In scenario A, let us say a journalist writes a report about corruption, and it is censored before being released to the public. In scenario B, the report is released, then immediately censored. In both cases, it is censored.
It is not bad-faith argumentation. And it absolutely has something to do with our discussion. The point is that your logic doesn’t hold up when cast onto another work before and after release. Likewise, it does not hold up where you have used it.
Whether the game was or wasn’t released doesn’t change the fact that censorship took place. Censorship did take place—that is fact—and this censorship was political. Therefore the removal of the flag is political censorship, and has political significance.
That created scenario is completely different and is in fact in bad faith. This has nothing to do with my logic or our discussion about the topic we talk.
Whether the game was or wasn’t released doesn’t change the fact that censorship took place.
It does make a huge difference. Because the game was still developed. You don’t know what the replacement for the flag would be. You just assume the worst.
Censorship did take place—that is fact
It’s just a flag in a videogame. I personally don’t care about that.
Therefore the removal of the flag is political censorship, and has political significance.
And people put too much weight into this in my opinion. Because the interactions, story, character and gameplay is not affected. Therefore the censorship is meaningless.
Because the game was still developed. You don’t know what the replacement for the flag would be.
The removal of a symbol carries meaning, irrespective of what they would have replaced it with. Also, their motive in removing it had to do with anti-LGBTQIA+ policy in Saudi Arabia, so it most definitely wasn’t to replace it with another open-minded option. This was censorship of the developers and, symbolically, of queer folk.
It’s just a flag in a videogame. I personally don’t care about that.
What you care about doesn’t change the fact that censorship took place.
people put too much weight into this in my opinion
You can hold that view.
the censorship is meaningless
Symbols have meaning. Censorship of symbols, therefore, is symbolic censorship of the meaning of those symbols. The censorship is provably not without meaning.
Again, we have gone over the political meaning. The lack of change to gameplay is irrelevant. The political meaning of the action is the significance, not the evidence of that action to the end-user.
If we speak about real world rights, then it would be significant. But in a game lacking a flag, I think is not important.
Again, the censorship of the flag, which is a symbol, is symbolically meaningful. The degree of significance is not the subject of debate.
The flag doesn’t matter, what matters are the actions and story.
To the gameplay, perhaps. But I am not discussing the gameplay. I am discussing how the removal of the flag is symbolic of opposition to LGBTQIA+ rights.
In scenario A, let us say a journalist writes a report about corruption, and it is censored before being released to the public. In scenario B, the report is released, then immediately censored. In both cases, it is censored.
It is like this.
You create scenarios that has nothing to do with our discussion, just so you have some arguments. That is in bad faith argumentation.
It is not bad-faith argumentation. And it absolutely has something to do with our discussion. The point is that your logic doesn’t hold up when cast onto another work before and after release. Likewise, it does not hold up where you have used it.
Whether the game was or wasn’t released doesn’t change the fact that censorship took place. Censorship did take place—that is fact—and this censorship was political. Therefore the removal of the flag is political censorship, and has political significance.
That created scenario is completely different and is in fact in bad faith. This has nothing to do with my logic or our discussion about the topic we talk.
It does make a huge difference. Because the game was still developed. You don’t know what the replacement for the flag would be. You just assume the worst.
It’s just a flag in a videogame. I personally don’t care about that.
And people put too much weight into this in my opinion. Because the interactions, story, character and gameplay is not affected. Therefore the censorship is meaningless.
The removal of a symbol carries meaning, irrespective of what they would have replaced it with. Also, their motive in removing it had to do with anti-LGBTQIA+ policy in Saudi Arabia, so it most definitely wasn’t to replace it with another open-minded option. This was censorship of the developers and, symbolically, of queer folk.
What you care about doesn’t change the fact that censorship took place.
You can hold that view.
Symbols have meaning. Censorship of symbols, therefore, is symbolic censorship of the meaning of those symbols. The censorship is provably not without meaning.
If the game came out without the flag, nothing would be different. As long as the rest of it is preserved.
Again, we have gone over the political meaning. The lack of change to gameplay is irrelevant. The political meaning of the action is the significance, not the evidence of that action to the end-user.
I think this is very important to our discussion.
If we speak about real world rights, then it would be significant. But in a game lacking a flag, I think is not important.
The opposite is true. The flag doesn’t matter, what matters are the actions and story.
Again, the censorship of the flag, which is a symbol, is symbolically meaningful. The degree of significance is not the subject of debate.
To the gameplay, perhaps. But I am not discussing the gameplay. I am discussing how the removal of the flag is symbolic of opposition to LGBTQIA+ rights.