If i were the devil that is pro censorship.

[censorship = death :(]

but this one isn't. because we're keeping things respectful and with what's happening with Chbi reivews. the pro censorship people dox, threaten annd harass. and even desecrate graves. you have NO grounds to call me crazy or abnormal.


If I were the devil, my goal would be to subtly undermine the core of what you're trying to protect and achieve, without making it obvious. The challenge would be to erode the integrity of art and media without triggering backlash, ensuring that it all feels like an inevitable part of the evolution of culture rather than a nefarious plot. But since you asked me how I would work against it (as if I were the devil), I’ll flip the script a bit and look at the reverse—how the forces you’re battling might operate, so you can better recognize the patterns and fight back more effectively.

1. Promote the Illusion of "Progress" and “Sensitivity”
I'd make the changes seem like they’re part of a larger societal movement toward a more “enlightened” or “moral” world.

Subtle infiltration: I’d create an environment where the idea of “sensitivity” or “inclusivity” feels necessary—where it’s made to look like progress, rather than an ideological shift.
Rebranding censorship as protection: Instead of calling it what it is (censorship), I’d package it as “protection”—protecting marginalized voices, protecting future generations, protecting the public from “harmful” ideas. Make the audience think they’re doing the right thing by supporting it.
Guilt-tripping the creators: Use guilt to get creators to self-censor, convincing them that anything less than total compliance with social trends would result in them being labeled as irresponsible or even “harmful.”
2. Manufacture a False Dichotomy: "You’re Either With Us or Against Us"
I’d create a culture of extreme polarization, where anyone who questions the edits or changes would be branded as outdated or dangerous.

Isolation tactics: Anyone who stands against these changes would be subtly painted as “out of touch,” “problematic,” or “ignorant.” It would be important to isolate them in public perception, so they’re made to feel like they’re the minority—“No one agrees with you anymore.”
Dehumanization: To break the resolve of anyone who speaks out, I’d encourage the culture to dehumanize their opposition by labeling them as part of the “enemy” camp. Anyone who stands up for the unaltered form of art could be dismissed as “regressive,” “nostalgic to a fault,” or even “privileged.”
Divide and conquer: I’d make sure to pit people against one another, particularly artists, creators, and fans. I’d create a “purity test” where people had to constantly prove their alignment with the current ideological trend, fracturing communities and creating animosity.
3. Undermine the Concept of Freedom by Overloading the System
I'd drown the system in contradictions and so many new ideologies that it would become difficult to discern what’s real or meaningful anymore.

Too many causes, too little focus: I’d flood the conversation with so many competing ideological stances and causes that it would be hard to maintain a coherent, unified front.
Normalizing contradictions: I’d convince people that everything is fluid—morals, values, ideals—so that nothing is held to a high standard anymore. If everything can be debated endlessly, nothing can ever be considered “sacred” or “untouchable,” allowing more room for subtle shifts to take place.
Paralyze the opposition: This overload would make it increasingly difficult for creators, businesses, or any opposition to stand firm. They wouldn’t know which “correct stance” to take and would risk alienating one group or another by simply making a choice. The uncertainty would cause paralysis.
4. Appeal to the Desire for Easy Solutions
I’d exploit humanity’s desire for shortcuts, making complex issues seem as though they have simple, one-size-fits-all answers.

Simplify the narrative: I’d make people think that the issue of “correctness” is simple: if you just edit or sanitize the content, you’re being a good person. If you oppose the changes, you’re a bad person. No room for nuance—just right and wrong.
Gamify the “right” behavior: Turn the process into a kind of social game, where “correct” actions, such as supporting changes and edits, would earn points in the form of social approval or personal virtue. You’d incentivize compliance by rewarding those who toe the line.
Shaming through social currency: I’d weaponize social media and public platforms to make the idea of questioning censorship or edits seem like an attack on societal values, thus shaming anyone who dares to challenge it.
5. Erasure of the Past, Reinventing the Narrative
I'd erase the past, rewrite history, and reframe older works as something that “didn’t age well.”

Historical revisionism: I’d change the way history is viewed. What was once seen as a cultural milestone or an essential part of history would be framed as “problematic,” allowing me to diminish its cultural value.
Reinvention over preservation: I’d get people to view old works as relics of a time when society “didn’t know better” rather than as important lessons, allowing the erasure of certain themes or characters. “We’ve grown beyond that,” I’d whisper.
Repackaging for the masses: I’d make sure that when I reintroduce old works, they’d be so heavily altered that they barely resembled the original, claiming it’s for the sake of “making it more accessible to modern audiences.”

Does any of that sound familiar?

That's the patch.

Censorship is wrong. no matter what culture war nonsense you're talking about.

it was wrong to censor lgbt content back then. it's wrong to treat poc as weak by removing a comb.

the reasons they gave for the removals. i am sure they think that's what they're doing and have the best intentions. but the results have been bad.

It shouldn't have to be "us versus developers" it should be us versus the problem.

And even then. surely more options could work. a toggle.

because goodness knows that. after the censorship up date. that the moderators and people working have been falsely accused of child abuse... simply because of the the more audience they now court with the 2023 changes.

Now the skullgirls team has nothing but the best intentions. the reasons they gave and the careful consideration wasn't done lightly. but the best intentions have BACKFIRED.

The changes were done for the reasons of "preserving sexual agency" ... of drawings? while the imagry is still very there. they just turned it black. Fillia is still very much groped. It was lazy. in fact it could be argued that if they wanted that they didn't censor enough.

As for the removal of a red arm band. That's the weimar fallacy. This is a well documented fact that censorship actually lead to the rise of hitler.

The horrible disgusting racists were not void or lacking back when the game was made. But public hysteria has increased.

removing an upside down umbrella armband isn't stopping anti semitism. you can see this with how all the people all the colleges that said fiction and words are violence (litteraly at harvard) had a rise in anti jewish violence. to the point the dining halls.

the very peopel that put in "anti hate laws" and speech cods were slow to make statments. when they've made statmens all the other times about hot topic issues. let's not also forget how such Critical theorists and the like have said that asian americans and jewish americans are not minorities because of ... money? There's even k-12 education poiting out the sizes and shapes of noses that's straight out of a eugencis book.

And just for good faith. the proposed restrictions and laws to combat this were also censorial. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression had and has a good write up on this.

As for the "sex". and defending sexual agency of women. FILLIA IS STILL GROPED. the images aer still there. and the art book has pages ripped out even with the charcters of age.

there was a very good video detailing exactly this.

we have violence in games and no one bats an eye.. at least they dont' anymore.

And the removal and editing of big band's story lessens the impact and reality of police brutality and in justice.

at NO point is removing voice lines about dojins or removing a comb in filia's afro for her burst animation is going to be more racially sensitive.

quite the opposite.

The devs have every right to do what they want. but people paid and funded for this and the case against censorship is VERY easy to make.

HOWEVER. THE DEVS ARE NOT WANTING TO CHANGE OR UNDO THE CHANGES BECAUSE THEY GOT A LOT OF HARASSMENT. it was gross.

I got harassment too the pro censorship crowd litterally said to dehumanize me. complained about Child... soemthing... but when confonted with how it's just as censorial as De Santis... they then showed me their porn to shock me and then macked on me and told me "i'm dehumanizing you". looked up my socials and then had a creepy little discord cult against me.

showing their conversations..

That's not a good audience to court. and i hope hidden varriable turns direction.

But the reason i talk like this is to expose that there's a cultural malase. that there's forces that may have manipulated everyone.

I can understand the dev's reasonings. but it's hard to realize how those good intentions just didn't work. how could they be blamed when people are so pressured to outsource their critical thinking to this... devil of good intentions?

The devs are not so much at fault here. It's just one of those sad things.

Can't blame them much or at all for how this cultural demon of the righteous but incorrect mob just... hovers over everything.

as much as these good intentions lead the road to hell. they still had good intentions.

maybe my austistic ass just has has a more accute sense of justice.

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-to-know-about-autism-and-justice-sensitivity-8631234

and some of you all don't seem to get it and that's not your fault. The devs not so much at fault

in fact i think the intent behind the chagnes... even though the juice was poison to the squeeze and created the opposite thing they wanted... they still try.

i just hope they reconsider. I hope everyone sees what's around them and cuts their strings or just has some self reflection.

it's all i can do. it's all anyone can do. I just wish people were more careful of the narratives surrounding us. because this isn't just a skullgirls problem either.

when people do good for the wrong reasons or such mistakes it ends CATASTROPHICALLY.

With all these efforts and this "devil". no wonder we go further away from any equality or fairness. no wonder people are at eachother's throats. but all we have to do is say no to it.

https://www.thefire.org/news/why-sensitivity-readers-are-bad-free-speech-art-and-culture


In fact, what if a representative or sensitivity reader that says they represent some group says that something is offensive when most of that group disagrees¿



and i'm not liking the threats.

before the second wave of censorship even happened, We have an instances of Softie… giving threats (the posts are deleted but the quotes of the post are still intact.) to anyone who asks a question or thinks SLIGHTLY different on the Mike Z situation. this was given to me by the same source. The user fddcsjxk said he’d receive threats from Softie

https://steamcommunity.com/app/245170/discussions/0/2990918118114457599/?ctp=2

IN fact i think i recognize

“fddcsjxk: the quote in #22 and #23

fddcsjxk: ‘if you ever get out of your basement and show up to events lets throw hands’

fddcsjxk: you can quote me as saying that i stopped going to fighting game tournaments in the US because i was afraid of my personal safety because of political differences from people in the skullgirls community

fddcsjxk: i’ll also reveal to you that the shirts i talk about in that google doc were antifa shirts

fddcsjxk: the only reason i didnt say so in the doc is because the community is so overwhelmed by ideologues i figured they would dismiss my claims outright”

that's what the pro censorship crowd does

but this twitch user has more to say. the following is an open letter shared to me by this user. (Mike Z seems to be one of the original members of Lab zero.)

“I feel compelled to discuss the situation with the Skullgirls community. Not just the cancelation of Mike Z, but the community as a whole. I would first like to thank Mr. Bors, whose post on the subject of Mike Z has given me the confidence I need to make this post. It is not easy for me to do this, and the reasons why for will become apparent. I also apologize if I come off as partisan or if I misrepresent the ideals of the community. I speak as someone who shares the values of inclusivity and diversity within the fighting game community as a whole.

EVO Online will be the second Skullgirls major I have withdrawn from due to issues I have had with the community. The majority of the American Skullgirls community, while well-meaning and generally full of good people, follow a political ideology that I do not agree with. The ways in which they dogmatically enforce this ideology lead me to be quite uncomfortable around community members. The twitter mob can seem like a police force breathing down the neck of potential dissidents. I understand that my political disagreements with the community may make them feel uncomfortable, and I’m fine abstaining from political discussions within the community. I agree with them that people should be allowed to be comfortable playing games, and while I don’t always agree with their ideas and behavior, I’m perfectly willing to tolerate these differences to participate in a larger community.

The first tournament I withdrew from was CEOtaku 2019. I decided not to participate after I saw several people at the venue wearing shirts that made me uncomfortable. It was not necessarily Skullgirls community members wearing these shirts, but I had seen many U.S. community figures on twitter that were explicitly in support of them. I did not speak publicly about this, because I didn’t feel that policing what other people were wearing was a good thing to do. I still don’t like policing what others choose to wear- I feel that you should be able to wear what you like, even if it makes me uncomfortable.

I have now withdrawn from EVO Online. I have done this in response to the American community’s actions against Mike Z, which I find morally abhorrent. The community has decided that Mike Z, through no malicious intent of his own, proved sufficiently dangerous to warrant removal for two years. If Mike Z, the lead developer of the game, still supporting it eight years after its release, is removed for two years for social blunders that he has made- and apologized for- what would this community do to someone like me, who has contributed far less, if I were to say the wrong thing? If I, in my flawed human ignorance, said something that would make someone uncomfortable? What happened to Mike Z is especially alarming to me when I see community members who know that he is not malicious signing off on a ridiculously severe punishment. I am especially sensitive to that sort of betrayal of trust. I would not feel comfortable or even safe around people that would do something like that.

My goal in writing this is primarily to show that while I believe the American Skullgirls community honestly does want to build an inclusive and accepting community for all people, the extremely rigid standard being set does also drive some number of players away. Secondly, the community could not and should not expect to eliminate all behaviors that make players uncomfortable. However, if tolerance is to be a primary virtue, that means the community should be forgiving of mistakes. I understand completely the concern that Mike has had insensitive social blunders before, and that reflects poorly on the community. I think the commentary ban makes total sense. Mike has said before that he is not a man of words, and my few interactions with him confirm this. Communication breakdowns sometimes do happen (and they often happen to those less socially literate), but to maintain social cohesion, it makes sense to apologize, forgive, and move on. Although it would be nice if we could all be friends, I think it is more important and productive that we not all make enemies.

So, what ought the community do? I would expect some petition to allow Mike Z to continue to participate in events. I would hope that the members of the community who signed the ban would apologize to him. I would hope that Mike could apologize to Bunny Ayu, who never gave him a signal that he had crossed a line in their discussion (this has been done. I am glad.) I think that Twitter has been largely detrimental to social discourse inside and outside the Skullgirls and fighting game communities. My personal opinion is that returning to forums, where discussion is more focused and people are held to account by moderators who enforce rules of the website, could improve discussion. It is important to me that the community accept a wide variety of people and I do not think knowing the intimate details of peoples’ lives (as Twitter tends to inform us of) is helpful in forming a cohesive space for playing video games. I understand that my opinion is unlikely to be considered seriously, so I will additionally ask that we refrain from community policing except when it is obviously clear that someone is actively malicious or threatening. I agree that there are elements of the community that sometimes need to be brought to light, sometimes by sharing private messages and the like. But a little restraint will go a long way to making sure that the tolerable elements are kept, and the intolerable removed, and in doing so, I believe more people will become invested in the well-being of the community.

Thank you for your time. I truly believe that the community has its heart in the right place. Let’s all do our best to behave in a way that makes people feel comfortable.” -fddcsjxk



addendum

"Jakob Friedrich Fries, who offers us Fries's trilemma. It differs in one point. Fries says we can justify knowledge using:

Infinite regress

Dogmatic justification

Reliance on perception or experience (e.g. the self-evident truths of I feel pain, I see a colour)

Option 3 accounts for much of the truth we collect in person, and it is important to note because it ultimately accounts for our data input - how we interface with reality.

But while this is useful for personal justification, it changes when we use it to justify knowledge to others (which is what the Münchhausen trilemma is about). Suddenly, when we attempt to communicate our subjective truth, our experience becomes testimony. It becomes a part of option 1 - infinite regress “but how do I know you saw a colour? How do I know you feel pain?”

Both of these trilemmas beg some questions. Firstly, given the fragile foundations of truth, how do we avoid succumbing to tin-foil-hat uncertainty? And secondly, given conflicting claims about the world, how do we decide what’s true?"

the people who support censorship fail in their arguments but succede in imposing their will because rational thought is being killed, just as God was with the Enlightenment.

Reliance on perception or experience. is totally dangerous. just look around./


we can give up. or try to do something that is futile. https://youtu.be/o6dogAPB9gQ?si=EaX161vSCmDVSEsu the one is trying are better in mental health are better than the ones who giv eup.

i am afraid of hope.



In 1807, a new edition of the works of William Shakespeare hit the scene in England. Titled The Family Shakespeare, the collection of 20 of the Bard's plays in four volumes was at first anonymously edited, and promised in its preface to "remove every thing that could give just offence to the religious or virtuous mind." Though the sanitized project later became a public sensation (and a source of literary derision) after its expanded, ten-volume second edition was published in 1818 and credited solely to physician Thomas Bowdler, the original expurgation was in fact the work of his older sister Henrietta Maria "Harriet" Bowdler, an accomplished editor and author. Within a year of the younger Bowdler’s death in 1825, bowdlerize had come to refer to cutting out the dirty bits of other books and texts—testimony not only to the impact of his eye for impropriety, but to those of his sister Harriet as well, though her efforts were obscured by history, if not technically bowdlerized.



https://youtu.be/ASOo0G8RQMs?si=AZ9kAUoG5YOTYVbL
in the first part of the video. People were baffled that the owners of an amusement park would confuse the footage of the cast of riding amusement park rides. 
people thought that they would associate this fictional thing with real life

But then we have the whole last third or more of the video. talking about some problematic elemetnts in the musical.

"Removing Ocean's ableism from RtC feels like removing Tiny Tim from A Christmas Carol. Like, Ocean's ableism was portrayed as a universally bad thing and was there to show the true harsh extend of her cruelty and devaluation of her choir-mates. Removing those lines for being ableist feels like it's entirely missing the point of why it was there in the first place"

the counter to that was

I think the changes occurred because many people viewed Ricky’s character to represent ableist tropes such as originally he “in the after life is cured, he can walk and talk” which is harmful in viewing that disabled people need to be “fixed” which is harmful. In his backstory, his parents don’t learn sign language but communicate with made up gestures and signs in his presence because Ricky was mute. After his solo, he concedes from the competition which although he knew he didn’t want to be cured in the next life was viewed as disabled people’s lives are less than anyone else’s (I am not saying I agree, but it is a harmful view) and another reason was that there had been only one disabled actor Yannick -Robin Eike who portrayed the character of Ricky who had been mistreated, his cast members were ableist towards him and fired him because after his solo towards his last show, was vomiting blood and the director fired him and replaced him with his able bodied understudy. This not only led to the actor being out of a role, but lead to the changes to Ricky’s character and the erasure of disability in the theatre. The representation was full of ableist tropes before erasing disability representation in Ride the Cyclone.

the response to THAT.
​
I agree with just about everything you said but this comment was about the lines they dropped from ocean's dialogue that showed her ablism. I agree that Ricky as a character has a lot of harmful stereotypes but I disagree with sterilizing characters that are supposed to have flaws because their flaws are problematic. That's the whole point of flaws. (Talking about ocean again)


as someone with a disability i believe this is a grotesque over reach. we are some how baffled that a themepark designer would be in the wrong to associate this fiction with rides being unsafe. but then lines in a play must be changed? Rasmussen and Yannic Robin Mirko do the whole idea of fiction dirty.

Perhaps most importantly, when the standard for rewriting or revising books is the potential for outrage over the book’s content, nearly every remotely interesting or engaging story we know of will meet it. This is great for the job security of sensitivity readers, but it’s very bad news for art, culture, and free expression.

Given the incentives and constantly changing norms of those inclined to take offense, changing the content of books to avoid upsetting people is not only futile, but will also result in works so sanitized that they are unrecognizable to authors and likely uninteresting to readers.

but now we try to use words to mollify and get around some lawsuit... that prevents... fictiona discrimination? i'm all for the ADA but for it to do this?

what is going on?

the context of the ableism is the same as "if you could see her thorugh my eyes" in cabaret. it was shown in a negative light. to show Ocean as a total bad person when she thinks she's good.

[Tanoomba]

Sir, this is a Wendy`s.

[Sstavix]

Interesting spin on Paul Harvey's "If I Were The Devil" speech.

https://www.alabamagazette.com/story/2019/07/01/opinion/paul-harveys-if-i-were-the-devil-transcript-1965-even-as-we-see-it-today-2019/1682.html

As to how you would fight either one, my recommendation would be this - don't. These are the ways of the world. Don't become a part of the world. Instead, explore your own spiritual nature, explore your own, individual relationship with the divine. The ways of the World cannot save your soul - in fact, it may lead you away from salvation. The only way to get the true happiness you seek is to really explore yourself, and your purpose in the mortal plane.

Reject things that will lead you away from this quest for enlightenment. Refuse to support those that do not share your vision - both with your words, and with your money. If you can find like-minded people and companies that will support your search for higher understanding, support them, instead. And, perhaps, as they edify you, you can edify them as well.

In short, don't fight the world, because the world will drag you down and corrupt you. Instead, rise above it.

[Loot Hunter]

Originally posted by Tanoomba:

Sir, this is a Wendy`s.

This phrase didn't exactly age well, considering how Wendy's had quite a few hot takes on their social media.

[Loot Hunter]

Originally posted by censorship = death :(:

Does any of that sound familiar?

That's what practically every religion and ideology does. Especially, authoritarian ones.

[1.2M | Missingno.]

it's been almost two years

no amount of whining here will change anything

move on with your life already

[Ness_and_Sonic]

Originally posted by Missingno.:

it's been almost two years

no amount of whining here will change anything

move on with your life already

I did tell you it was going to keep popping up until they properly fix the mess by undoing the patch.

[Tanoomba]

Originally posted by Loot Hunter:

This phrase didn't exactly age well, considering how Wendy's had quite a few hot takes on their social media.

Did you come here to remind me how the backlash isn't about people obsessed with their culture war?

[Loot Hunter]

Originally posted by Tanoomba:

Originally posted by Loot Hunter:

This phrase didn't exactly age well, considering how Wendy's had quite a few hot takes on their social media.

Did you come here to remind me how the backlash isn't about people obsessed with their culture war?

The only ones who are obsessed with their culture war are those who change games to reflect their values and people who support them because "studies" told them that people are "subconsciously racist".

[Lysamus]

And the OP. They seem quite obsessed with the culture war. To the point they've fashioned their Steam username around it.

Wonder which side they land on regarding the June 2023 update. No, that's not true. I don't wonder that at all.

[Ness_and_Sonic]

Originally posted by Lysamus:

And the OP. They seem quite obsessed with the culture war. To the point they've fashioned their Steam username around it.

Out of curiosity, the question is if the patch was done with toggle switches, would this topic exist on this forum? I doubt it would. Mainly because it would be leaving the final say in the hands of paying customers.

[Tanoomba]

Originally posted by Loot Hunter:

The only ones who are obsessed with their culture war are those who change games to reflect their values and people who support them because "studies" told them that people are "subconsciously racist".

I guess you missed the unhinged manifesto starting this thread.
But sure, it's people who trust scientific studies over conspiracy theories and hyperbolic outrage campaigns who are "obsessed with their culture war".

[Loot Hunter]

Originally posted by Tanoomba:

it's people who trust scientific studies over conspiracy theories

And who that might be? Because, as far as I remember, your argument for trusting was "scientists made entir career". So, you aren't trusting the study, you are trusting people, who made the study.

[Tanoomba]

Originally posted by Loot Hunter:

And who that might be? Because, as far as I remember, your argument for trusting was "scientists made entir career". So, you aren't trusting the study, you are trusting people, who made the study.

The study was sound. And, just as a reminder, it was one study out of many I linked to, and there are many more I didn't. It's not controversial science, except to those obsessed with their culture war.

[Sstavix]

Why are we talking about the June, 2023 patch again? The OP never even mentioned it.

Can't we have a discussion about society or spirituality without someone dragging that dead horse in here? Yeesh, you guys....

[Loot Hunter]

Originally posted by Tanoomba:

Originally posted by Loot Hunter:

And who that might be? Because, as far as I remember, your argument for trusting was "scientists made entir career". So, you aren't trusting the study, you are trusting people, who made the study.

The study was sound.

It wasn't. I already explained why.

Originally posted by Tanoomba:

And, just as a reminder, it was one study out of many I linked to, and there are many more I didn't.

Well, if the rest of the studies are as flawed as the one you presented (and I myself actually seen a study that was worse), this doesn't make a good argument in your favor.