Op Ed

Games On Net - Sometimes Story is Overrated.
OK, time for a massive about face. I’ve banged on for months about the importance of story and how, for me at least, story and character take precedence over everything else in an RPG. Whilst that still remains true, I have an admission to make. I have an almost unholy love for action RPGs, or, as I like to call them, games of acquisition. As good as a story might be, sometimes you just need the gaming comfort food that is killing hordes of enemies and collecting the sweet, sweet loot that explodes from their ruined corpses. Diablo III is still “when it’s done” months away, but fellow fans of indiscriminate killing and incremental upgrades need not fear, there are a couple of games right around the corner that should keep us going until Blizzard finally decides to throw us a freaking bone.

Mod DB - Why The "Why We Removed The School Shooter Mod" Article Pissed Me the Hell Off.
It has been asserted by some that the removal was ‘no big deal’ because the ‘School Shooter Mod’ was a “troll mod”, or one that was started for the sole purpose of riling up a bunch of people via its outlandish and potentially offensive content. While that can be argued either way, ultimately it is irrelevant. The true intentions of the mod team are only for they themselves to know, and not for anyone else to judge. The bottom line is that they made a mod on a site that hosts mods, and in an ill-advised attempt to appease some outspoken critics, the host of the site censored the mod in direct contravention of the most basic principle of modding – utter creative freedom. Moreover, they allowed a few to dictate to the many what they can and can’t create or use, and in one fell swoop have changed their basic role from archivists of mods to content police. For those who ask what the big deal is in removing one mod, I implore you to consider that concept very carefully. With such a precedent set, can we really be sure such a thing won’t happen again, this time maybe to a mod you personally are interested in and are excitedly following? Again, once started, where do you stop?

View : : :
30 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
30.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 29, 2011, 14:35
30.
Re: Op Ed Mar 29, 2011, 14:35
Mar 29, 2011, 14:35
 
InBlack wrote on Mar 29, 2011, 09:39:
Great post, very well writen and to the point. I have been thinking along the same lines recently and share similar views. Our civilized society really does give new meaning to "survival of the fittest". We have taken it to the next level so that our very survival as a species is threatened.

Indeed - the survival impulse has been abstracted into the social level. Its still very much "kill or be killed" but only with credit and money instead of fangs and claws. However, the fundamental disconnection of this impulse from its physical roots has proved problematic - as the realm of abstraction (ideas, concepts, language, identity, symbols, money, etc.) has much different laws than the physical world. In a purely instinctual arena, the survival impulse is entirely functional as it resides in its proper place accorded by natural law. In the realm of abstract ideas, it is automatically distorted and able to run amok at our peril. Abstraction as a means of perception can connect us to higher orders of complexity not found in the natural physical world as we know it, but this capacity is almost never used, except in specific wisdom traditions and so forth. Rather than making use of the capacity which allowed the original "jump" of mental space which allows us to formulate symbols and apprehend language, that little space humans are born with has been filled up with reflexive IF/THEN programming and purely associative thinking which is progressively instilled by society from the moment a person is born.

The capacity is there, it is just unused in its original directive. It has become a warehouse of conceptual forms at the service of the good old mechanical standby of "survival of the fittest". Humans could be so much more, but currently they are not. They are just another animal, albeit the apex animal in terms of survival. In terms of the passage of time itself and quality of lived experience, they are utterly insignificant even in their own personal lives, not to mention globally. They are just another mechanical apparatus in service of earthly biology, rather than themselves and their own potential.

That is why the earth itself will not mind if we kill ourselves out. We are not "special" to the earth. The interplay of numerous DNA recordings is all it cares about; its got plenty of time to work with and already had plenty of time before we got here.
29.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 29, 2011, 09:39
29.
Re: Op Ed Mar 29, 2011, 09:39
Mar 29, 2011, 09:39
 
space captain wrote on Mar 28, 2011, 22:26:
derelict koan wrote on Mar 28, 2011, 19:09:
Great post, but I would suggest that conviction/will is necessary to feed/sustain systems of logic. I think there is definitely a balance available to achieve, perhaps the ethical responsibility that Cutter suggested.

Of course a balance is necessary, as emotion is always a more powerful motivation than logic. Its much older, as it comes from our instinctual nature, whereas our grasp of logic is much newer and less instinctual. The essence of intelligence is functional adaptability, and logic is the mechanical basis for that, even outside conceptual systems of language and so forth. This is easily observable in the geometries and harmonic ratios of the natural world. In terms of complex lifeforms, emotion is very much a part of intelligence, but not all emotion is "ethical" - some are organizational principals which are concerned with territorial dominance and hoarding rather than sustainability and community.

In terms of ethics, you must realize the difference between a man-made morality (like muslim laws against blasphemy which are punishable by execution, and so forth) and an inborn or natural sense of conscience. Natural conscience is an impersonal yet emotional relationship to the evolutionary imperative. It is on par with consciousness as a human trait. It is generally unknown by people, just rarely touched on and promptly ignored or covered up, buried, until it atrophies beyond redemption. It is the same with consciousness, although that is another matter. If people actually had a conscience, they would be unable to accomplish all the rampant hypocrisy they engage in on a daily basis without feeling those opposite feelings as they occur. Its a very pervasive situation, in different relative degrees of problematic institution. And yet, this capacity for hypocrisy is what feeds/sustains a large portion of our society and its systems.

So, in terms of real, actual ethics that are relative to the sustainable evolutionary potential of the human race - its just not happening on a wide scale level. All you have to do for evidence of this is to take a look around. The system is failing, as we are slowly making our own home unlivable, and the tiny few stack mountains of wealth while the great majority starves and suffers the lack.

The modern world we live in is the widespread accumulation and outward manifestation of the internal guiding principals of humanity in general. And until that wide scale level hits a tipping point of ACTUAL ethics instead of bullshit "politics", this world will continue to burn. It hasnt even been that long since civilized life was invented, and we've made a big fucking mess really quickly.

Generally humans are still quite "animalistic", and even less intelligent than other animals in terms of sustainability. Their unique capability for self evolving has been ignored in favor of simple exploitation, and the results of their efforts bear this out. The corruption has taken on a life of its own; most people dont even have a chance of noticing it, and even less of a chance to do anything about it.

Great post, very well writen and to the point. I have been thinking along the same lines recently and share similar views. Our civilized society really does give new meaning to "survival of the fittest". We have taken it to the next level so that our very survival as a species is threatened.
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
28.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 29, 2011, 03:56
28.
Re: Op Ed Mar 29, 2011, 03:56
Mar 29, 2011, 03:56
 
What this does is encourage these moralistic crusaders and 'habitually-offended by everything' types to continue pressing for censoring of material on moddb and elsewhere because it is proven to be effective.

I agree that things have the potential to go in that direction. That is to say that the 'moralistic' types may attempt to continue pressuring moddb to remove mods. Where I'd disagree is that moddb is any more likely to agree in the future. I'm sure they've had lots of pressure on other mods before, and have resisted. I expect they'll continue to resist in the future.

A scan of Netflix shows that Irreversible, Death of a President, and The Basketball Diaries are all available for watching. We are talking about movies that show rape (very graphically), Assassination of a sitting (at the time) U.S. President, and yes, a violent school shooting respectively.

That's true, but what they don't have is 'The Birth of a Nation', which is a KKK propaganda movie. And they don't stock pornography. In other words, they have their own line they've drawn, and while it's not the same line that moddb has drawn, it's equally censoring.

You don't have to like or approve of the content; but in my view you ought to believe in its right to exist regardless.

I don't necessarily disagree - but I'm pretty sure that moddb doesn't disagree either. Nothing they've said suggests to me that they personally wish the mod wasn't made. But agreeing that someone has the right to make something doesn't mean I have to support them. To use the KKK example, I can agree that they have the right to think what they think without having to allow them to post it on my website.

I guess for me what it comes down to is a matter of degrees. Everything has some sort of restriction on it, and I don't have a problem with that as long as they are reasonable and rational. I suspect that if the moddb admins censor any future projects, they'll have reasonable and rational reasons for doing so. And if they don't, I'd be happy to argue against them for censoring. But I can't honestly disagree with their decision on this one.
27.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 29, 2011, 03:02
Prez
 
27.
Re: Op Ed Mar 29, 2011, 03:02
Mar 29, 2011, 03:02
 Prez
 
Thanks for taking the time to read and respond, Bhruic. Rather than take each point and counterpoint it, which would take lots of typing, I'll just adress the following and hope I touch on the salient points in doing so.

This is simply the 'slippery slope' fallacy. While they've made a decision to remove this particular mod, what indication is there that they have any plans to remove any other mod? There is no reason to believe they are going to go on a mod banning spree now, than there was before this took place.

The problem I have with just saying their site, their rules and leaving it at that is two-fold. Firstly, at moddb there was never before a precedent for deleting incomplete mods due to their content before that I know of; only due to inactivity. And that has historically been 3 years of inactivity from what I can tell. One can say that there's a first time for everything, but this was essentially done in response to "Jack Thompson/Fox News a-likes" putting pressure on them for hosting something that they found offensive. What this does is encourage these moralistic crusaders and 'habitually-offended by everything' types to continue pressing for censoring of material on moddb and elsewhere because it is proven to be effective. It's kind of like when a parent, in a moment of weakness, lets a child who is throwing a tantrum have their way. This encourages the child to continue this behavior because it got them results before. Had the parent remained steadfast and not given in, the child would eventually realized the futility of this tactic and given up on it. We can expect more censorship pressure like this in the future because of this decision in my view. Slippery slopes are absolutely NOT a fallacy.

Secondly, and I wish I had made this point in the editorial, the censoring of the mod is in essence an admission by the largest and most well-known mod depository on the web (the "Wal-Mart of Mods" if you will) that gaming is a less legitimate medium than movies or books. A scan of Netflix shows that Irreversible, Death of a President, and The Basketball Diaries are all available for watching. We are talking about movies that show rape (very graphically), Assassination of a sitting (at the time) U.S. President, and yes, a violent school shooting respectively. All of these movies are controversial because the content is very offensive to many people, and yet they are still there. No movie fans worth his or her salt would allow any self-absorbed nanny group to force Netflix into censoring these titles without a fight. Books have some of the most disturbing imagery imaginable described in vivid detail, yet book-banning is distinctly frowned upon, and rightly so. Millions of Christians protested "The Davinci Code" because it offended them; yet Barnes and Nobles still sold the book and continues to do so. But gamers are all too willing to roll over and let others dictate what is acceptable and what isn't. If gaming is ever to "grow up", it needs to be viewed as equally legitimate as other mediums, and needs to be equally resistant to censorship pressures. You don't have to like or approve of the content; but in my view you ought to believe in its right to exist regardless.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
26.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 29, 2011, 02:45
26.
Re: Op Ed Mar 29, 2011, 02:45
Mar 29, 2011, 02:45
 
There's a significant difference between stopping people from obtaining something, and choosing not to participate in people getting something.

I don't think there's really that much of a difference. Moddb is the most popular modding site on the net. It gives mods exposure to many, many more people than would otherwise be possible. Is it true that people can still obtain the school shooter mod elsewhere? Sure. But that can be said of any censored material. Books, movies, TV shows, music... the uncensored original always exists somewhere. The question is how easy is this original to obtain? If mainstream distribution sources refuse to distribute it, that typically makes it hard to obtain.

Videogames are a great example of how choosing not to carry something is basically the same as preventing it from existing. When a game is rated AO, Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft will not let it be released on their respective consoles. In addition, major retailers will refuse to carry it. No publisher will fund an AO-rated title and if the ESRB gives it that rating, you can rest assured that the publisher will censor it as much as necessary to bring it down to an M rating. Are any of the parties involved legally obligated to censor the game? No. But the choice to refuse distribution is just as effective as a legal ban. Hell, it's even more effective if you consider how profitable the illegal arms and drug trades are. Allowing something to be sold doesn't mean anything if everybody refuses to sell it.
Avatar 20715
25.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 29, 2011, 00:33
25.
Re: Op Ed Mar 29, 2011, 00:33
Mar 29, 2011, 00:33
 
I can't say that I agree on this one. In an ideal world, sure, it'd be nice if moddb simply hosted mods, and that was the end of it. But we don't live in an ideal world.

To address some specific points...

The bottom line is that they made a mod on a site that hosts mods, and in an ill-advised attempt to appease some outspoken critics, the host of the site censored the mod in direct contravention of the most basic principle of modding – utter creative freedom.

There's a significant difference between stopping people from obtaining something, and choosing not to participate in people getting something. The moddb site isn't stopping people from obtaining the 'School Shooter Mod' if they wish to download it, they just aren't going to host it themselves. The team behind the creation still has the creative freedom to do whatever they want with the mod. So there is no direct contravention of the principle taking place here. Modding itself is about creative freedom, not necessarily the moddb site.

Moreover, they allowed a few to dictate to the many what they can and can’t create or use, and in one fell swoop have changed their basic role from archivists of mods to content police.

No, no one dictated to them. That makes it sound as if they didn't have any choice in the matter. They could have left the mod up, with all the repercussions that would have had, but they chose not to. Again, no one is being stopped from creating or using anything. The only thing that stopped happening is them hosting a particular mod.

Furthermore, to imply that they never were content police is disingenuous. They simple were never forced into that role before. I assure you, if someone had made a child-porn rape simulator, they would not have hosted the mod. They've just been lucky to this point that the mods they've hosted have all been within their 'content tolerance' list - which is extremely wide.

With such a precedent set, can we really be sure such a thing won’t happen again, this time maybe to a mod you personally are interested in and are excitedly following? Again, once started, where do you stop?

This is simply the 'slippery slope' fallacy. While they've made a decision to remove this particular mod, what indication is there that they have any plans to remove any other mod? There is no reason to believe they are going to go on a mod banning spree now, than there was before this took place.

More importantly, if you look at the many facets of society that do have 'lines' drawn, it's pretty clear that they function remarkably well. To go back to an earlier example, pornography is tolerated and sold in US society, despite the protestations of some, but child-pornography is not. Or here at Blue's, you are free to rant and rave to your heart's content (relatively speaking), but you aren't free to make gross personal attacks against other posters. It'd be very easy to say "Blue is censoring our speech, he's done it once, how do we know he won't do it to you? And once he's done it, where will he stop?" But the answers are fairly clear, and it's pretty obvious that he hasn't been heavy handed.

And there's no reason to believe that the moddb admins will be either.
24.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 28, 2011, 23:17
24.
Re: Op Ed Mar 28, 2011, 23:17
Mar 28, 2011, 23:17
 
And most people, left, right and center have a pretty good idea where the proverbial line is.

You are aware that liberals and conservatives have starkly opposed sets of morals, right? There's very little agreement on anything. Many people are offended by the very notion of abortion while others believe it should be a human right. Many people believe that everyone should have the right to bear arms while others think guns should be banned completely. When people have such conflicting values, whose do you accept when it comes to censorship? Ultimately, you end up siding with those values that most resemble your own but that's hardly an objective or fair choice.
Avatar 20715
23.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 28, 2011, 22:26
23.
Re: Op Ed Mar 28, 2011, 22:26
Mar 28, 2011, 22:26
 
derelict koan wrote on Mar 28, 2011, 19:09:
Great post, but I would suggest that conviction/will is necessary to feed/sustain systems of logic. I think there is definitely a balance available to achieve, perhaps the ethical responsibility that Cutter suggested.

Of course a balance is necessary, as emotion is always a more powerful motivation than logic. Its much older, as it comes from our instinctual nature, whereas our grasp of logic is much newer and less instinctual. The essence of intelligence is functional adaptability, and logic is the mechanical basis for that, even outside conceptual systems of language and so forth. This is easily observable in the geometries and harmonic ratios of the natural world. In terms of complex lifeforms, emotion is very much a part of intelligence, but not all emotion is "ethical" - some are organizational principals which are concerned with territorial dominance and hoarding rather than sustainability and community.

In terms of ethics, you must realize the difference between a man-made morality (like muslim laws against blasphemy which are punishable by execution, and so forth) and an inborn or natural sense of conscience. Natural conscience is an impersonal yet emotional relationship to the evolutionary imperative. It is on par with consciousness as a human trait. It is generally unknown by people, just rarely touched on and promptly ignored or covered up, buried, until it atrophies beyond redemption. It is the same with consciousness, although that is another matter. If people actually had a conscience, they would be unable to accomplish all the rampant hypocrisy they engage in on a daily basis without feeling those opposite feelings as they occur. Its a very pervasive situation, in different relative degrees of problematic institution. And yet, this capacity for hypocrisy is what feeds/sustains a large portion of our society and its systems.

So, in terms of real, actual ethics that are relative to the sustainable evolutionary potential of the human race - its just not happening on a wide scale level. All you have to do for evidence of this is to take a look around. The system is failing, as we are slowly making our own home unlivable, and the tiny few stack mountains of wealth while the great majority starves and suffers the lack.

The modern world we live in is the widespread accumulation and outward manifestation of the internal guiding principals of humanity in general. And until that wide scale level hits a tipping point of ACTUAL ethics instead of bullshit "politics", this world will continue to burn. It hasnt even been that long since civilized life was invented, and we've made a big fucking mess really quickly.

Generally humans are still quite "animalistic", and even less intelligent than other animals in terms of sustainability. Their unique capability for self evolving has been ignored in favor of simple exploitation, and the results of their efforts bear this out. The corruption has taken on a life of its own; most people dont even have a chance of noticing it, and even less of a chance to do anything about it.
22.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 28, 2011, 21:42
22.
Re: Op Ed Mar 28, 2011, 21:42
Mar 28, 2011, 21:42
 
100% agree with Prez here, not much to add other than "Good job".

Beamer wrote:
Do people here get annoyed when Blue censors Icewind's racist/classist drivel?
It does make the threads harder to read.

Kosumo wrote:
Did any others here play "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!"?
Yes, it was very well done, it evoked an emotional response, and it generated great discussion. I think it did far more good for the maturation of the industry/hobby/art than it did harm.

Cutter wrote on Mar 28, 2011, 18:02:
A post full of emotional arguments and strawmen.
Keep up the good work Cutter!
Avatar 17249
21.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 28, 2011, 21:38
21.
Re: Op Ed Mar 28, 2011, 21:38
Mar 28, 2011, 21:38
 
Damn, quote is not edit
Avatar 17249
20.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 28, 2011, 20:52
20.
Re: Op Ed Mar 28, 2011, 20:52
Mar 28, 2011, 20:52
 
Cutter wrote on Mar 28, 2011, 18:02:
It's called the moral majority for a reason. And most people, left, right and center have a pretty good idea where the proverbial line is.
ModDB says that people mistook the site for being the creators of the mod. We should use your argumentum ad populum logic there too.
I'm invoking Latin and am therefore invincible. I'm also a gluteus maximus and like to pet cancer.
19.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 28, 2011, 19:09
19.
Re: Op Ed Mar 28, 2011, 19:09
Mar 28, 2011, 19:09
 
space captain wrote on Mar 28, 2011, 16:46:
They feel that they can win arguments by conviction rather than logic, and that is why they get so angry and emotional about it - because thats all they have to work with - just a never-ending sense of hurt pride, of being offended, of not getting enough respect for how awesome they are. It fuels the moral outrage and self-righteous indignation and helps deflect the issue away from themselves. Thats why fundamentalists are such crusaders, because they are too chickenshit to deal with their own internal problems.

Great post, but I would suggest that conviction/will is necessary to feed/sustain systems of logic. I think there is definitely a balance available to achieve, perhaps the ethical responsibility that Cutter suggested.
www.derelictkoan.com - speculative psychosis in trilogy form
18.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 28, 2011, 18:02
18.
Re: Op Ed Mar 28, 2011, 18:02
Mar 28, 2011, 18:02
 
It's called the moral majority for a reason. And most people, left, right and center have a pretty good idea where the proverbial line is. You can call it art all you like but it's still bullshit to most people, and guess what? They make the rules. Don't like it? Move to an island and start your own anarchist state than, otherwise stop whining about how unfair it all is and how hard done by you are because the majority don't want to entertain your notion of taking something to the extreme and showing a bit of compassion, empathy and maturity for your fellow citizens. In order for any society to function people have to sublimate their desires and wants for the good of the whole. Spare me with the BS about the cry of the oppressed artist.

"The horse I bet on was so slow, the jockey kept a diary of the trip." - Henny Youngman
17.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 28, 2011, 17:53
17.
Re: Op Ed Mar 28, 2011, 17:53
Mar 28, 2011, 17:53
 
Well put Prez.

Did any others here play "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!"?

While some found it most offensive, I found it on of the most artistic games I've ever played.

The guy who made it, Danny Ladonne, was hammered pillow to post in the mainstream media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Columbine_Massacre_RPG!

So far I've yet to go on any killing rampages in real life and don't think I will. (once when I was really angry I punched a empty cardboard box, I felt bad afterwards.)
16.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 28, 2011, 17:26
16.
Re: Op Ed Mar 28, 2011, 17:26
Mar 28, 2011, 17:26
 
Sorry, don't have time to read but will tonight.

My thoughts though:
1) Moddb did try to contact the mod creator. They received no communication. I think this bears heavily into judgment.
2) Moddb has no obligation to host something they feel is problematic.
3) Do people here get annoyed when Blue censors Icewind's racist/classist drivel?
15.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 28, 2011, 17:18
15.
Re: Op Ed Mar 28, 2011, 17:18
Mar 28, 2011, 17:18
 
I don't think that someone with a strong conviction can't argue logical. I'd even wager that many who have arrived at strong convictions are indeed those that argue logical. The argument itself can not even be hurt by conceptions of right and wrong, because having a logically reasoned opinion means you have decided what you personally see as "your position" and defend it with logic. The question is how do people reach their convictions, and how do they defend them.

The problem with most arguments is that people claim supremacy of moral concepts - of THEIR moral concepts (or their "religions morals") at that. Which turns an logical argument pro and con into "but it was right to censor this because...."

Then again this is something you realize early in life. Most people don't understand that an opinion isn't as much a conviction as it is a coalescence of received and processed information and weightings.
Avatar 54727
14.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 28, 2011, 16:46
14.
Re: Op Ed Mar 28, 2011, 16:46
Mar 28, 2011, 16:46
 
The people that have a problem with the sentiment expressed by Prez are people who think they know better than everyone else. They are essentially fundamentalists at heart who have an egocentric bias towards "right v.s. wrong", and truly believe themselves to be "better" than others - meaning, they do not understand the equality of life. Or rather, they do not wish to understand it because that would expose their feelings of inadequacy and cause them to face the fact that they are much lesser than they believe themselves to be.

They feel that they can win arguments by conviction rather than logic, and that is why they get so angry and emotional about it - because thats all they have to work with - just a never-ending sense of hurt pride, of being offended, of not getting enough respect for how awesome they are. It fuels the moral outrage and self-righteous indignation and helps deflect the issue away from themselves. Thats why fundamentalists are such crusaders, because they are too chickenshit to deal with their own internal problems.

Thats why they have religions based on supernatural license, of being "chosen" or "saved" rather than a wretched sinner or infidel. Its not enough to try to convince people how awesome they are in their own words, they also must have an explanation of how the universe works that verifies their status of being so awesome and above everyone else as well - they have a supernatural stamp of approval from the creator of all things. Thats the endgame for this line of fundamentalist reasoning, thats what the fantasy looks like when it redlines. And thats why its such a common theme for madness.
13.
 
Re: Op Ed
Mar 28, 2011, 16:36
13.
Re: Op Ed Mar 28, 2011, 16:36
Mar 28, 2011, 16:36
 
Lmao, your argument is the standard "pro censorship" fallacy. Its so easily broken too.

There's a line you just don't cross
yeah and that line is drawn by you? Who draws the line? Maybe the one drawing the line doesn't draw the line where you draw the line. So just because you draw *a* line somewhere.. that makes your censorship suddenly right but Chinas censorship wrong?

So you are the moral instance for all moral questions? What you say, you are not? Then you can't draw any lines. Your argument is void. And not only is it void but its also tainted by hypocrisy because what you really saying is "I agree with censorship as long as I agree with what is censored". And that is total moral bankruptcy.

Sidenote: all this however does not change that moddb can indeed do whatever the heck they want and they can indeed draw *the* line wherever they want - however not calling it censorship is hypocrisy of the highest levels

This comment was edited on Mar 28, 2011, 16:48.
Avatar 54727
12.
 
Re: Mod DB - Why The
Mar 28, 2011, 16:19
Prez
 
12.
Re: Mod DB - Why The Mar 28, 2011, 16:19
Mar 28, 2011, 16:19
 Prez
 
And whether you agree with me or think I'm a tool, thanks for reading!
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
11.
 
Re: Mod DB - Why The
Mar 28, 2011, 16:13
Prez
 
11.
Re: Mod DB - Why The Mar 28, 2011, 16:13
Mar 28, 2011, 16:13
 Prez
 
Jerykk wrote on Mar 28, 2011, 16:05:
Censorship is always problematic because it assumes that morality is objective. It isn't. Morality varies from culture to culture and from person to person. Censorship may satisfy one person or group but it inevitably offends another group or person.

Verno wrote on Mar 28, 2011, 16:04:
Art takes many forms. Let's take a movie like Irreversible with an incredibly graphic, long rape scene and a death scene so violent that people had to leave the theater to throw up. Did the director need to make it that long or graphic? Who defines that line you mentioned? What if he was purposely trying to unsettle the audience, to take you out of your comfort zone and experience emotions that you would never feel normally?

Exactly. Glad to see someone gets it.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
30 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older