conversation or even contemplation rather than simply contradiction or condemnation.

Since I perceive you to be someone who - like myself - would like to see censorship dismantled rather than gaining in prevalence, I figured I would proffer a useful tool I've found in hopes it could provide value to you as well.

Hopefully it does :)
Keep in mind I'm using their own terms for their own labels, otherwise the troll in me would be breaking the snowflake, sjw, and regressive labels :) That said a day doesn't go by where I don't see that side lumping all gamers together in a negative fashion. And I'm somebody who tries to find and build from positivity.
avatar
richlind33: Nevertheless, communication necessitates being able to listen, and think rationally.

That's exactly how the establishment wants "the left" and "the right" to see each other.
avatar
kohlrak: Well, if the left is different, they need to separate themselves first. The right is doing a good job, yet the left is blatantly ignoring it, putting their fingers in their ears, and screaming "la la la la la la la," even if we point it out to them. Meanwhile in places where "personal attacks are not allowed," we see leftists getting the rules applied to them selectively (egosoft forums, i'm looking at you, as well as any number of other websites). Until the massive swathes of the left start banding together against this sort of thing just like the right has, it's very hard for me to see that it isn't the left who is the establishment, especially given the huge support of the left from the boomer generation. Unlike most times throughout history, the boomers still support the left in their old age, which gave the left unprecedented control in becoming the establishment.
It's very hard for me to see how these categorical statements are useful to you, but I don't know your background so perhaps you can fill in the blanks for me. What are your top five (or three, or ten, whatever you'd like) examples where this type of rhetoric has created results you are pleased with? I personally have found far more utility in addressing issues without pointing them at groups, and people without putting them in categories, but perhaps your experience differs?
avatar
RoseLegion: In my experience that window isn't a static thing, and I've found that choosing less or non-labelling/combative framing doesn't change my advocacy or point of view one iota but it does change how often it is received with conversation or even contemplation rather than simply contradiction or condemnation.

Since I perceive you to be someone who - like myself - would like to see censorship dismantled rather than gaining in prevalence, I figured I would proffer a useful tool I've found in hopes it could provide value to you as well.

Hopefully it does :)
avatar
stullz: Keep in mind I'm using their own terms for their own labels, otherwise the troll in me would be breaking the snowflake, sjw, and regressive labels :) That said a day doesn't go by where I don't see that side lumping all gamers together in a negative fashion. And I'm somebody who tries to find and build from positivity.
Which "they" though? And are you using the terms in the same way/to mean the same things "they" do/would?

In my exprience very few people are as simple as the talking points pumped out by political and media marketing

If someone is going to be hostile to an idea then they will be without the extra baggage of an us vs them group label, but I haven't seen those labels de-escalate a discussion or heighten clarity and focus on the subject, usually they tend to drag in other subjects and spike emotions or at minimum artificially create 'teams'.

Personally I've had far more success in building from positivity (to borrow your phrase :) ) when I don't engadge in drawing up sides even (or perhaps especially) when others seem intent on doing so. Your milage may vary, but it's worked pretty well for me.
Post edited January 30, 2018 by RoseLegion