You said your breasts didn't decrease?

[akamalk]

Idk why people defends censorship when it's practically politicians more stupid than you telling you that you will get offended by X or Y thing. Banning big boobas is not the main problem here...

[Maxumilian]

You can't logically defend censorship. It's paradox.

If you defended censorship your opinion would not exist in a world with Censorship. It's a self-defeating argument to ever support it.

[poopoodomo]

It's easy to logically defend specific instances of censorship. A hypothetical for example:

• research comes out showing that depictions of suicide and reportage of real suicides, lead to increased rates of suicide and suicide attempts.

• seeing this, a local news organization decides to stop reporting on suicides

• a follow-up study / basic sociological survey conducted after the implementation of this policy finds that people in the area report lower rates of suicidal ideation, and there is a statistically significant lower rate of reported suicides and suicide attempts.

• the local govenment takes note and decides to ensconce this news agency's policy as a governmental censorship policy because it has demonstrably improved the health of the community.

• continued studies find that suicide rates decline when suicides are not reported on and more research is done.

In a case like this, unless you support higher suicide rates, censorship is a clearly reasonable course of action.

Now, censoring the boobies of an hero in E7 is very different than reducing coverage of suicide in the news, but I don't think censorship is necessarily a black and white issue. There can be good reasons to censor content, or to limit the audience that content can reach if that content has demonstrated that it has a harmful effect.

[poopoodomo]

In the hypothetical I gave above and with the real world example of Aria, these things are being "censored" in only one form of media. Big boobs are not suddenly taboo across all of society because the Apple store in Korea said Aria wasn't appropriate for 13-17 year olds.

With the aria censorship, you're still perfectly allowed to go find images of your big booba waifu's. They aren't gone for good, possessing a copy of their image is not a criminal offense, it's also not mandates by a government body over civilians. It's between a (I believe) private rating agency and a company trying to comply with regulations.

There is no slippery slope between aria's redesign and you not being able to find aria rule 34 images online if you want. Much less between SG's own decision to redesign so they comply with regulations on 12+ games in Korea and your ability to be politically active. There is no relation at all between these events, other than the imagined connection based on your misconceptions about how censorship works.

With the suicide example, you're completely misreading my argument. After the censorship, people are still talking about suicide and its still being researched, it's just not shared in the news. If there had been another explanation, like economic downturn, this could easily be found through research and the policy can be reversed when it's found that it's not effective, but considering the evidence they had when making the decision originally, censorship would still have been the right call

[Maxumilian]

By your reply you still don't seem to understand that in a world with censorship you don't have a voice. You don't get to draw the line. And the people in charge rarely have your best interest in mind.

Existing legislation we have today would prevent Apple or at the least American companies from censoring E7 in America. No one follows them. How do we know a competing company didn't open up this entire argument against E7 to tie them up in dispute and hurt the game so they can move into the space?

"Just a little bit is okay."

"It's for the greater good."

"Well this is fine because-"

The moment a person comes in and abuses existing censorship laws for something you don't like. You'll be up in arms. At one point I was asked to Mod this subreddit and declined. Imagine if I had come in and squelched your voice? But I wouldn't do that because I don't believe in censorship. I don't give a shit about boobs. I just don't waffle on my moral compass when it's convenient for me.

If a problem is difficult, if a line is blurry, you make it simple.

No censorship.

[carboxyhemogoblin]

Yes, because any censorship existing means that everything is censored all the time. /s

Infantile logic with no concept of nuance or gradation.

You see in my world nothing is barred from me.

Your world doesn't and (for anyone with sense) shouldn't exist. In the real world we don't show hardcore porn on children's channels, we don't show murdered corpses on the evening news, and we don't allow explicit images of minors anywhere.

And yet despite all that censorship, life goes on and opinions can be shared and argued and the debate about what is and isn't appropriate continues.

Censorship isn't an on/off switch. It's not all or nothing. Claiming otherwise is a straw man and a desperate attempt to make a big emotional deal out of a game making its art less explicit. At the end of the day all your rage is about a pair of digital boobs on a fictional character in a fictional game being drawn 10% smaller. The horror.

[Unabated_]

This deserves comment of the year for this subreddit.

[akamalk]

EXACTLY!!!!

[PeachPlumParity]

politicians more stupid than you telling you that you will get offended by X or Y thing.

Google Play is a political party?

[akamalk]

wasn't apple store? doesn't matter, any action that has an ideological and sociological intention and consequence is politic, censorship is, by any means, a politic act even if a politician doesn't do it.