Censorship is A-OK for a company. It only becomes a legal problem if the government does it.

I fail to see how the depiction of the luna dance is offensive to Hawaiians. I wonder if she would be offended by my DVD copy of Lilo & Stitch? Or my wife's Lilo bobblehead.

Some history: Protestants banned hula in the 19th century, so the celebration of this traditional dance seems to me to be empowering versus the censorship of what the Protestants called "heathen". Sure, the introduction of the Portuguese ukulele and other Western aesthetics changed the art form, but it's practiced in both modern and traditional forms today.

You also can't simply demonize the cross-pollination of cultures, because cultural values are always changing. Hawaiian and Polynesian culture went through many changes and forms long before anyone from the West showed up on their shores. The luau itself is partly symbolic of women's rights (as well as lower class rights) in Hawaiian culture, as before the luau, women were not allowed to eat the same food as men, and commoners could not eat with royalty or eat their royal Hawaiian food.

This change didn't happen until the 1800s, so it's likely that this level of equality within the Hawaiian culture is due in part to European contact, including the the King who himself became a Christian -- and yet also encouraged the luna dance.

When cultures make contact with each other, they become entangled. They influenced us and we influenced them -- and they're Americans now so deal with it. I once had pictures of Italian Americans on my wall (Godfather/Scarface posters) and my grandma has a Jew on her crucifix. Neither of us are Italian or Jewish. LOL

The reality is that sceptics today are targeting esjews for the same reason they have every other group of harmful cultists in the past. It shouldn't come as a surprise that a community of dedicated rationalists would be mystified and angered by the sudden rise of a new anti-rational movement; especially where that movement has been directly damaging to their own, see things like elevatorgate and prominent sceptics getting banned from conventions for wrongthink.

But why should the focus be suddenly so sharply on one group of irrationalists, to the apparent neglect of the others? Because esjudaism is the fresher and more exigent threat. Everyone in the current generation who's capable of correcting their ideas about religion, ghosts, scientology and psychics has basically already done so. Whereas esjews, like their frequent allies and ideological partners the islamists, seem to be gaining ground and converts every day. There's more opportunity and more need to change minds there than elsewhere.

Controversially I'm going to claim that 'youtube sceptics' spend a lot of their time on social media. Some of them make their living through social media. I think it's possible to understand why so many of them object so strongly to the tsunami of censorship that's devastating speech on those platforms in response to social justice hysteria; to suppression of the fictional and fascist concept of 'hate speech', to the false reports and takedowns of youtube videos, to twitter's Ministry of Truth and Safety, to reddit's constant ideological purges.

Now, why are so many of these anti-esjew sceptics white males? Well for one thing because most people in the english-speaking world are white, get over it and stop screeching about diversity. More substantially because most people are idiots. Let me explain. When you have a terrible ideology, obviously you look to stupid people for converts, but when you have an explicitly bigoted ideology, one that demonises certain groups of people while advancing special privileges for others, you narrow your focus even more and direct your propaganda efforts specifically at stupid people in the classes you're pretending to represent. You don't get many jewish friends of national socialism, and you don't get many white male esjews. It's not that these people are sitting on their throne of privilege chuckling down at the poor minorities struggling up to meet them. It's that they're a bunch of retards, but the wrong kind of retards to be esjews.

So opposition to esjudaism comprises: every intelligent and moral person in the world, male and female, black and white, gay and straight; a bunch of stupid straight white men; conservatives and other defectives; actual misogynists, homophobes and racists who imagine we're on their side.

TLDR: Sturgeon's Law.

Sometimes unanticipated consequences can be fun.
And those censorship bars are often a complete joke, it's like watching a penis the size of nuclear submarine trying to hide behind a lamp post. Which I of course, totally approve of.

@ChaosEngine

i think we agree more than we disagree.

example:
me:
"freedom of speech is the right to speak freely.
to espouse our opinions,philosophy and yes,our bigotry and prejudice,with legal immunity,but NOT social impunity."

you:
"As I've said before, the "dangers of PC" are vastly outweighed by the dangers of people using the so-called dangers of PC as an excuse for racist, sexist bullshit. This is how it works. They get to say their shit and we get to call them on it."

i was not accusing you of holding an extreme left ideology.i was simply pointing to the dangers of controlling speech.

in fact,just so you know i was paying attention,one of my favorite lines from you in regards to PC is "don't be a dick".

short and to the point.

the fault in our exchange may reside with me.
i am not "anti PC".
i am against those who hold a far more radical view than you do in regards to language,words,safe spaces,trigger warnings etc etc.who seek to demand,through political machinations,the legal impositions of certain words having legal consequences.

which is censorship.

i realize you are not part of this small (but growing) radical band of merry offendees,and you have stated so publicly and often.

my guilt lies in the fact that i will tag you to make a larger point.i basically used your comment to expand on the growing dangers of a small cadre of radical lefties who seek to control how we interact.

the reason i did this,and have in the past,is due to my perceptions of you being far more thicker skinned than most.when we are talking about people being offended easily,i need someone with a thicker skin to interact with to further my point.

that and i think you are decent dude.who is reasonable and rational.so even if there is a bit of assumption and presumption,you wont go full blown rage machine on me,and allow for a decent conversation.

so my apologies my man.
i tend to use your comments on PC to expand on a point that i find concerning.

@enoch, words are important. You should know as you seem to be unable to edit any of them out.

Briefly (because responding to your entire post would put us considerably closer to the entropic death of the universe) yes, I used to respect Frys opinions, now I don't. This is called changing your mind in light of new evidence.

Previously he was eloquent and compassionate, saving his ire for those deserving of it. Here he's just spiteful and grouchy, and his target is abuse victims??

As I said, even he realised how completely wrong he was.

But more importantly, you (and everyone else on this particular"anti-PC" bandwagon) seem to have confused criticism with censorship.

Go back and read my posts. Did I ever call for him to be censored? No, I responded to what he said and called it stupid. That is the essence of free speech.

I don't even fully disagree with him on a lot of his points. I don't really believe in "safe spaces" (I can understand the desire for them, but university is not an appropriate venue for them. I'm not keen on trigger warnings either, but OTOH, I haven't suffered that kind of trauma, so ultimately, I really don't think they do any harm, (although I would argue that a few seconds research should render many of them unnecessary). I would certainly never say that you can't study Titus Andronicus in class, but I don't see the harm in warning a rape survivor of the content either.

Basically, you and he are inventing boogeymen. There are a few instances of stupidity out there, but they are always there.

As I've said before, the "dangers of PC" are vastly outweighed by the dangers of people using the so-called dangers of PC as an excuse for racist, sexist bullshit. This is how it works. They get to say their shit and we get to call them on it.

@ChaosEngine

i do not see anyone here defending anything.

now maybe we can view stephen's commentary "dismissive and belittling" as @entr0py pointed out,but i think the deeper issue was prefaced quite succinctly by stephen in his characterization of american,and western societies,as being "infantilized".

where words have become the final bastion of totality in communication and are judged strictly on a word by word basis.so much so that some on the left have been pushing harder and harder to have certain words removed from our lexicon,because they represent negative thoughts/feelings/actions or they may represent a trauma,or horrific violent memory for some people.

but this is the wrong approach.
excising words will not erase those feelings/thoughts/emotions.this will just force people to come up or use different terminology to express those feelings/thoughts.actions that once had words to at least to attempt to express those horrors and/or offenses.

which will just equate to a whole new slew of verbiage being found offensive and in dire need of being castrated from our collective vocabulary.

yet the left (extreme left i grant) appears hell bent on not only attempting to control speech but to also judge those who DO use speech that they find offensive.

this is censorship with prejudice and to claim otherwise is the lie.

just look at your first comment.
you "used" to like stephen fry's opinion,until he became callous and dismissive with what?

words.

but do you REALLY think his attitude and compassion towards those who have suffered emotional trauma is truly dismissive?

well..i do not think so.i have spoken to you enough times to have a modicum of understandings in regards to you,as a person,that you have far more depth of character.

yet it is the WORDS that have hung you up.

look man,words are inert.they are things that are only given life,meaning and context when we add our own subjectivity to them.

words are inadequate.they will ALWAYS be inadequate.
which is why we admire and praise those of us who have a command of words that can reach into our own understandings and extract meaning in a way that blossoms like a spring flower and can create worlds in which we can play,and even share with other people.

i am intimately aware of this deficiency.i do not have an economy of words,and only on rare occasions can i relay,convey and express with ANY form of reductionism.

i struggle to express not only my opinion,but the intent,humanity and compassion of my opinion.

if the extreme left gets their way,the tools we have to express ourselves becomes lesser.

and in the process,WE become lesser.because the tools for dissent,debate,discussion and even..ironically..to expose the more venal and bigoted of our society,will have been reduced to words that offend nobody.

there is danger here,and no good will come from it.no matter if the intent sounds just and the goal compassionate.

freedom of speech is the right to speak freely.
to espouse our opinions,philosophy and yes,our bigotry and prejudice,with legal immunity,but NOT social impunity.

so while we have a right to free speech.
we do not have a right to not be offended,and maybe we need to be offended sometimes.to shake us from our own self-induced apathy and our adoration of digital hallucinations.

so when the westboro baptist church says the most hateful,vitriolic and disgusting admonishments,all in the name of god.
we can be offended by them,and then ridicule them relentlessly.

would stripping words from the english language prevent this group from espousing their own brand of hate?

of course not.they would just find new words.

so what do we do then?
make words illegal?
criminally libel?

so don't judge mr fry too harshly.
he is just pointing to the dangers of controlling speech and the new trend of the perpetually offended.

the extreme right attempts to control morality,and there is serious danger in that practice.
the extreme left attempts to control how we communicate,and hence how we interact,and there is great danger in that as well.

OK, since again you are going to continue to comment to and about me after asking me to ignore you (so I can't read your lies to reply to them), I logged out, read them, and now I'll comment back.

BULLSHIT! You had a shit fit for days when I downvoted a video you posted and it went to the bottom of 'new and upcoming videos', and you cried censorship over and over and claimed it had been removed because you couldn't find your own video. You complained to dag and lucky repeatedly, and tried to have me banned for erasing your video (which never happened, you were just too lazy or incapable to look for it, and continued complaining for days after multiple people pointed out you were 100% wrong and showed you where your video was).

No single political opinion is solicited here, so even the suggestion that those matching yours might be sought out by the admins to make it 'fair and balanced' for you shows a clear lack of understanding of the site and the world in general. At least you understand it won't happen.

As to your specious claim (based on a fox new poll or nothing at all?) that there are more conservatives than liberals in America, it's ridiculous, and easily contradicted with actual facts....for instance, the 2015 Gallup poll said "PRINCETON, N.J. -- Thirty-one percent of Americans describe their views on social issues as generally liberal, matching the percentage who identify as social conservatives for the first time in Gallup records dating back to 1999."...so even SELF identified liberals match self identified conservatives, if you go by actual political leanings on issues, there's no contest, 'liberals' outweigh 'conservatives' 3-1 (+-).
"Liberals" as you and the rest of the far right define them are clearly the majority view in America. Actual statistics follow:
Those in favor of reproductive choice >50%, anti choice<44%. 78% of Americans want Citizens United overturned. 70% of Americans don't want Social Security cut, 65% want it expanded. The same goes for wanting more financial regulations on banks and wall street, taxing the extremely rich at higher rates, adopting true single payer health care, doing public projects and works, having a standing army (yes, that's a liberal idea...as the army is a socialist program), etc. Those consistently holding "conservative" viewpoints across the board are an extremely small minority, contrary to how many people self identify.
"Conservatives" may hold a majority there in the Fox bubble, but in the real world they are a minority, consistently ridiculed for their total lack of knowledge about the things they complain about and for basing their backwards stances on 'truthiness' rather than fact, especially by those in other countries.

Now, once again, for the umpteenth time, I'll ask you kindly to "ignore" me just like you asked me to ignore you. It's pretty infantile to ask someone to ignore you so you can continue to publicly talk crap about and contradict them without fear that they'll respond...and I find that methodology typical of 'conservatives' that refuse to live by the rules they angrily insist everyone else must live by.
You really don't want me focusing on you in anger, which will happen if I'm forced to un-ignore you and re-engage because you can't quit me. Just stop and quit it, or no complaints when I re-engage with vigor and vitriol.

@Imagoamin

whoa whoa whoa...
did you think i was calling YOU a bed-wetter?
like as in actually using the pronoun "you" to direct my fictional interaction as representing an actual person,in this case YOU?

well,that certainly explains the tone of your reply.

if this is the case then i humbly and sincerely apologize.i was not referring to you at all,but rather a hypothetical and totally fictional interaction between a cry-baby and myself.

which you actually just made my point about humor,and in this case sarcastic humor.an over the top referencing of a certain hyper-sensitive group,in order to make my point about bad ideas,bad philosophy and poor judgment.

the sarcasm should have been obvious.
but alas...it appears it was not,and has been misconstrued as a personal attack.

moving on to your suey park rebuttal.
while the response to her initial call for justice can easily be seen as vile and grotesque (because it is) how does that take away from her inanity? her blatant disregard for nuance and context? or that she simply lacks the basic intelligence to discern satire from actual racist remarks?

it does not.

i think that most people would agree that the vile,disgusting and dehumanizing responses that suey park was subjected to,are to be condemned and yes...ridiculed..for the stupid and trollish behavior they represent.

you do not reply to stupid with even more stupid.

i dont really understand your defense of language,or better put,the imposing of certain words being stricken from the language altogether because some people find them offensive.

language is a fluid animal,and it is ever-changing.words and terms are dropped from the vocabulary or they morph into something altogether new.i have no skin in on the game in that regard.that is how language progresses,and yes,certain words can be offensive in certain contexts.so we should avoid using them,if only to be a decent human being.

my issue is with the FORCED attempts to re-integrate new words.to control what people say and attempt to bring real world consequences upon them,and then turn around and call it "justice".that is not justice! that is censorship!

maybe this will help a bit.
i view words and language as such:words are the means to express thoughts,feelings and imaginings.when we consider the complexity of our thoughts,feelings and imaginings then it becomes quite apparent that words will NEVER suffice to truly,and accurately,express those very human creations.

words will always be inadequate.

so when some people get it in their head that certain words are just too offensive to even utter.this narrows the field of expression that is already inadequate.(i am not talking about BLATANT,and archaic terms that are not only offensive,but are no longer relevant,and in existence still to simply disparage,insult or dehumanize).

now maybe some words no longer serve a valid purpose or are truly offensive and need to be re-examined,but the only way to reach that conclusion as a people..we must actually TALK to one another,and it is in this free market of ideas where bad ideas go to die.

but we have to able to conversate for that to happen.don't you agree?

now i am not going to bother addressing the rest of your comment,because your tone was just a reaction to where you presumed i was coming from.

and you did presume.

you seem like a decent sort,so i will just chalk your final response up to finding my comment offensive and replied in kind.

just know i wasnt heated,nor enraged.
and i certainly wasnt calling you a bed-wetter.
though the extreme end of social justice warriors are STILL humorless cunts.

@Jinx

you used a great word:"nuance" and i would add "context".

i know you identify as a social justice warrior,and many here on the sift do as well.i would even include myself on that list in certain instances.

but this video is not addressing the rational and reasonable people who have valid grievances and wish to stand up for:human rights,fairness,justice and equality.

this video is addressing those who abuse political correctness to further their own,personal agenda,dressed up as social justice.these people,who have co-opted,infiltrated and hijacked LEGITIMATE and VALID causes and corrupted them with an irrationality that should,and IS,being ridiculed.

why?
because in the free market of ideas,where there is a free flow of information and dialogue,is the place where bad ideas go to die.

but how do these extremist deal with criticism?
with scrutiny and examination of their call for justice?

well,they simply ACCUSE you of being a:racist,bigot,homophobe etc etc and that is where the conversation ends.the very act of accusing shuts down any dissenting voice by demonizing that person for having the audacity to even question their righteous crusade.

change takes time in a free society.this is a slow process.
so archaic,societal and cultural belief systems take time to shift,but what has ALWAYS been the successful trait in every single victory for social justice is:conversation and discussion.making people aware of the situation and then addressing the problem.

basically it takes people talking about it.

but that is not the tactic we see used by these perpetually offended and faux outraged.THEIR tactic is to shut the conversation down as viciously and violently as they can.they are allergic to dissent or disagreement,and to even attempt to point out the logical fallacies,or incongruities will get you labeled a racist,bigot or homophobe.

that is not justice.that is censorship with a large dose of fascist.

this video makes a solid case for pointing out how a small cadre of narcissistic cry-babies have hijacked groups who had actual grievances and created an atmosphere of fear,anxiety and paranoia simply to promote their own brand of social justice by latching onto real movements...and in the process..destroyed them.

did you SEE what they did to occupy?
or their current slow motion destruction of feminism?
or how about that semi-retarded atheism plus?
good lord..just go watch PZ meyers slowly become a former shadow of himself to pander to these fuckwits.

look man.
even YOU acknowledge that their are some who abuse political correctness for their own self-aggrandizement,and i suspect that even YOU do not identify with this small group of extremists.

well,that is who this video is addressing.

i mean.what fair and reasonable person is AGAINST women having equality or being treated fairly?
who would be AGAINST fighting corruption in our political and economic systems?

but this new batch of social justice warriors are all about THEIR rights.THEIR feelings.THEIR safe spaces and THEIR fascist ideologies on how a society should behave and act.

and if you happen to disagree they will unleash the most vile and vicious tactics to not only shut you up,but lose your job AND,in some cases,abuse a court system to make you criminally libel.all because of THEIR agenda.

free speech is only something THEY are entitled to,YOU get to shut the fuck up.

this ultra-authoritarian,cultural marxism is so anti-democratic and anti-free society,that it must be called out and ridiculed for it's own absurd lack of self-awareness.

they should be laughed at,ridiculed and chastised for the idiocy it proposes.

now maybe we disagree on this,and that is fine.disagreements will happen and they are healthy.

but just know i am not addressing those actual social justice warriors,but rather their more radical and fascist minority that appear to have hijacked the conversation.

and i truly highly doubt you are part of that minority,and if you are?
sorry man.we disagree.

When Stephen Colbert made his Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation joke the trending hashtag was #cancelcolbert, not #iwronglyfindthisjokeoffensivebutwouldneverseektosilenceitsauthor. Control is the agenda of the StinkyJeWs, page by page, paragraph by paragraph.

Let's say you're a writer for a videogame being developed by CompanyA, which in turn is owned by MegaCorpX. Some leaked bit of dialogue or a screenshot of an immodestly dressed character rubs the stinkies the wrong way and off they go, shrieking and howling: #megacorpxisracist, #firechaosengine; articles pop up on Kotaku and Polygon lamenting the state of misogynistic gaming culture, in which perverts and serial harassers like ChaosEngine are still allowed to dominate the industry and keep POC and female voices out in the cold. #boycottcompanya, #chaosengineisapaedophile, #megacorpxfundsrapeculture

Sure enough MegaCorpX doesn't like the negative, if ludicrously inaccurate, publicity and the word comes down the totem pole: the game's cancelled, or the plot has to be rewritten, or you're fired, tough luck. You really mean to tell me that no censorship has occurred at any stage of that process?

I shouldn't have to remind you that corporations aren't people. They're steered not by principle but by market forces. If I shove a boulder off a hill and it rolls into your house, I don't get to say "Well it's nothing to do with me, the rock could have swerved aside, it could have stopped halfway down or it could have turned around and climbed back up the hill. It was entirely its own decision to flatten your home."

Not allowing them to express their opinions about the games would be censorship.
Attempting to convince people to accept your opinion is not.

What you're describing isn't censorship, it's commerce.

If some company wants to make a game that people find objectionable, then that's their business. If they decide not to make that game because of bad publicity, that is also their business.

If someone calls for a game to be banned, they had better have a damn good reason for it (child porn, etc). 99% of the time, I'll be against it, and defend the creators right to make their game.

But we're not talking about that. We're talking about people who criticise games. You may disagree with their reasons, but they absolutely have the right to voice those opinions.

I never said that censorship was something that can only achieved by government.

I get that corporate censorship can and does happen for market reasons. And if companies bow to that, well, that's the world we live in. I judge these things individually on their merits.

The fundamental point is that if a company decides not to produce a game based on market feedback, that's their decision. No one is forcing them not to make that game.

And let's be honest here, Hatred (vile shitty piece of crap that it was) got released on Steam, FFS.

Once again, criticism is not censorship.

Likewise.

You ought to know better than to believe the outrageous rebranding of censorship as something that can only be accomplished by government fiat, but in doing so you're ignoring real power structures that exist and giving free rein to regressives who want to sanitise and degrade our culture.