Cyberpunk's creator slams critics who claim Cyberpunk 2077 is racist / inaccurate to the source, refutes their claims

[DezGalbie]

7 hours ago, Commodus said:

We pay attention because they question the social constructs of games; they don't just blindly accept the status quo and think of games as dumb toys without meaning, like you do.

What on earth did I say that justifies your claim that I think of games as "dumb toys without meaning"? I referred to them as "art". If you somehow think that "art" is synonymous with "dumb toys without meaning" then that's up to you, but I strongly disagree, and I suspect a lot of other people here would as well. But hey, it's a tech forum. Play to your audience, right? Paint the bad man who disagrees with you as a video game hater. That will help circle the wagons

8 hours ago, Commodus said:

If we want games to be treated as art, we have to explore their social connotations.

Well, that's certainly a sentence. How would you justify that though? Why must we explore the social connotations of art for it to be art? Citation needed, as the saying goes. But let's say you're right for the sake of argument. Let's say that we must explore the social connotations of art. OK, now what? How does that bolster or invalidate my argument? Well, I'm the one saying that games developers should be free to explore any and all such issues in their games in any way they wish. The rainbow-haired Macbook tappers (and, yes, I will feel free to continue to stereotype because I do not recognise the authority of people who tell me I can't) are the ones who are arguing against supporting games developers who make games which explore topics which they do not like, or which explore topics in ways which they do not like. If you are in favour of fully exploring the social connotations of art, then the Macbook tappers do not speak for you.

 

8 hours ago, Commodus said:

However, they're at least thinking, questioning, refusing to limit themselves to the superficial characteristics of a game.

Isn't it funny how thinking and questioning is a good thing so long as you come up with the pre-approved answers to those questions? A "journalist" thinks and questions and receives praise from you because at least they are doing that. I think and question the authority of someone to tell people what art they are allowed to create and that is somehow a bad thing in your eyes.

Isn't it also funny how refusing to limit yourself is a good thing until it clashes with the pre-approved ideology? A "journalist" refuses to limit his/her self to the superficial characteristics of a game and it's worthy of praise because they are on your side. A game developer refuses to limit his self to the pre-approved guidelines regarding the identity politics apparent in his game and that very same "journalist" (who you defend) tries to take him down.

It's almost like there's something to that whole tribalism of ideologies thing I mentioned, right? People are willing to praise people on their side for doing the same kinds of things they criticise the other side for doing. As long as they have the pre-approved ideology then nothing else matters. People in agreement with that ideology will always find a way to rationalise their actions and criticise those same actions on the other side.

[SupremeGOAT]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

Well, game developers frequently want their work to be treated as more than just games, and there's a massive amount of people who'd like games to be respected as an art medium as well.  You don't speak for all gamers, and we certainly shouldn't be as small-minded as you.

Well, game developers frequently make games for their target demographic to play and enjoy and there's a massive amount of people who like to play games so they can enjoy themselves and have fun. You don't speak for all gamers and we certainly should not be as easily offended as you.

 

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

You don't have to explore social connotations, but that doesn't mean no one else should, either.  There's a tremendous irony here -- you've been whining that games journos are trying to make definitive pronouncements from on high, yet here you are trying to tell us that your opinion is the only one that matters.

 

You don't have to play games for entertainment, but that doesn't mean you should complain when you don't find the meaning of life, the universe and everything in mario kart. There's a tremendous irony here --  you've been advocating that people should voice their interpretations of video games with "critical thinking" and "opening mindedness", yet here you are throwing personal insults because i have my own beliefs when it comes to video games journalism.

 

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

Absolute, unsupported assertions like the one you just made are illogical, you do know that, right?  You want to make that claim?  You will provide evidence with your next reply.  No exceptions, no excuses, no weaselling out.

provide evidence that the rainbow-haired macbook tappers have NO LOGIC behind ANY of their articles? now how would i do that? Outline every single article ever written by a rainbow-haired macbook tapper? or would it be easier to find ONE ARTICLE WRITTEN BY BY A RAINBOW-HAIRED MACBOOK TAPPER to debunk my statement... ooh tough one...

 

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

Just because you don't understand concepts like "critical thinking" and "subtext" doesn't mean there aren't meanings beyond the superficial gloss.

"critical thinking" is required to play almost all games. "subtext" helps deliver the stories for some games and often helps create the atmosphere for your journey. The game was built to be played the mere fact that you are referring to subtext as "superficial gloss" and using your "critical thinking" not to play the game but to find something else other than enjoyment says a lot about your intentions.

 

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

Listen, there are simple realities at work here: games journalists aren't going away, and many people feel they do enough valid work to justify their presence.  Moaning like you are isn't going to change those facts.

When I was just a little girl~
I asked my mother what will I be~
Will I be pretty ~will I be rich~
Here's what she said to me...
Whatever will be will be~

 

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

You don't like what they're saying?  Then don't read their work,

OMG PERSI I LOVE THESE WORDS!~ please apply this same logic to video games. 

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

and don't pretend that we're all going to "see the light" and convert to your way of thinking.

whos pretending? I'm the shit 

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

I find it rather sad that someone like you would look at the entire game industry, with many obvious examples of artistic expression and deeper meanings, and decide that what he'd most like to do is turn his mind off.

What we cannot repair, we must destroy and rebuild. People like me did not forsake "Games Journalism".. Games Journalism has forsaken us and in our solitude, we have evolved to survive without it. Without us, it has changed, mangled and deformed beyond recognition! Our mercy is to put it to rest. WE DO NOT SERVE IT! IT WAS MADE TO SERVE US! WE ARE THE CHOSEN!

[Commodus]

18 minutes ago, DezGalbie said:

What on earth did I say that justifies your claim that I think of games as "dumb toys without meaning"? I referred to them as "art". If you somehow think that "art" is synonymous with "dumb toys without meaning" then that's up to you, but I strongly disagree, and I suspect a lot of other people here would as well. But hey, it's a tech forum. Play to your audience, right? Paint the bad man who disagrees with you as a video game hater. That will help circle the wagons

You portrayed game journos as heavy-handed dictators trying to force their artistic criticism on others.  I was somewhat hyperbolic, and for that I apologize, but telling game journos to avoid weighing in on the artistic qualities of games (which, yes, includes political aspects) is wrong.

 

18 minutes ago, DezGalbie said:

Well, that's certainly a sentence. How would you justify that though? Why must we explore the social connotations of art for it to be art? Citation needed, as the saying goes. But let's say you're right for the sake of argument. Let's say that we must explore the social connotations of art. OK, now what? How does that bolster or invalidate my argument? Well, I'm the one saying that games developers should be free to explore any and all such issues in their games in any way they wish. The rainbow-haired Macbook tappers (and, yes, I will feel free to continue to stereotype because I do not recognise the authority of people who tell me I can't) are the ones who are arguing against supporting games developers who make games which explore topics which they do not like, or which explore topics in ways which they do not like. If you are in favour of fully exploring the social connotations of art, then the Macbook tappers do not speak for you.

Because art usually aspires to a higher meaning?  Unless it's completely vapid pop art (and some games certainly qualify for that), exploring the connotations helps people understand it, reflect on their own views and potentially appreciate a game more.  Imagine if people covered movies like you want them to cover games, how lifeless that would be. "All the President's Men is a movie about the Washington Post's Watergate investigation.  The actors were talented and the cinematography was nice.  We will pretend it has no political message or higher meaning."

 

Also, I advised against stereotyping because it's poor argumentation.  It's dismissive, relies on emotion over logic, and by its very nature makes assumptions that are bound to be false in some cases.  Intelligent arguments rely on limited, conditional assertions you can prove... you can't prove a stereotype.

 

18 minutes ago, DezGalbie said:

Isn't it funny how thinking and questioning is a good thing so long as you come up with the pre-approved answers to those questions? A "journalist" thinks and questions and receives praise from you because at least they are doing that. I think and question the authority of someone to tell people what art they are allowed to create and that is somehow a bad thing in your eyes.

Isn't it also funny how refusing to limit yourself is a good thing until it clashes with the pre-approved ideology? A "journalist" refuses to limit his/her self to the superficial characteristics of a game and it's worthy of praise because they are on your side. A game developer refuses to limit his self to the pre-approved guidelines regarding the identity politics apparent in his game and that very same "journalist" (who you defend) tries to take him down.

It's almost like there's something to that whole tribalism of ideologies thing I mentioned, right? People are willing to praise people on their side for doing the same kinds of things they criticise the other side for doing. As long as they have the pre-approved ideology then nothing else matters. People in agreement with that ideology will always find a way to rationalise their actions and criticise those same actions on the other side.

 Who said I was arguing for pre-approved answers and ideologies?  I want journalists who think and question, but I also want them to operate in facts and reality.  I do think the Cyberpunk situation is a mess.  My argument is mainly against people who falsely portray game journalism as an inherently broken thing that must be silenced, rather than tackling the specific problem at hand.

[Commodus]

18 minutes ago, SupremeGOAT said:

Well, game developers frequently make games for their target demographic to play and enjoy and there's a massive amount of people who like to play games so they can enjoy themselves and have fun. You don't speak for all gamers and we certainly should not be as easily offended as you.

Yes, they do, and many of them manage to include artistic commentaries in the same time.  Imagine that!  Yes, some gamers just play to have fun, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about the meanings of games, especially when they're intentional.  I want to allow both the for-fun and artistic discussions; you want to stifle one of them.

 

21 minutes ago, SupremeGOAT said:

You don't have to play games for entertainment, but that doesn't mean you should complain when you don't find the meaning of life, the universe and everything in mario kart. There's a tremendous irony here --  you've been advocating that people should voice their interpretations of video games with "critical thinking" and "opening mindedness", yet here you are throwing personal insults because i have my own beliefs when it comes to video games journalism.

Holy shit, you're immature.  "I know what you are but what am I" is not how you win arguments.

 

I'm criticizing you because your very position is designed to silence open-mindedness.  You want to eliminate game journalists altogether; that's not broadening minds, that's closing them down.

 

27 minutes ago, SupremeGOAT said:

provide evidence that the rainbow-haired macbook tappers have NO LOGIC behind ANY of their articles? now how would i do that? Outline every single article ever written by a rainbow-haired macbook tapper? or would it be easier to find ONE ARTICLE WRITTEN BY BY A RAINBOW-HAIRED MACBOOK TAPPER to debunk my statement... ooh tough one...

Er, it's pretty simple... cite a couple of articles where these people make major assertions that aren't guided by logic.  You don't have to reference every article ever made (please drop the hyperbolic crap), but you have to show that there's a systemic pattern, not just make a completely unsupported assertion and expect people to put blind faith in you.

 

Also, I don't think you understand how argumentation works in general.  If you make an extreme declaration like "none of them have logic in any of their articles," the burden of proof is on you, not the people adhering to common understanding.

[SupremeGOAT]

"I'm about to end this man's whole career"

 

56 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

The whole point of art is to make individuals think.

ah~ Leonardo, your knowledge runneth over. Pray tell what is the purpose of a game?

 

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

 Imagine having to yell all inequalities in public? You'd likely get silenced by the right.

what? Take the next bus back to GAMES brother. Imagine someone said this stuff i quoted in the middle of a game of Smash. way to kill a mood...

 

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

Art and music has done a lot for civil rights over the last 300 years for the US and since the dawn of mankind.

See what's happening here? Going to a cyberpunk 2077 forum and getting a 4th Grade art lecture. WTH kind of game forum would that be?!? If I wanted to learn about civil rights YOU THINK I'D TRY TO LEARN IT FROM A VIDEO GAME?!?! you life with wrong settings bro...

 

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

Games are a form of art and expression.

to you and thats fine

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

If you don't like it, move on, we don't need you.

y-you said you loved me! Funny thing though... I would say the same thing to the Author of that "Cyberpunk is Racist" article...

 

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

Go play Raptor Island. Shoot up a couple thousand dinosaurs in a mindless shoot-em-up

Wow! thanks for referring those games i'll be sure to check em out and hey, if i find any games about Economic decline and comparative advantages i'll throw em your way,

 

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

that shows how some gamers are looking for monotony. 

that's what you call it?  says a lot...

[appleache]

On 6/19/2019 at 6:56 AM, Princess Luna said:

That's great and all, don't really care much since people complaining about politically correct is quite mainstream and the best thing you can do about it is ignore it, what I do want to know is: Will they address this?

this is false, it just those "can you run it site" strip E3 demo PC spec and said it is minimum. cdprojekt red hasn't publish system requirement yet. https://www.pcgamer.com/cyberpunk-2077-e3-demo-pc-specs-revealed-by-cd-projekt-red/

the fact they are using 1080ti as demo show the opmization should be pretty friendly and no nvidia rtx nonsense.

 

This also show the problem of google's "intelligent search result"

[ARikozuM]

11 minutes ago, SupremeGOAT said:

what? Take the next bus back to GAMES brother. Imagine someone said this stuff i quoted in the middle of a game of Smash. way to kill a mood...

This wasn't in the middle of your round of Smash. This was available, on the web, when you weren't in the middle of a game. 

11 minutes ago, SupremeGOAT said:

See what's happening here? Going to a cyberpunk 2077 forum and getting a 4th Grade art lecture. WTH kind of game forum would that be?!? If I wanted to learn about civil

rights YOU THINK I'D TRY TO LEARN IT FROM A VIDEO GAME?!?! you life with wrong settings bro...

The difference here is that you're trying to censor someone for having an opinion and writing about it. I'm not. I will not stop someone from writing their opinion for others to see. 

11 minutes ago, SupremeGOAT said:

to you and thats fine

y-you said you loved me! Funny thing though... I would say the same thing to the Author of that "Cyberpunk is Racist" article...

[repeat] The difference here is that you're trying to censor someone for having an opinion and writing about it. I'm not. I will not stop someone from writing their opinion for others to see. 

11 minutes ago, SupremeGOAT said:

Wow! thanks for referring those games i'll be sure to check em out and hey, if i find any games about Economic decline and comparative advantages i'll throw em your way,

Let's talk about Papers, Please. /s

 

If you want to talk about why Rainbow Road is a metaphor for life, go ahead! If you don't want to hear or read it, DON'T! Why tread on someone else's freedom when you could easily exercise yours by not reading it? 

[Drak3]

For those claiming art is inherently and intrinsically political or made to make people think:

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/art

 

Simply put, that notion is wrong. It can do that, but not required to do that.

[Arika]

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Simply put, that notion is wrong. It can do that, but not required to do that.

No, you don't understand, the landscape drawings I sometimes do are ALWAYS littered with political context....

 

Spoiler

/s

 

kind of depressing that I have to include that these days.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, DezGalbie said:

 

Well, that's certainly a sentence. How would you justify that though? Why must we explore the social connotations of art for it to be art? Citation needed, as the saying goes. But let's say you're right for the sake of argument. Let's say that we must explore the social connotations of art. OK, now what? How does that bolster or invalidate my argument? Well, I'm the one saying that games developers should be free to explore any and all such issues in their games in any way they wish. The rainbow-haired Macbook tappers (and, yes, I will feel free to continue to stereotype because I do not recognise the authority of people who tell me I can't) are the ones who are arguing against supporting games developers who make games which explore topics which they do not like, or which explore topics in ways which they do not like. If you are in favour of fully exploring the social connotations of art, then the Macbook tappers do not speak for you.

 

Art does not need a social connotation, however it needs to portray a message representative of the author, for instance many Van Gogh paintings portray how he sees the world through his mental disorder, a Tesla is a representation of the future of the automative industry and the development of technology. Art is meant to intrigue and stimulate the mind. Art is intrinsically linked to how the audience sees the artwork. Everything can be art, but it does not mean it is good, or considered to really be art in this sense. 

[Derangel]

13 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

For those claiming art is inherently and intrinsically political or made to make people think:

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/art

 

Simply put, that notion is wrong. It can do that, but not required to do that.

You really love turning to the dictionary as the singular way to "support" your arguments, don't you? You either have no idea how to actually argue a point or you are intentionally engaging in bad faith arguments.

[ARikozuM]

14 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

For those claiming art is inherently and intrinsically political or made to make people think:

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/art

 

Simply put, that notion is wrong. It can do that, but not required to do that.

Quote

The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Quote

The various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.

Games are literally art. 

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Games are literally art. 

Show me where I said otherwise.

 

6 minutes ago, Derangel said:

You really love turning to the dictionary as the singular way to "support" your arguments, don't you?

When the argument is over the definition of a word, using primary sources that exist to document the common usages of words is a very reliable source.

[Nowak]

23 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

For those claiming art is inherently and intrinsically political or made to make people think:

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/art

 

Simply put, that notion is wrong. It can do that, but not required to do that.

That does not mean that art can't contain any political messaging or symbolism at all.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Nowak said:

That does not mean that art can't contain any political messaging or symbolism at all.

Read the last sentence of my statement. I addressed that.

[Nowak]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Read the last sentence of my statement. I addressed that.

Oh. My bad.

[Derangel]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Show me where I said otherwise.

 

When the argument is over the definition of a word, using primary sources that exist to document the common usages of words is a very reliable source.

Except the argument is over a nuanced definition of a term, not a literal definition. A dictionary only provides a, simple, literal definition of the meaning of a word. There is no context, there is no depth, there is zero nuance to the term. Using a literal definition is what people tend to do when their argument has nothing to support it. "The dictionary says..." is an incredibly weak defense. It has no place in a serious debate.

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, Derangel said:

Except the argument is over a nuanced definition of a term, not a literal definition. A dictionary only provides a, simple, literal definition of the meaning of a word. There is no context, there is no depth, there is zero nuance to the term. Using a literal definition is what people tend to do when their argument has nothing to support it

You haven't supported your argument in any capacity.

 

Dictionaries exist for the sole purpose of defining words. As usage changes, dictionaries update and build upon definitions. What you are claiming does not align with well documented, common usage.

6 minutes ago, Derangel said:

It has no place in a serious debate.

In a serious debate, all sources have a place. The purpose of debate is to discuss ideas and information, usually in hopes of better understanding of both/multiple/all sides.

[SupremeGOAT]

4 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

This wasn't in the middle of your round of Smash. This was available, on the web, when you weren't in the middle of a game.

Chair Judge: Topic is Video Games, Begin.

ARikozuM: Yeah, violence against women is not only morally appalling, but it also highlights the internal struggles some men face when dealing with their emotions. With seemingly no other way to communicate they revert to their primal instincts and this says worlds about our society on whole.

 

SupremeGOAT: I donno she was in first place, I had a blue shell... I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO! IT WAS THE FINAL LAP! the blue shells need to stay in the game! is all im saying...

 

In conclusion, politics and video games don't mesh. If you can't understand that... I hope you find happiness... somewhere...

 

23 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

The difference here is that you're trying to censor someone for having an opinion and writing about it. I'm not. I will not stop someone from writing their opinion for others to see. 

SupremeGOAT hasn't censored anyone. There are tons of opinions on steam, amazon and tons of other forums. log in and go to town. I have a problem with slanderous filth disguised as facts. 

 

 

 

 

27 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

The difference here is that you're trying to censor someone for having an opinion and writing about it. I'm not. I will not stop someone from writing their opinion for others to see. 

who did I censor? you can write your opinion on forums and the product review section for the world to see we wouldn't miss a beat.

 

30 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

[repeat] The difference here is that you're trying to censor someone for having an opinion and writing about it. I'm not. I will not stop someone from writing their opinion for others to see. 

you're uh... a special case huh...

 

32 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

If you want to talk about why Rainbow Road is a metaphor for life, go ahead! If you don't want to hear or read it, DON'T! Why tread on someone else's freedom when you could easily exercise yours by not reading it? 

propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

This has become a major issue on "gaming news" websites, they abuse their positions to push their own narratives and make demands under the guise of speaking for the gaming demographic. In turn, major gaming companies augment their products to suit the "target demographic" in fear of bad publicity to suit only 1 person. When fallout ensues, what the real demographic is left with is trash that was designed to suit 1 person's taste. This algorithm is multiplied until it spreads like cancer...

 

with review pages everyone gets an equal voice and general consensus can be derived while NO ONE IS SILENCED. Mine is the true equality... yours is the TRUE CENSORSHIP... the censorship of everyone else...

 

destroy your bias and see truth... find peace in enlightenment... 

 

[Derangel]

9 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

You haven't supported your argument in any capacity.

 

Dictionaries exist for the sole purpose of defining words. As usage changes, dictionaries update and build upon definitions. What you are claiming does not align with well documented, common usage.

In a serious debate, all sources have a place. The purpose of debate is to discuss ideas and information, usually in hopes of better understanding of both/multiple/all sides.

No, all sources do NOT have a place in a serious debate. A literal definition does absolutely nothing to further the discussion because no one is arguing what the word MEANS. The literal meaning of the word has nothing whatsoever to do with the debate.

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Derangel said:

You really love turning to the dictionary as the singular way to "support" your arguments, don't you? You either have no idea how to actually argue a point or you are intentionally engaging in bad faith arguments.

Yeah I really hate it when people bring up definitive facts in an argument 

[mr moose]

As far as I am concerned, if someone is using art to push a political agenda,  then it is no longer art.  It has just become a thing to illustrate/communicate a message.

 

 

 

 

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Derangel said:

no one is arguing what the word MEANS.

Multiple people are.

 

2 minutes ago, Derangel said:

The literal meaning of the word has nothing whatsoever to do with the debate.

Given that multiple people have made the erroneous claim that art is intrinsically political, yes, it does.

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, SupremeGOAT said:

Chair Judge: Topic is Video Games, Begin.

ARikozuM: Yeah, violence against women is not only morally appalling, but it also highlights the internal struggles some men face when dealing with their emotions. With seemingly no other way to communicate they revert to their primal instincts and this says worlds about our society on whole.

 

SupremeGOAT: I donno she was in first place, I had a blue shell... I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO! IT WAS THE FINAL LAP! the blue shells need to stay in the game! is all im saying...

 

In conclusion, politics and video games don't mesh. If you can't understand that... I hope you find happiness... somewhere...

So, you're equating this dude writing an article that you didn't have to read to playing a multi-player game and having a debate. It isn't the same venue. 

2 minutes ago, SupremeGOAT said:

SupremeGOAT hasn't censored anyone. There are tons of opinions on steam, amazon and tons of other forums. log in and go to town. I have a problem with slanderous filth disguised as facts. 

Do what I did and denounce the dumbass on Twitter.  It's your right and obligation to do so. 

2 minutes ago, SupremeGOAT said:

who did I censor? you can write your opinion on forums and the product review section for the world to see we wouldn't miss a beat.

You're saying the guy shouldn't be able to write what he wants, when he wants. 

2 minutes ago, SupremeGOAT said:

propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

This has become a major issue on "gaming news" websites, they abuse their positions to push their own narratives and make demands under the guise of speaking for the gaming demographic. In turn, major gaming companies augment their products to suit the "target demographic" in fear of bad publicity to suit only 1 person. When fallout ensues, what the real demographic is left with is trash that was designed to suit 1 person's taste. This algorithm is multiplied until it spreads like cancer...

There are people who think the ice caps aren't melting because an article showing a single glacier in Greenland is growing. That's also propaganda, and you don't see me censoring the people spreading it by shutting them down. 

2 minutes ago, SupremeGOAT said:

with review pages everyone gets an equal voice and general consensus can be derived while NO ONE IS SILENCED. Mine is the true equality... yours is the TRUE CENSORSHIP... the censorship of everyone else...

What? I'm advocating for letting this dude speak his mind and you should as well. How is that censorship? If you want to play Smash without politics, go ahead, I'll join you 'cuz it isn't the time nor place for politics (as much as I'd like to see Biden get off-screened with a Fox McCloud super). I'm not going to stop this guy from writing what he wants, just because my opinion differs (and it does, btw). 

[Derangel]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

As far as I am concerned, if someone is using art to push a political agenda,  then it is no longer art.  It has just become a thing to illustrate/communicate a message.

 

 

 

 

You have a pretty shallow, and bad, understanding of art.