Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
Please review this thread, and the prior one, where I asked that you stop. You seem to have this "thing" for sarcastic replies to me.
Thanks.
WotC Dungeons & Dragons Fans Seek Removal of Oriental Adventures From Online Marketplace
- Status
Please review this thread, and the prior one, where I asked that you stop. You seem to have this "thing" for sarcastic replies to me.
Thanks.
David Kwan was advocating for more than voicing his opinion and making consumer level choices, was he not? He called for the book to be removed from the online marketplace. Setting aside the tropes involved, which are indeed problematic, that sounds very much a call for censorship. He didn't say no one who doesn't support harmful Asian stereotypes should by this, nor he did he just say hey, there are some ugly stereo types here, what can be done about that, he said ban the book. IDK, I don't see another way to read it.
Bedrockgames
Legend
If you are saying a publisher should no longer sell a book you find objectionable, that is advocating for censorship (people are not saying it is censorship, they are saying it is a censorious position because it is asking a company to make a book no longer available to the public). I don't think this is a very controversial position at all. But everyone who is saying this, also acknowledges they have a right to make that request. Just like lots of group shave a right to ask for censorship. But it doesn't mean we can't call that what we think it is. Especially when, if the request to take down the book is heeded, this supplement won't be legally available by buying older copies (which are skyrocketing in price) and by going to the library---and who is to say libraries won't be targeted for this sort of thing next. I am fine with them making the criticisms they want of any book. I do have problems when people try to use social media to pressure companies to not publish or not sell books. Regardless of whether we agree or not on whether to label that censorship, I still think it is wrong and doesn't produce a healthy society.
If one understands "censorship" to mean something that can be applied either locally or universally, then the call to remove a book is a form of censorship. I mean, if only one local library removed a book, I would still call that censorship, despite other libraries keeping the book available.
Anyway, the word "censorship" is an ugly and frightening word. But it is what it is. And at times is necessary. It is similar to the phrase "legitimate violence" when referring to a police force or to self-defense. It is an ugly and frightening phrase. But lets own up to what it is that is happening. It is what it is. Let us be responsible with any use of force.
The goal is to use these kinds of necessary tools minimalistically, and in a way that is as fair as possible to everyone.
Anyway, the word "censorship" is an ugly and frightening word. But it is what it is. And at times is necessary. It is similar to the phrase "legitimate violence" when referring to a police force or to self-defense. It is an ugly and frightening phrase. But lets own up to what it is that is happening. It is what it is. Let us be responsible with any use of force.
The goal is to use these kinds of necessary tools minimalistically, and in a way that is as fair as possible to everyone.
If I am reading the above correctly, then I agree.
To force speech is censorship.
Good point, that to force someone to make a statement is also a form of censorship, as well as forcing someone to silence a statement.
Bedrockgames
Legend
But the argument on this side isn't that WOTC should be forced to sell it. It is that isn't a good thing if they cave to public pressure by people who want it removed. It may take me some time to parse through this because it is a someone unusual rhetorical tactic, but I just got to think, that any argument where the people asking for something to be removed are not being labeled as favoring censorship, and the side where people are saying the folks asking for content to be removed are going against free expression are being labeled as censorious....there is a specious or logical flaw somewhere in that line of reasoning (even if I can't pinpoint at this moment). It just inverts everything, where the people asking for something not to be censored are magically accessed of censorship
Umbran claims it is "the same ethical form".
Forcing them to go out is not, by any definition I have found, "censorship". Censorship seems to definitionally involve inspecting works to make sure they are acceptable before putting they are allowed to be put out.
@Bedrockgames
It is possible to distinguish between "offensive" and "hateful".
If something is "offensive" because one disagrees with it, then, oh well. Tough luck.
However if something is "offensive" because it hateful and seeking to dehumanize and harm others, then it is censorable.
It is possible to distinguish between "offensive" and "hateful".
If something is "offensive" because one disagrees with it, then, oh well. Tough luck.
However if something is "offensive" because it hateful and seeking to dehumanize and harm others, then it is censorable.
To me what came to mind is forcing someone to make a confession. It is a kind of censorship. It hides what might have really happened.
- Status
