The specific term, freedom of speech, is from the first amendment, specifically written by the government, and that's what I thought was being referenced.
People not liking what is on the screen isn't a violation of human rights.
The First Amendment, like all of the amendments, are not in and of themselves human rights. They are laws that are intended to protect human rights. This isn't a complicated concept unless you're one of those absolute fucking morons that believes human rights are something granted to you by a government. You are not "granted" human rights. You innately have them. Whether they are infringed upon is what is different.
You not understanding this fundamental truth doesn't change that it's censorship. You might think it's minor. You might think it's insignificant in the grand scheme of things. But there is no such thing as just "a little" infringement. Either a human right is infringed upon, or it's not infringed upon. This is one of the few instances where a situation is a dichotomy with no shades of grey. There's either infringement or there's not infringement. Where you might draw the line at what you deem is "acceptable" infringement is irrelevant. But it's still infringement.
Are you really going to be that disingenuous? Do you really think that "not liking something" is on par with active removal of content?
What's more is that bullshit isn't new. You're appealing to the bandwagon. The idea that if some arbitrary masses don't like something, then changing it isn't actually censorship, it's just appeasing to the audience. But the reality is that self-censorship is still censorship, and it's been happening for centuries. This shit is no different from retards that would bitch about an episode of Lassie because it included footage of an animal birth.
Censors are always the same. It doesn't matter what you're bitching about, it doesn't matter what "side" you're on. You ultimately share the same motivations and defences that have been widely condemned, and condemned for good reason. The only difference now is it's ideologically motivated by a belief you think you can co-exist with, despite clear and ever-present shift that has undeniably been going on for the past 50 years at least.
So, to answer your question, no. Not liking something is not an infringement. But that has nothing to do with anything, and unless you're wilfully brain-damaged, you know that.
Well nobody is removing it against their will, the game developers made a choice to remove it.
But the reality is that self-censorship is still censorship
So if a bunch of people don't like something that you say, and you choose not to say it around them, that would be self censorship. Is that a violation of your rights?
The specific term, freedom of speech, is from the first amendment, specifically written by the government, and that's what I thought was being referenced.
People not liking what is on the screen isn't a violation of human rights.
The First Amendment, like all of the amendments, are not in and of themselves human rights. They are laws that are intended to protect human rights. This isn't a complicated concept unless you're one of those absolute fucking morons that believes human rights are something granted to you by a government. You are not "granted" human rights. You innately have them. Whether they are infringed upon is what is different.
You not understanding this fundamental truth doesn't change that it's censorship. You might think it's minor. You might think it's insignificant in the grand scheme of things. But there is no such thing as just "a little" infringement. Either a human right is infringed upon, or it's not infringed upon. This is one of the few instances where a situation is a dichotomy with no shades of grey. There's either infringement or there's not infringement. Where you might draw the line at what you deem is "acceptable" infringement is irrelevant. But it's still infringement.
If you make something, and someone says they don't like it, is that a violation of your human rights?
Are you really going to be that disingenuous? Do you really think that "not liking something" is on par with active removal of content?
What's more is that bullshit isn't new. You're appealing to the bandwagon. The idea that if some arbitrary masses don't like something, then changing it isn't actually censorship, it's just appeasing to the audience. But the reality is that self-censorship is still censorship, and it's been happening for centuries. This shit is no different from retards that would bitch about an episode of Lassie because it included footage of an animal birth.
Censors are always the same. It doesn't matter what you're bitching about, it doesn't matter what "side" you're on. You ultimately share the same motivations and defences that have been widely condemned, and condemned for good reason. The only difference now is it's ideologically motivated by a belief you think you can co-exist with, despite clear and ever-present shift that has undeniably been going on for the past 50 years at least.
So, to answer your question, no. Not liking something is not an infringement. But that has nothing to do with anything, and unless you're wilfully brain-damaged, you know that.
Well nobody is removing it against their will, the game developers made a choice to remove it.
So if a bunch of people don't like something that you say, and you choose not to say it around them, that would be self censorship. Is that a violation of your rights?