I don't know who 'everyone else' is, but I'm mostly agreeing with ZeroiaSD (and don't see what's so hard to understand). There's no such thing as 'excessive criticism'. There's criticism and then there's harassment or other things that fall into problematic territories. Like bullying.

You're saying that excessive criticism can have an effect on creative media similar to censorship, because creators are made to feel they need to change their output. That's not entirely what censorship means, but let's say it is and move on:

If a tabloid spreading homophobia changes their output after receiving threatening letters, then they would have been harassed into self-censorship. This is problematic and helps no one.

If same tabloid changes their output because through discussions with special interest groups (who may be the vocal minority) they thought about it and decided they were wrong, then there's nothing to see here.

Somewhere between the two is a line. Defining that line on social media isn't simple; the law is struggling with it - we're not going to solve it now. We know that in the particular situation that started this discussion something wasn't right or a human being who'd frequently expressed how much they cherished interacting with fans wouldn't have felt the need to cut all communication. In a different scenario, same person said 'I see what you mean, I'll handle it differently next time' (Nautica's spark type). And so they did, because they wanted to, not because they were forced into it.

Personally, I would rather err on the side of letting people say too much than shut them down (which is why I'm leaning towards ZeroiaSD's position). Many people on these forums use the block feature. I don't, because I don't like sterile narratives. I want to see what people are ACTUALLY saying, not what I think they should be saying.

Definitely more than one person and more than once. Also terms like 'crusaders' and 'tumblerinas' and so on and so on. You know, the swiping generalisations folks use to shut down discussion.

 

I don't think the criticism is particularly valid myself, but I have no qualms with people bringing it up.

 

When someone tries to get a cover to a comic book pulled or a video game changed because it hurts their feels or upsets them on some nebulous or subjective grounds, that's censorship.

-Batgirl TKJ cover

-Spider-Woman cover

-The outrage over the Tomb Raider reboot and its alleged sexual assault scene that did not, in fact, contain anything of the sort in the final game

-And speaking of Eidos, the latex-clad nuns from the previous Hitman game

-Terms in XSEED localizations that upset people

Those are the ones that spring to mind immediately but there are tons of examples. Outrage culture is a thing and it consists of people who get immensely upset over media they almost never even consume, and it ruins everyone else's enjoyment because they wanted it altered or canceled. To tell an artist or creator "change this about your project, it hurts my feels" is absolutely censorship and dictating what a creator can or cannot do means art, as a whole, will suffer because less than 1% of a population became upset over it.

I see examples of this firsthand from news stories that pop into my Twitter feed or when I hear of a kerfuffle via a Google search. I and others with a similar position aren't crazy, we see this BS and call it out for what it is.

 

Oh dear.

Isn't it strange how the answer to the OP's initial question has become this thread.

 

I don't like that most of the Technobots are dead.

 

Hey everyone. Let's keep the thread on topic. It's hugely derailed and I feel partially responsible.

While I don't agree with some of the opinions of my fellow posters, I respect their right to have them.

 

sweet.

yeah pretty much.  

For Now.....who knows what will happen next year.

 

Scatter shot with survivors guilt.

 

A few points: firstly, as a general rule, I think that sometimes it's OK for threads to go off-topic, because, you know, discussion is organic.

Secondly:

It certainly is - but what's especially interesting about it is the way it's endlessly recursive, so that most of the time it seems to be people outraged at other people who are outraged at other people ... and so on.

For example, you are by some way the most outraged person on this thread - you seem to be deeply upset by threats or problems that I'm not convinced really exist. Which, ironically, is the very trait you're complaining of in other people.

I've found this to be a pretty standard state of affairs in various social media wars. Typically, a critic or commentator will make a fairly reasonable, nuanced post, article or video that is in some way critical of a beloved property or raises some objections. The next thing you know, a terrible hullabaloo is raised by people who are horribly offended, and they accuse the critic or commentator of being 'hysterical', or thin-skinned, or ruining other people's enjoyment, apparently without a hint of irony.

This will come as a surprise to hundreds of generations of art/film/book critics.

It really sounds to me as if you're the person eager to censor here - like you're worried that if people are allowed to say what they think and feel about a property or project, they might actually be listened to! I think that unless you get over this really very silly way of looking at things, you will spend a lot of your life feeling frustrated that things are being 'ruined'.

 

Oh, I forgot my other point, which is that it doesn't really make sense to talk about 'censorship' (as in the bad kind of censorship) unless you're talking about state-level censorship or some other 'official' kind of censorship.

Otherwise, 'censorship' ends up meaning everything we don't say or do because we decide it's not a great idea. If I don't bring up the subject of suicide around someone who is deeply depressed, I'm 'censoring' myself. If I suggest to someone whose been talking for a long time that they might like to let someone else have a turn talking, I'm 'censoring' them. It just gets ridiculous.

 

Just be like Elsa and let it go people.

 

Constructive criticism =/= my feels criticism.

If a critic says a film fails on a technical level because of poor pacing or shoddy visual effects, that is more objective, constructive criticism. Or if they lament the fact that a plot thread isn't resolved or a character is underused.

Feels criticism is "This video game triggers my sensitive feelings because of SOMETHING I SAW ONLINE ABOUT A DIALOGUE EXCHANGE. I AM ANGRY AND DEMAND THAT DIALOGUE BE CHANGED TO BE MORE SENSITIVE."

THAT is censorship.

Simple.

 

This is so completely true. The reaction to people's reaction tends to be way more overblown than what it was originally. Just look at this thread with people ranting and raving about this "censorship" with much more outrage than what was shown originally.

Besides which, this "feels criticism" is nonsense. If something makes someone feel uncomfortable they have every right to criticize it because something about it is making them like it less. If someone suggests that taking that out would enhance the story or art, it's no less relevant than any other criticism.

 

It's a good job that what you're talking about here literally doesn't exist. Have you tried being angry about something, you know, real?

Sorry to be facetious, but I don't really know how else to sensibly react to the above paragraph.

*edit*

OK, I guess I could say something more constructive like: your division of criticism into 'technical' and 'non-technical' is a false dichotomy. It's really all tied up together as part of the same spectrum, and sociopolitical criticism (ie. criticising something for being politically or socially irresponsible/problematic) has been around in every variation of civilisation since the year dot. You're going to have a hard time trying to erase it here and now just because it upsets you.

 

Emotional outrage over "feels criticism" is, itself, "feels criticism".

This thread is still weird.

 

where idw went wrong? they hired Livio Ramondelli.

 

Yes. That too.

 

That seems arbitrary and splitting hairs.

No, the definition of censorship is not based on the emotions or reasons of the people criticizing- nor, btw, does someone criticizing on these grounds have to be angry about it, and nor does "This is how people on this issue feel/this is issues with that presentation," disqualify something from being constructive criticism. Quite the opposite, it's still about how the work interacts with the audience.


You're simply making your own definition of censorship here / using the word 'censorship' because it's more dramatic than 'I don't like people criticizing on these grounds.'

As long as it's presented reasonably, it is no more or less censorship than the criticism you're fine with. Your preferences on criticizism are not the defining factor on whether or not it's censorship.

And I will again point out the hypocrisy of "Only criticism I agree with is real criticism, everything else is censorship, regardless of how it's presented, and must be stopped."

Even if you don't like some types of criticism, trying to define it as censorship because you don't is pretty iffy (and like TaintedPiffy notes, is itself 'feel criticism').

 

No it's not. Disagreeing or saying that something is offensive and that you'd rather it not be published isn't censorship. Censorship is the active erasure and removal of something from a body of work. Censorship is something only people with the ability to affect or edit works is capable of. The audience does not have that ability.

 

And published All Hail Megatron.