this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
728 points (90.4% liked)
Games
16949 readers
770 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How are these people not seeing that they are actively trying to censor shit with the shyte excuse "keep politics out of my games", and then turn around and yell censorship as soon as people ignore their bigoted crap.
You don't need to answer, it's rhetorical.
The rhetorical question highlights the complex nature of the debates around modding and game customization. The term "censorship" can indeed be used selectively to further one's viewpoint, whether it's calling for the removal of political elements from games or protesting the removal of a mod.
However, maybe it's worth considering that people may hold these opinions without necessarily harboring bigoted intentions. The desire to keep politics out of games, for some, might stem from the view that games should be an escape from real-world issues. Conversely, concerns about censorship could arise from a belief in preserving the open nature of modding communities.
What we're really grappling with is how to balance the broad spectrum of user needs and societal responsibilities. Accusations of bigotry or censorship often serve to shut down dialogue rather than facilitate a nuanced discussion about these complex issues.
So while your question is rhetorical, it does bring to light the need for more open and honest conversations about the competing values that are in play here.
In my opinion this entire debate is not political at all but is simply made to be a political statement because people don't understand it.
Having someone forbid the use of cheese in video games because that person doesn't like cheese is just never going to happen. If cheese comes out to be an extreme health hazard like smoking it can become political but if the only argument is "because I don't like it" you are always going to be wrong.
Your arguing about taste and feelings. There is no point to it, as there is nothing to convince. At that point you are just telling someone their taste or feeling is wrong.
But for some reason people think they can influence someone else's own feelings about how they feel when they get addressed as their birth gender. And for some reason it is made into a political problem because of how strongly people think they have to have control over this. It doesn't affect them, and the only possible outcome is that a minority will suppress their emotions. There are no competing values in any way.
I don't like cheese, but you won't hear me bitching about people eating cheese next to me in a restaurant even if I don't like the smell. And you especially won't see me making this political, because that is so incredibly selfish and ignorant that it wouldn't even be something I'd ever consider.