Message from @Putz
Discord ID: 615627355431370928
ah crap seriously?
although, it does require having authority to enforce any censorship
Censorship does not require force. You can use social influence to invoke self censorship. Its still censorship, i think the term censorship has to reflect the motivation to do it. If nifflas changes something to comply with personal belief then it is not censorship. If your doing it as a response to outside pressures, it is censorship
The fact things are created and then removed would indicate it is a done based on outside forces (if it was principaled you never would habe thought/considered it to start with)
censorship absolutely requires force. self censorship is simply capitulation to those that wield that force
The word force is problematic, i think you confuse force and influence
well i originally used the word authority
and i still think thats a better word
in this instance the publisher is the one that has authority over the game devs
Censorship does not require authority or force
how could it not?
Because you can censor based on influence, influence does not require authority or force
how do you censor based on influence?
Seems like a largely semantic argument
Threat of boycott could cause censorship, but isn't a form of force or authority, I suppose
its a threat of financial harm
You can choose to censor to avoid a diacussion about the subject as an example. There is no force
I don't talk about killing nazis in front of children. That is a form of censorship not based on force or authority
i dont see how that can be censorship if you do not desire to say it
nor are you compelled not to say it
you can say it, but you choose not to.
i dont think thats equivalent
nor does that disprove the need to have authority over someone in order to censor
It is equilevent because the motive for the censor matters
how?
some censorship is good then?
Then your arguement is that sense you are the authority over your own censorship. Authority exists?
Ofc some censorship is good
well that would work
i still dont think self censorship is equivalent to actual censorship.
unless you are self censoring as a response to threat of actual censorship.
So then authority is not required for censoring
how does that follow from what i said?
maybe its my second statement. let me rephrase it
You said self censoring is not equivalent to "actual" censorship. But used censoring to define both
God damn it, I gotta side with @Putz.
Doesn't matter if someone put a gun to your head, pulled the trigger twice, and burned your house to the ground or *just* sent a snarky tweet telling thier friends not to read your books because you call people faggots, it's still an attempt to *force* you to not speak.
Or paint.
Or make a film.
Or whatever the fuck it is...
So here's to saying faggot all God damned day, may we say it everyday, you faggots.
unless you are self censoring as a response to threat of force.
im using your term "self censoring"
so because i use your term, i therefore am disproven?
If you are an adult, your mom cannot FORCE you to do anything, yet im confident you still censor yourself in her presence