Look, I get that it is really inconvenient for you to be called censors by people like me. You know that word, even now in our society's extreme decadence, still has the capacity to turn people against you, and so you want to lie, manipulate, or use weasel-words to explain that even though you want to ban things and silence peopel you're somehow technically not a censor. Or maybe it bothers you because there is still some vestige of principles hidden deep within a lot of you, that makes you understand that you're actually monsters in terms of what you are doing when you are trying to silence other people. And that this in turn makes you desperately want to try to find some excuse to justify yourselves. Because you know that you're actually the bad guys; that our whole culture has for the last couple of hundred years at least considered the people that want to FORCE others to think like them to be pretty much monsters because history has generally proved this true. And ALL of those other assholes who used to do it always claimed they had the very best of reasons. Pol Pot claimed he was doing his thing for social justice, and the guys who invented the Comics Code Authority felt they were just "showing the door" to all those terrible homosexuals, communists, and minorities who were "trying to corrupt America's youth". In exactly the same way, you are trying to tell yourself that it's for everyone else's benefit (especially the vulnerable), and not just your own, that YOU personally get to decide what is best for everyone else.
But the thing is, I don't give a twopenny fuck about your moral conundrum. If you really think that you know better than the rest of us as to what we should be allowed to read, buy or think, if you really believe that you somehow have that authority because of your education or class or just your totally unearned feelings of social superiority, then not only can you go fuck yourself with a spoon, you ABSOLUTELY DESERVE to be called out as a censoring totalitarian piece of shit over and over again at every opportunity.
And you can count on me to deliver, you gang of shitsacks.
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Neerup Egg + Roanoke Island
I would have phrased it more delicately, but my sentiments exactly. Despite what these people complaining about an rpg may think, no fictional representation can harm you. If you think otherwise read your Jack Chick tract, take some anti-psychotics, and quit rpgs. Because you have lost the ability to distinguish reality from delusion.
ReplyDeleteYup.
DeleteJack Chick tracts are hilarious. What's wrong with comedy?
ReplyDeleteHere fucking here!
ReplyDeleteThank You RPGPundit for your words against this appalling shit! Hopefully it will make a big difference.
ReplyDeleteHere is the stance I am taking:
ReplyDeletehttp://theotherside.timsbrannan.com/2015/09/social-contract-thing-again.html
If I have an issue with something someone wrote, I'll email them. But I am never using the "reporting" feature on OBS.
I put this offensive content thing down to: 'is it a criminal offence?' something only a judge can decide.
ReplyDeleteI put this offensive content thing down to: 'is it a criminal offence?' something only a judge can decide.
ReplyDeleteI put this offensive content thing down to: 'is it a criminal offence?' something only a judge can decide.
ReplyDeleteHeadline: "'Libertarian' rages at private business for deciding what it wants to sell: More below the fold!"
ReplyDeleteIvan, do you even understand how Onebookshelf arrived at this decision?It was because of threats from industry professionals posing as concerned pseudoactivists. People who want to regulate how gamers think should not be in games, and I dont care who they are. Just because Steve Weick gave in doesnt mean we have to accept it.
ReplyDeleteI do not know how Onebookshelf arrived at this decision. I nonetheless find it amusing that a libertarian would rant about how it is "totalitarian" for a private business to respond to protests about the products it carries.
ReplyDeleteI am curious about your second sentence though. Why were industry professionals "posing" as pseudoactivists? Do they not really believe in the things they were professing to believe in? If not, why were they protesting the content? What were these threats?
You certainly don't have to accept it. I don't think much of it as a policy either. However, I have serious doubts that all this outrage is anything more than a bunch of click-bait nonsense to get people riled up and feel persecuted. I seriously doubt there's going to be a rash of game products disappearing.
It's not the business that's totalitarian, it's the people who are threatening the business if they don't get to be able to censor books.
DeleteIn a sense, OBS is itself a kind of victim here, though largely due to the ongoing spinelessness of its CEO.
Maybe I'm blissfully unaware of what these "threats" are so I'm misunderstanding more than usual, but I hardly businesspeople exerting pressure on one another to further their industry goals or shape their own business image is "totalitarian." If Disney refuses to release Frozen to a theater chain that is showing X rated content on nearby screens I'm not exactly clutching my pearls. Fine -- call Disney a prude or whatever. It's probably true. They're not exactly brownshirts though. The sputtering about Pol Pot is pretty laughable.
DeleteSo I guess you're OK with letting other people decide what you should or shouldn't be allowed to buy and read in the hobby?
DeleteNot really? But that's not what's happening here. This is one business deciding that there *may* be some products it does not want to carry because either it or the public thinks they're objectionable. Basically something that happens at every bookstore and every newsstand and every content aggregation site every single day. It's not Kristallnacht.
DeleteI'm generally not okay with other people deciding what I should or shouldn't eat either, but I don't fly into an insane rage if my grocery store decides to stop stocking a few products because it thinks they reflect badly on its brand. It's annoying. It's not totalitarian. If the "banned" products are decent it's pretty guaranteed they end up somewhere else. Hell, they'll probably be *more* popular because they are so controversial now. Beauty of capitalism.
Do you like free markets? Or are you OK with letting other people (you) decide what businesses in the hobby should be required to market and sell on its website (apparently everything that any yahoo submits no matter how many of the business's customers it will alienate)?
But you're a self proclaimed pundit. You thrive (and possibly make a living? I don't really know that much about you) from outrage and self righteousness. Feigned or not -- I guess it doesn't really matter. You've got a bunch of people freaking out here already. Good job.
And if your local grocery store succumbed to the demands of a tiny but noisy Radical Vegan group that only products they approve of should be stocked?
DeleteOf course, you could go buy your beef jerky elsewhere; but if that grocery was the only food supplier in town, would you be claiming people would be unreasonable for opposing this new move to let the Vegans decide what everyone else in town should or should not get to eat?
Do I think it is unreasonable to oppose the vegans? Of course not. Do I think it's unreasonable to compare the grocery store or the Vegans to Pol Pot? Yes. Do I think it's ridiculous for a *libertarian* to rant about totalitarianism when in fact he's (at worst) gotten a taste of the bitter side of pure capitalism? Again, yes.
DeleteI notice that you did not answer my question though. Are you okay with other people (you) deciding what a business should be required to market and sell?
Like Pol Pot, the outrage brigade seeks to control the narrative. You seem to believe that pure capitalism has elements of totalitarianism where badthink is punished. By doing so you ignore things like the black market, which is a truer example of pure capitalism. I don't advocate going to the black market just so you can get whatever you want, but I can't support those who are trying to force me to. Do we want a RPG black market for "badthink" games? We just want others to support our right to have our say in the marketplace. I am not" okay with other people deciding what a business should be required to market and sell." You however by your words, are clearly okay with it.
DeleteThere's so much wrong here it's hard to know where to start. Also, it would be nice if you could have a discussion without constantly throwing around echo-chamber nonsense ("badthink" "outrage brigade"). It just makes you sound like a partisan idiot.
Delete"Like Pol Pot, the outrage brigade seeks to control the narrative."
Oh -- was that why Pol Pot was bad? Does it also make sense to say that vegetarians are "like Hitler"?
"You seem to believe that pure capitalism has elements of totalitarianism where badthink is punished."
Where free actors in a free society put pressure on other free actors using market pressure, that's called capitalism. That's what you're confusedly labeling "totalitarian" here.
Similarly, you are demanding that a market participant (OBS) stock the products *you* want it to stock.
This "black market" nonsense is case in point on your total confusion on this issue. What "black market"? It's perfectly legal for you (or OBS, or anyone else) to sell any RPG pdf you darn well please. If OBS chooses not to carry a product because it does not want to offend customers and thereby lose business -- that's capitalism!
Ivan hits the nail on the head. If OBS doesn't carry a title, that title is still going to be available on the internet. Pundit, your metaphors are hugely hyperbolic.
DeleteOBS should be able to respond to its customer base and the CEO has stated he will decide himself on what he wants his business to carry and that is damn well his right. If you don't like it, don't shop there. Use your own market forces and take your money elsewhere.
To say that OBS is determining what one can and can't buy is bullshit. If you can't get it from 1 single vendor, you can be damn sure it can be had from somewhere else... especially on the internet.
The level of outrage being expressed over this is blown so far out of proportion to its actual impact.
He's NOT responding to his customer base. He's responding to a tiny gang of outspoken assholes, many of which are non-gamers. He's FUCKING HIS CUSTOMER BASE OVER.
DeleteAs for comparisons to Pol Pot; I'm pretty sure that there are people who were involved with trying to ban me who, if they just had the power, would have had me killed instead. I don't fit the glorious utopian plan they have in their minds for improving society. I'm an enemy of the Cause. The only difference between those people and Pol Pot is that they don't have the gumption to take over a government.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete(A) Oh -- so you're criticizing this as a *business* decision? I guess it makes sense that you would be in the best position to know what is best for OBS's bottom line and who has criticized OBS because they route all their incoming communications through you ... oh wait.
DeleteAlso, has anything actually been pulled under their review policy? How exactly has he fucked his customers?
(B) Wow. Talk about paranoid, narcissistic delusions of grandeur.
Ivan why are you here? You aren't convincing anybody. The issue is that OBS is caving to pressure instigated by a small number of people, who seek to determine that anything about rape should and can not be seen. If we follow their reasoning then works such as the Kite Runner and To kill a Mockingbird would be removed. Read the blog Go make me a sandwich if you think I am overstating the case. There is a blogspot stating that rape is definitely off their Christmas list. I want works to be available whether I agree with them or not. Do you? Because your words say you don't. And you need to take an economy class or two. I want OBS to stock products that people buy,whether I am offended by them or not. That is how capitalism works. Removing works because a small group dislike them is how socialism works. I am not in favor of banning anybody, lucky for you Ivan.
DeleteEfie,
DeleteA free person deciding not to sell a product because he is persuaded by other free people not to sell it is not socialism (I don't even want to try and guess what you think "socialism" is). It is operation of the free exchange of ideas and the market pressures of capitalism.
Disagree with them all you want. If a bookstore decided to remove To Kill a Mockingbird because it offended someone I would think that a terrible idea. But it sure as hell is not "socialism" or "totalitarianism."
So you want OBS to stock products that people buy whether you are offended by them or not. So do you demand that OBS stock products that *it* doesn't like? Should it have to stock products that it is concerned will impact its bottom line? Why do you think you can tell it what to sell any more than these activists you're so up in arms about can.
"Do you like free markets". Hell yes we like free markets. In a free market we determine what are wish to buy, not what we are allowed to buy. Are you deliberately being obtuse? Read Sarah Darkmagics blog if you want to bury your head in sand and pretend that deciding for others is good because of oppression or something like that.
ReplyDeleteIvan, a totalitarian is someone who does not tolerate dissenting opinions, who uses threats to force others to obey. By using threats to force OBS to pull one offensive product, pseudo activists have invaded our hobby. Inclusive should mean exactly that, to include. Ask Chris Field if he feels included now, then come back with whatever BS you feel like spouting next, I'm done with you.
ReplyDeletePundit -- do you see this? This is what your overblown rhetoric has created. Efie cannot even communicate what the problem s/he's supposed to be enraged about is. Can apparently only communicate by repeating slogans ("invaded our hobby!") and by epithets ("socialists!" "pseudo-activists!").
ReplyDelete