[The Escapist] Apple removes games from its online store due to use of Confederate Flags.

[Dabombinable]

In this case, even it is not the smartest way, the message might be a good one.  +1 to this censorship then. 

And you don't even understand your own history do you?

[stconquest]

And you don't even understand your own history do you?

 

How the fuck does your statement mean anything?

 

Was that meant to be demeaning?

 

Really, your best attempt at an insult?

 

...and twirlypen calls me immature.

[Dabombinable]

How the fuck does your statement mean anything?

 

Was that meant to be demeaning?

 

Really, your best attempt at an insult?

 

...and twirlypen calls me immature.

That wasn't an insult, just asking you a question. Your reaction shows who's really being immature.

[stconquest]

That wasn't an insult, just asking you a question. Your reaction shows who's really being immature.

 

Stop.

[Lewellyn]

Politically immature, nice.  Stop acting like you know shit you do not.

 

From your source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

 

"There are no laws against self-censorship."

 

Politically, these entities (Walmart, Amazon, Apple, etc..) are self-censoring.  We as individuals do this all the time.  How can you be angry at these companies for exercise their right to do this?

 

You are bent of out shape because you think you are in the right, and I come along with a different viewpoint.  The people who decided to boycott the confederate symbol have every right to do so.  You can go buy your game elsewhere, or draw a fucking flag on your wall and stare at it... I really don't give a shit.

 

You are picking a fight with me because you really believe this is wrong of these companies to do.  History is not going to unravel because Civil War Generals II (or whatever) is not being sold at Apple.

 

But a clear message is being sent (no matter what I think), you are just not seeing it.  Keep your head buried in a deep hole if you want.  Deflect the nature of what is happening around the USA regarding violence all you want... there are many others just like you, you won't be alone.

 

They aren't self-censoring, this is content made by others to be sold on a distribution/software platform that Apple owns, and furthermore has a monopoly on.

 

It isn't a boycott, it's censorship.

 

I'm "picking a fight" because all of your arguments were asinine and you made a measurable amount of completely erroneous claims. You haven't addressed the criticisms of Apple's decision and instead have insisted on redefining the word censorship to suit your ideologue.

 

I'll say it again, you are politically immature. If anyone's argument boils down to "you can't be mad at a corporation's actions because they have every right to do X" then there is no argument. "A store has the right to determine what it sells" is a deflective and irrelevant platitude.

[Dabombinable]

Stop.

Again, I asked you a question, and instead of responding in a mature manner you tried to accuse me of being immature. Acting defensive over a simple question demonstrates that you have no actual answer as to whether or not you understand your own history (as in your countries history).

[stconquest]

They aren't self-censoring, this is content made by others to be sold on a distribution/software platform that Apple owns, and furthermore has a monopoly on.

 

It isn't a boycott, it's censorship.

 

I'm "picking a fight" because all of your arguments were asinine and you made a measurable amount of completely erroneous claims. You haven't addressed the criticisms of Apple's decision and instead have insisted on redefining censorship to suit your ideologue.

 

I'll say it again, you are politically immature. If anyone's argument boils down to "you can't be mad at a corporation's actions because they have every right to do X" then there is no argument. "A store has the right to determine what it sells" is a deflective and irrelevant platitude.

 

I am done, you are too smart for me... Down with these monopolies!  <<<that is as far as I read.

[Murdoch]

You guys are having the most pointless argument. It's a form of censorship, but the aim is not to censor the aim is to make a political point. It's a statement. Nobody seriously believes hiding a flag from a historical context changes anything.

[mr moose]

All evil works start with thoughts, therefore I say we ban thinking.  nip this shit in the bud before it blooms into something we can't control, like paper road maps and iriver mp3 player menus.

[stconquest]

You guys are having the most pointless argument. It's a form of censorship, but the aim is not to censor the aim is to make a political point. It's a statement. Nobody seriously believes hiding a flag from a historical context changes anything.

 

Some of these guys apparently do.  Sure, my initial argument was to imply that this is not censorship but a political statement, was not definitively accurate.  All that twirlypen saw was red.  I am afraid that pointing their finger at me and name calling was to say:  you are wrong about this and the rest of what you wrote is shit then.

 

Fact is, most of the earlier posts were up in arms about censorship this and censorship that... completely ignoring the nature of the situation.  There is a problem in the USA regarding violence.  It seriously happens to be the so called right-wingers who promote a dialogue that is the basis for a lot of it.

 

I don't mind this type of censorship at all.  I actually like it to a degree.  Probably not that effective in stopping the hate rhetoric, but it might raise awareness... assuming some of these people can get their heads out of their asses. 

[stconquest]

I hate being wrong and not understanding why.  I have gone over the entire thread twice over to try and find out how my understanding of this situation is completely wrong.  I like to have faith that people know what they are talking about and @ThatGuyWhoTwirlsHisPen is genuinely correct.

 

So we start on the front page with the source.  There is a YouTube video that has TotalBiscuit discuss violent occurrences in society.  The first half focuses on the media's role in glorifying the perpetrators of violent acts, with sourced material to back up his claims.  The second half argues that violence in video games does not turn non-violent people into violent ones.

 

The first half could be relevant to this particular situation as the media may focus too much on the fact that this confederate symbol is in fact being scowled at by larger corporations.  It gets attention, but does not necessarily point to any particular individual.  It points to a systemic habit of association between the current USA and the Confederacy of old.  The symbol in question does not have to be associated with anything bad in particular, but unfortunately, in a lot of parts in the USA currently... it does.  Like I mentioned in my first post, why would this failed attempt to take control of the southern USA be revered in today's world to the point of flying that flag on government buildings.  They lost the war, fuck the Confederacy.

 

What the OP is trying to associate is that any media attention this gets, will glorify the acts of violence perpetrated when they are committed by individuals that view the confederate symbol as a reason to commit that act against a distinguishable group of people.  Hmmm, I don't know.

 

The second half of the video deals with violence in video games and whether or not there is a correlation to violent acts in the real world.  This has absolutely nothing to do with this situation.  I hope that was not the intent of the OP. 

 

There is the situation of censorship regarding that confederate symbol.  I stated (incorrectly) that it was not censorship, but more over a message (not so incorrect).  The hate speech towards individuals in any light is completely ridiculous in many parts of the world.  IDK how many times I have heard (and I am focusing on the US Media) people falsely accuse, lie about, and demonize others to serve an agenda.  This is prominent more in right wing media circles.  Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week of garbage fed to the populous.

 

I was trying to trivialize the fact that this is censorship, because that is not an issue in this case.  Not all censorship is bad, all the time  <<<if you do not understand this, don't quote me and expect a response.  I have had to deal with two less than well intending members in this thread already.

 

All I see as I continued is the OP attempting to be hurtful and demeaning because I did not see this type of censorship as the issue.  I saw it a small, almost frivolous, attempt by these entities to raise awareness:  'Hate of this nature is very real and systemic and we want to distance ourselves from it'. 

 

I in no way deserved that type of treatment from the OP, ridiculously hateful <<<see what that is?

 

He established himself as superior without much to back it up, except for his misunderstanding of my deliberate deflection from the "censorship is bad" motif taking shape in his thread.

 

Anyways, if I am really wrong about what I posted in my first post and someone can properly address my error (not including the freakin' definition of the word censorship)... please do. 

[Guest Kloaked]

As a person who thinks the confederate flag shouldn't be a thing, this is dumb.

[stconquest]

As a person who thinks the confederate flag shouldn't be a thing, this is dumb.

 

It is.  They will eventually change their stance about historical representation.  This was a broad stroke.

[ZestyJalapeno]

My friend has a red LED fan on his case that in the dark looks inadvertently like a swastika. Pretty hilarious because he's got a German dad. We all laugh whenever we go over to his house and watch a film.

[Murdoch]

snip

 

It's just a difference of perspective due. You see it as a political gesture, which aligns with your stance on the matter. So you can overlook, or even condone that type of censorship. As it's about the message, not what they are doing. That's fine.

 

Others will see it as ridiculous over the top censorship.

 

Personally, I think we should leave corporations out of the debate, I don't give a fuck what Apple's stance is on the matter. If the US wants to have a debate about a flag, and how it's symbolism relates to it's past and present. Do it amongst the people. But the amusing thing about this "debate" is the fact, you can have a dialogue about a flag, but access to fully automatic weapons etc. That shit is off the table. 'Murica.

 

Edit: I watched a rather revealing news interview on British TV, after the incident. And it was quite revealing there was a guy from the NRA, and another guy with links to the Church I guess. The guy from the church simply talked about the problems from the past resurfacing in these fringe elements of society, and the difficulty in discouraging that kind of thinking. The guy from the NRA was just like, this wouldn't have happened if the church had guns, we need more guns. These bad apples, mean the good guys need more guns. We get these things happening all the time in places people give up the guns.

 

Watching this from a UK perspective, it was truly bizarre, verging on parody.

[Real_PhillBert]

It's just a difference of perspective due. You see it as a political gesture, which aligns with your stance on the matter. So you can overlook, or even condone that type of censorship. As it's about the message, not what they are doing. That's fine.

 

Others will see it as ridiculous over the top censorship.

 

Personally, I think we should leave corporations out of the debate, I don't give a fuck what Apple's stance is on the matter. If the US wants to have a debate about a flag, and how it's symbolism relates to it's past and present. Do it amongst the people. But the amusing thing about this "debate" is the fact, you can have a dialogue about a flag, but access to fully automatic weapons etc. That shit is off the table. 'Murica.

 

Umm... What?

 

There has been a ban on manufacturing fully automatic weapons in the US since 1986.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

 

And the ones that are already in circulation are extremely rare, wildly expensive, federally registered and heavily regulated. 

[Murdoch]

Umm... What?

 

There has been a ban on manufacturing fully automatic weapons in the US since 1986.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

 

And the ones that are already in circulation are extremely rare, wildly expensive, federally registered and heavily regulated. 

 

Oh dear, I've just opened up the most pointless debate ever.

[Real_PhillBert]

Oh dear, I've just opened up the most pointless debate ever.

 

I am not attempting to debate anything with you. There is nothing to debate, you made a factually incorrect statement, and I refuted it with a link to the Law which you were clearly unaware existed.

 

There is no debate on this. You were incorrect. This is not debatable. 

[Murdoch]

I am not attempting to debate anything with you. There is nothing to debate, you made a factually incorrect statement, and I refuted it with a link to the Law which you were clearly unaware existed.

 

There is no debate on this. You were incorrect. This is not debatable. 

 

Incorrect about what exactly? I said access to fully automatic weapons, hell you even took time to bold what I wrote, so you must have read it. People have access to fully automatic weapons in the US. They are not illegal. Where did I make a factually incorrect statement? Please enlighten me.

 

The implication was, that if you were to attempt a discussion in the US about banning them, it would go nowhere. Or you'd end up in a conversation like this. Which you are helping to prove my point dude.

[Valentyn]

The flag being banned isn't the Confederate one use by the "CSA" It's the racial one brought in later due to people not wanting coloured to co mingle in schools and public.

 

I have no issue with it being banned, as it's a flag that originated from pure racism.

 

Confederate states of America flags used during the civil war.

 

 

This is the flag being banned.

It was introduced solely because of racism and not wanting people of coloured to mingle with whites. It was introduced in 1950's

[Trik'Stari]

Oh great, more historical white washing, because that surely won't doom us to repeat history.

 

Incorrect about what exactly? I said access to fully automatic weapons, hell you even took time to bold what I wrote, so you must have read it. People have access to fully automatic weapons in the US. They are not illegal. Where did I make a factually incorrect statement? Please enlighten me.

 

The implication was, that if you were to attempt a discussion in the US about banning them, it would go nowhere. Or you'd end up in a conversation like this. Which you are helping to prove my point dude.

They are EXTREMELY illegal unless you have the proper licensing, which is extreme in the measures it takes to prevent those guns from being used in a crime (not to mention extremely difficult to get, and extremely expensive.). Most fully automatic weapons that get used in crimes are either stolen, illegally sold (sometimes by our own government) or illegally modified.

[Real_PhillBert]

Incorrect about what exactly? I said access to fully automatic weapons, hell you even took time to bold what I wrote, so you must have read it. People have access to fully automatic weapons in the US. They are not illegal. Where did I make a factually incorrect statement? Please enlighten me.

 

The implication was, that if you were to attempt a discussion in the US about banning them, it would go nowhere. Or you'd end up in a conversation like this. Which you are helping to prove my point dude.

 

You missed the point a little bit.

 

Just like machine guns the discussion is on a ban on them, not a confiscation of the flags already in existence. 

 

Plus I have access to machine guns much like I have access to a private jet, yes I technically can own one, but you realistically cannot. 

[othertomperson]

Once again this forum fails to understand the difference between curation and censorship.

 

Banning content from being produced: censorship

Saying I don't want said content in my store: curation.

 

Apple are well within their rights to say that they don't want to sell certain content. Just like Valve were well within their rights to say that they didn't want to make money from Hatred briefly, it is not censorship for a store to not stock something that they don't want or like.

[Murdoch]

You missed the point a little bit.

 

Just like machine guns the discussion is on a ban on them, not a confiscation of the flags already in existence. 

 

Plus I have access to machine guns much like I have access to a private jet, yes I technically can own one, but you realistically cannot. 

 

My point was, it's not a debate that the US will even entertain. So they talk about flags instead.

[Trik'Stari]

Once again this forum fails to understand the difference between curation and censorship.

 

Banning content from being produced: censorship

Saying I don't want said content in my store: curation.

 

Apple are well within their rights to say that they don't want to sell certain content. Just like Valve were well within their rights to say that they didn't want to make money from Hatred briefly, it is not censorship for a store to not stock something that they don't want or like.

This is true. Although this is still idiotic historical white washing. As total biscuit pointed out "simply displaying something is not endorsing it". The displaying of a flag is not an endorsement of racism, the same way that depicting the nazi flag in ww2 games is not an endorsement of the nazi party.

 

My point was, it's not a debate that the US will even entertain So they talk about flags instead.

We won't entertain it because it's an impossible solution that doesn't work in this country.