[Serious Post] Controversy in Modding

[GPuzzle]

I think we're at an impass here.

From my point of view, if you censor something, you are allowed to censor everything else due to basic logic and it's essentially a double standard: "why is this thing suddenly so shocking to everyone, but they had been doing this forever with others?" - and double standards are awful both ways. First, it inflicts the message that the thing people are caring about is more fragile and can't shrug off anything. Second, it passes the message that people just don't care about the thing that has always gone through something yet it's when the others happen that they notice.

Mind you, I have a deep hatred for double standards.

While you guys seem to be looking at it with a certain look of "well, we could censor that but we are not censoring the right to criticize that".

Except that what's the point of allowing something to be criticized if we never actually get to talk about it?

It becomes taboo, a stifle topic which is controversial and no one can find a solution because we refuse to talk to one another about it. We stop providing examples of what to do and what not to do, because it's censored - and censorship in the hands of society or the state is very finnicky because we cannot decide what should be censored, because everyone has a different point of view - as well as people not having examples to criticize.

It's a massive problem there.

Is it wrong?

Yes.

Is it immoral?

Yes.

But goddamnit, as much as I dislike it, I'll be standing for you to show your hatred for that thing in a manner that doesn't actually kill people, because if I censor you for me being offended, others can censor me for the same reason.

And I want to talk, and be heard.

 

[JFD]

From my point of view, if you censor something, you are allowed to censor everything else due to basic logic

As strongly as you might feel about the issue, that really is not a valid argument.

While you guys seem to be looking at it with a certain look of "well, we could censor that but we are not censoring the right to criticize that".

I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your statement, which suggested that free speech equated to the right or ability to criticise. I didn't mean to suggest that what I said reflects my own opinion on censorship or the freedom of speech.

But goddamnit, as much as I dislike it, I'll be standing for you to show your hatred for that thing in a manner that doesn't actually kill people, because if I censor you for me being offended, others can censor me for the same reason.

Drawing the line at murder is just as arbitrary as drawing the line at blasphemy.

It becomes taboo, a stifle topic which is controversial and no one can find a solution because we refuse to talk to one another about it. We stop providing examples of what to do and what not to do, because it's censored - and censorship in the hands of society or the state is very finnicky because we cannot decide what should be censored, because everyone has a different point of view - as well as people not having examples to criticize.

It's a massive problem there.

Is it wrong?

Yes.

Is it immoral?

Yes.

Is... what wrong? Is what immoral?

 

[GPuzzle]

As strongly as you might feel about the issue, that really is not a valid argument.

Why wouldn't you? You're already censoring things because an specific group is offended. This means that either a) this group need to be treated differently for whatever reason and b) that other groups don't need that help that in some cases might as well be necessary. The problem is, where do we draw the line between offensive and fair, because it's very likely that someone will be offended.

I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your statement, which suggested that free speech equated to the right or ability to criticise. I didn't mean to suggest that what I said reflects my own opinion on censorship or the freedom of speech.

It's not the right or ability to criticise, but it allows you to do so. It allows you to speak your mind, be it support or critique. It's not "I can criticize therefore I am free to speak my mind", it's "I am free to speak my mind therefore I can criticize."

Drawing the line at murder is just as arbitrary as drawing the line at blasphemy.

I generally overblow my examples and use real life ones that are quite more drastic. IRL I do draw the line at "if you're threatening someone or claiming that they shouldn't share their opinions, sorry, the problem's on you".

Is... what wrong? Is what immoral?

Hypotetical scenario. If something is offensive and wrong and immoral and I feel I want to kick whoever made it in the nuts, I will be vocal in criticising it. However, I will allow him to do that thing that I consider immoral and offensive and wrong because he has all the right to. He still might be an a-hole, but that doesn't take any rights from him, and he has the right to speak his mind, just like anyone else.

 

[JFD]

Why wouldn't you? You're already censoring things because an specific group is offended. This means that either a) this group need to be treated differently for whatever reason and b) that other groups don't need that help that in some cases might as well be necessary. The problem is, where do we draw the line between offensive and fair, because it's very likely that someone will be offended.

I meant, "due to basic logic" is not a valid argument.

It's not the right or ability to criticise, but it allows you to do so. It allows you to speak your mind, be it support or critique. It's not "I can criticize therefore I am free to speak my mind", it's "I am free to speak my mind therefore I can criticize."

Yes, but if there are things about which I am not free to speak my mind, I may still critique. What I am contending, here, was the suggestion that it is only by the freedom of speech that one can criticise the freedom of speech itself. I don't know how idly or flippantly that was said, but I nonetheless felt it important to clarify as it seemed at the expense of those who do disparage the concept of free speech.

Hypotetical scenario. If something is offensive and wrong and immoral and I feel I want to kick whoever made it in the nuts, I will be vocal in criticising it. However, I will allow him to do that thing that I consider immoral and offensive and wrong because he has all the right to. He still might be an a-hole, but that doesn't take any rights from him, and he has the right to speak his mind, just like anyone else.

So you would not agree if, for instance, Mein Kampf were to be censored in order to deflate anti-semitism and to discourage neo-naziism? (I don't know if Mein Kampf is influential in this regard, but you get the point; perhaps the example works better in retrospect).

 

[GPuzzle]

I meant, "due to basic logic" is not a valid argument.

My brain has a tendency to fail to work every once in a while.

Yes, but if there are things about which I am not free to speak my mind, I may still critique. What I am contending, here, was the suggestion that it is only by the freedom of speech that one can criticise the freedom of speech itself. I don't know how idly or flippantly that was said, but I nonetheless felt it important to clarify as it seemed at the expense of those who do disparage the concept of free speech.

I'm not good with words in my first language, so it probably was a screw up until I found a way to write my thoughts.

So you would not agree if, for instance, Mein Kampf were be censored in order to deflate anti-semitism and to discourage neo-naziism? (I don't know if Mein Kampf is influential in this regard, but you get the point).

Godwin's Law in action!

But yes, because in the same vein that it could discourage neo-naziism, it could also provide information in the sense of "this man had some problems and was insane - do not do this". Plus it reduces the number of people who think that Hitler wasn't so bad because they'll know how screwed up he is.

In the end, access to information reduces ignorance, and you can only get borderline unlimited access to information if free speech applies to everyone.

 

[JFD]

I'm not good with words in my first language, so it probably was a screw up until I found a way to write my thoughts.

Ah, in that case, I apologise for being so semantic.

In the end, access to information reduces ignorance

The internet begs to differ

 

[GPuzzle]

The internet begs to differ

You're not wrong...

 

[bouncymischa]

(Self-censored XD)

I have a feeling that my own extensive musings on the subject would be too likely to take the discussion off-topic, and if focused upon the specific topic of "whether or not certain modding concepts should be censored" would come across as too provocative or inflammatory... so I think I'll just keep quiet on the subject. XD

 

[TheD3rp]

JFD's WW2 civs (Especially Hitler)
Rhodesia.
The Boers.
and a few more, i honestly cannot name, are all Civs that have received a backlash, big or small (mainly on Steam).

Tojo's Japan?

 

[JFD]

(Self-censored XD)

I have a feeling that my own extensive musings on the subject would be too likely to take the discussion off-topic, and if focused upon the specific topic of "whether or not certain modding concepts should be censored" would come across as too provocative or inflammatory... so I think I'll just keep quiet on the subject. XD

Bah! I spent a good while thinking about your question Well, to sum: as a monarchist, I cannot condone social pressure as a legitimate form of control, and I condone neither the fundamental presupposition of the freedom of speech, nor do I condone the notion of universal censorship.

My Mein Kampf example was merely an investigation into GPuzzle's rationale. The point you made about the arbitrary nature of what causes harm was actually one that I was prepared to propose to GPuzzle; fortunately, his response didn't warrant it.

 

[CyberChrist]

Imo then most of you could do with a bit of training in the arts of logically presenting your 'philosophies' and constructing counter arguments. The following game on Kongregate is a fun introduction/training tool offering just that - as well as being an investigation into the nature (and origin) of morality.

Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher (the first part with the salesman is just an introduction into how the game works).


Although this is not directly Civ related I still feel it is on topic for the debate in this thread.

 

[Natan35]

remember that freedom of speech relates to respecting the opinion of the people we don't agree with.
(my teacher told me that)
@firebug: i meant conterversory(spelling mistake isn't it) is caused by 100% my support.

 

[Firebug]

Freedom of Speech honestly leads to a lot of issues.
You can say something, offend a group, then claim its ok because you have freedom of speech. That group then can't get special treatment because that wouldn't be equality. But if every group got the special treatment, every group would be equal.

I honestly find, i don't want this to turn into a race argument this is simply an example, that white people have some problems with the way they are viewed. Every other race has jokes about how they can't dance, or white girls being dumb or... sleep around a lot, and how we're all racist white supremacists (i'm not saying everyone says that, its just examples of what can be heard), and people get away with it because of course white people deserve it don't we, since we apparently invented racism... and let's not forget Freedom of Speech!
But the second a white person makes a single slightly racist joke or comment they are shunned as a racist.

Now let's use another touchy subject as an example so as to avoid you all thinking i'm turning this into a racism discussion. Charlie Hebdo. They knew what they were doing was going to offend someone, and even the Muslims who were upset by Charlie Hebdo's attacks were offended. They had the right to be, but the extremists had no right to shoot anyone over it. Simply a drawing right? Well, Islamic Law says differently, and those Muslim extremists simply did what they believed in. Which, you could use the argument is freedom of speech, but it was cold blooded murder. The world has a wide variety of cultures and beliefs and we'll find, even on this thread, no one can be pleased.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

Moderator Action: This has been an interesting thread and in the spirit of freedom of speech, we've kept this thread open until now. Thanks for keeping it civil; however, it's now fast becoming a thread that falls into off-topic. Therefore, I'm now closing the thread; if you wish to continue the discussion, please do so in the OT forums.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889