Well, using that argument, neither do you…does that mean we can dismiss your opinion as well?
Actually, artists being forced to censor themselves in response to government pressure has been a thing as long as there has been art. The term is “self censorship.” It’s a reason many artists who don’t have the patronage, popular support, government, or mainstream media backing that more popular artists do choose to remain anonymous. Many still do, even in spite of having any, most, or all of the forms of support mentioned above some still choose to remain anonymous, so they cannot be personally targeted for retaliation.
Because censorship is such an “lol” issue, along with the myriad of other repressive and human rights abuses carried out by that regime that this company is turning a blind eye to by taking such a pro censorship, anti women, body shaming move. Keep in mind the same censorship board they are caving to is the same one that banned Winnie the Pooh. And of course the same country that carries out numerous human rights abuses.
One again, the “ha ha boobs” argument completely misses the point.
This is about censorship, body shaming, and an anti women message that a company that is supposedly progressive caves on their principles to one of the worst human rights offenders out there because money is involved. This sends the wrong message: that it’s ok to sell out women (“you have to cover up your offensive bodies whenever a man says so!”), send a pro censorship message and compromise your principles if your paycheck is big enough.
for anyone that doesnt think this is about blizzard conforming to chinese censorship, do a google search on what they have already changed for the CCP.
…not to mention the slap on the wrist given to the win traders.
But Light forbid a woman shows “too much” skin! But so long as you have deep pockets, you can get away with nearly anything, and the rules don’t apply to you. Anyone else, they’d be shown the door and told what they could do with their misogyny, body shaming, and anti women stance.
the problem is dear kat that the whole hearthstone gaming community is not made of children however childish people may act, and should not be made to fit only them.
The whole “think of the children” argument is an awful excuse, if parents don’t want their kids playing hs there are other options.
Especially when it’s a smokescreen. The game’s been around for 5 years now, not counting the extensive playtesting and test market stuff it went through before it went live. This is 100% about caving to one of the worst human rights violating regimes out there with a pro censorship, anti women, body shaming message that would have led to a suspension for anyone who had asked for it on the forums.
But because the country in question has deep pockets, and team 5 and actiblizz want those deep pockets…all their so called principles regarding equality and fair treatment for women go out the window and we’re back in the dark ages again.
One has to wonder what other degrading and anti women moves would be made if someone with deep pockets demanded it…
There’s just so much wrong with what you’re saying… Not just this comment.
People are often mad and voice their opinion when stupid censorship occurs: skeletons, skulls, cigars. And yes, this includes censoring jainas tiny peek of cleavage, which is far more modest than many professional women I see in the workplace. It’s actually ridiculous.
Censorship is ok if you make a little more money. I suppose integrity isn’t something the new actiblizzard holds in high regard, but I’m surprised to hear this coming from regular citizens who have no stake.
By your comments though about the “censorship crowd comes out” it’s clear you have an ideology you strictly adhere to.
I vote with my pocket book. As of today (and a while back actually), ATVI is getting $0.00 from me yet I am costing them bandwidth, servers, employees, real estate, etc.
When they pivot back to the West and stop supporting the cheating Chinese (both mainland and Taiwan), I may consider giving them money again.
I’ll get on board with your censorship problem as soon as you prove it was done for censorship. But I don’t see that. Until then, I think the art actually looks better this way. And I prefer it to stay with multiple layers of clothing.
Edit: aww man. This was a dead thread. And you had to dredge it up again huh? And I wrote in it. Shudders
You are the one positing the theory that it wasn’t done for censorship. The burden of proof is on you to support your theory with the evidence for that theory.
This isn’t the first time a major software company has tried to go “universal” with their games in order to reduce costs, etc and one of the big ways to do that is to remove “offensive” elements so they can get past the censorship board of the country in question. The evidence for our position and the game in question where this was done previously are provided in the OP.
Clearly, team 5 and actiblizz have caved to a pro censorship, anti women, and misogynistic message in order to try and increase their profits. Which is disappointing, because in 2019, a company that supposedly is all about equality and supporting fair treatment for women will happily send anti women and body shaming messages in the hopes of getting more money.
Again, if a suggestion like this had come from anyone or a group of people on the forums, they would have been suspended or worse. But because people with money wanted this…women are treated as “less than.”
“the burden of proof is on you” - you are mistaken. It’s on you.
Here is how it works: Descriptive claim was made: “Blizzard added shirt to Jaina’s avatar”, and here is a normative claim: “it was done because Blizzard WANTED to censor it” - you attribute intention to action, therefore YOU have to prove it. I don’t have to prove that it wasn’t the case, just as I don’t have to prove that they didn’t do it for the glory of satan. Do you understand?
In simple words: you have to prove that something is the case (blizzard wants to censor x), but you can’t prove a contrary statement, since if it indeed isn’t the case, the evidence would be in fact the lack of evidence.
The original art was censored. There is nothing to prove. The before and after images are in the OP. Unless you are making some bizzaro claim that no censorship has taken place…which it seems you are.
Your theory: “no censorship has taken place” requires you to prove your claim. Since the obvious truth is that the original artwork has been modified (quite obviously to anyone who looks at it). It is clear that they changed it. The fact that you are claiming your “evidence” is a lack of evidence shows you have nothing to stand on.
Yes, I used “modify” and “change.” Since the definition of censorship are provided above (scroll up several posts), I’ll let you scroll up to read it. Clearly, the art in question was censored (the “offensive” cleavage), which is tamer in comparison than any one of the photo shoots done by any of the models in their country. As other games have done in the past to save costs for a universal release, and to get past the censorship board for the country in question.
For a suggestion that, had it come from anyone or a group of people on the forums, they would have been suspended or worse. But because people with money wanted this…women are treated as “less than.” All to send a pro censorship, anti women, body shaming, and misogynistic message in order to try and increase their profits. All to appease one of the worst human rights violators out there.
“Unless you are making some bizzaro claim that no censorship has taken place…which it seems you are.” - Please point to which exact words do you think imply that I stated my opinion anywhere. Now you’re attributing intention to me, that’s just another fallacy.
I simply pointed out that your logic is flawed.
“The original art was censored” - again, that’s attributing intention to action. You can make just as sound of a claim that it was changed because it makes sense that a character wears t-shirt, as you could make a claim that it was done for censorship reasons. Unless you can provide evidence that’d point towards your theory (like quoting Blizzard’s representative saying they did it for that reason), the intentions behind the action remain unknown. Saying “adding clothes = censorship” is a huge fallacy, a stinky non sequitur. You conflate the action of adding clothes with censorship, which is laughable, honestly. Is reskinning champions in League of Legends (or any other game) that result in different areas of body being covered a censorship? By your logic of it, it is.
We’re not arguing whether the artwork has been changed or not, since it’s obvious, but your mistake is attributing moral judgement to it and claiming that it should be there by default.
Since your whole argument is based on that fallacy, none of it is valid.
I’m not gonna scroll up to read anything, I know what censorship is: it’s a suppression of expression for the sake of the greater good. The crucial part that you don’t seem to acknowledge here is “for the sake of the greater good”, and you just assume that any change done for whatever reasons is censorship.
I know I’m repeating myself, I just want it to be very clear.
And just so you don’t put words in my mouth again, let me say that I don’t claim anything about what has happened. I simply point out your fallacies.
No, it’s a statement of fact. Look at the original image. Then look at the new one. It was altered. You are confusing motivation with the act itself. That is your fallacy.
No, it isn’t. It would be no different than the Louvre “editing” out the smile on the Mona Lisa. It would be called censorship and rightly so. It would also be called defacing artwork, and the arguments made about feminism would be brought up in the course of the discussion.
Are they being done to appease the censorship board of the country in question, as past games have? Just as other publishers have done, for the “universal” release in order to cut publishing costs? Clearly, the answer is yes then.
Well, clearly you DO need to scroll up and read the definition. Because you attribute moral motivations to the action of censorship where none exist. It simply requires the act to have taken place.
Of course not. What is your position on this issue? Do you support body shaming, misogyny, and censorship? This isn’t a morally neutral issue.
I like how you conveniently ignored parts that’d make you question your thought process.
Anyway, “You are confusing motivation with the act itself” - I mean… that’s EXACTLY what you are doing. Wasn’t I clear enough before? Let’s try it again:
the act: Blizzard added shirt to Jaina avatar. Your conclusion: it’s censorship. The fallacy: the conclusion that x is censorship does not logically follow from the fact that x has been changed, it’s non sequitur, SINCE x could have been changed for a multitude of reasons. (Even the provided by you definition of the word “censorship” does contain the assumption of motivation of the act, you can’t just autistically apply it to any change done whatsoever, again, context is crucial).
If you don’t understand it, I don’t think there is any point discussing it further.
Intentions of the art change aside, which we don’t even know, I don’t get what all the fuss is about. The old art was just tacky and oversexualized like most of Blizzard’s character designs. If you are this desperate just google “Anime tiddies” or watch a top-ranking female HS streamer.
![:thinking:](https://dacy5cilkxabf.cloudfront.net/en/hearthstone/images/emoji/twitter/thinking.png?v=6" ":thinking:")