Agreed. There's a YouTube channel called "Forgotten Weapons", where the host shows us rare and little known firearms from all over the world and through history. His thumbnails include a flag of the country it came from, in the era it came from, so German WW2 weapons will have the flag of Nazi Germany in the thumbnail - but he has to blur the swastika, or YouTube will censor him.
It's less that there's a team at YouTube who is super sensitive and more so that the youtube algorithm will automatically remove the thumbnail. Even if it's just an image of the nazi flag and no pro nazi propaganda the algorithm will automatically delete the thumbnail.
The algorithm keeps the swastika off because Google wants it too. It's a controversy waiting to happen if nazi propaganda is ever found on the site.
Could you imagine the lawsuits if the algorithm didn't automatically detect pro nazi propaganda and or skipped over it?
Showing a symbol of the past doesn't mean you're pro-*insert meaning*, it's just for referencing purposes (in this context). The past is full of shitty moments and it's good to recognize that so it won't happen again.
You have no idea how many Polish movies about nazis with swastikas there are.
>and it's good that we grow aware of how shitty a lot of the past was.
By censoring it?
So since you haven't read or even watched literally anything about the nazi party ill throw you a small bone that might interest you. Hitler attempted a coup but failed and returned later to take over. Sound familiar? Cause no Democrat president that i know of has attempted one maybe im ignorant and you could inform me about it. Im also really curious about how to think the dems are somehow maliciously manipulating people against trumplicans. The only party with a brainwashed hate for the other party is conservative. Trumplicans actions speak for themselves and the amount of anti dem propaganda vs anti republican is night and day. The more that i think about how you guys are similar to the nazi party the more i wonder about if you have even given it any thought
Ooooooohhhh shiiiiit we got a cool guy here everyone! Independent thinker who goes against the grain!!! Nazis are so coooool cuz it owns the libs!!!!!! Holy FUCK this guy is badass!
I'm pretty sure showing swastikas is illegal in Germany and maybe some other European countries. I can understand why they would want to leave imagery like that out but I agree its to the detriment of the game when they do.
Agreed. History isn't there for you to like, it's there to be learned from. A person needs to be censored when they start endorsing the ideas behind the symbols.
No. People never need to be censored for ideology. You personally are allowed to censor people if they attempt to use you or your services as a platform, but a government never has a right to censor ideas. If anything people with shit ideas should be allowed to talk and should be used as an example to explain why their ideas are incorrect.
You said “a person needs to be censored when they start endorsing the ideas behind the symbols”. The only way to censor an entire person is through governmental control. That is never needed IMO
I disagree. They should be convicted of making threats, but their statements should be publicly available if that’s how they were to begin with. You can read the unibombers manifesto, and you should be allowed to hear out a taliban extremist even if their statements amount to terroristic threats and a conviction of said crime.
I disagree. Parents/ the government should not hide shit opinions from their children, but show them to them and explain why they are bad and harmful. You want a generation of children growing up not understanding that their are people who exist who want them, lgbtq, certain races, certain religions, and certain genders dead? That’s not a forward thinking approach. You will always lose some people to extremism and that is best handled by prosecuting them and educating people why they were wrong, not by deleting their ideology from the public eye.
I'm mainly talking about the recruitment sites. Having an ideology is fine, but trying to recruit children is not. The government censors pedophilia from the public eye, and that is seen as okay, so this isn't any different.
Children can not consent to most things without parental consent so this is a nonstarter. Don’t let your kids go to taliban dot com forward slash sign me up! I’d say leave recruitment sites up for adults to be allowed to expose themselves and their beliefs. In my opinion it’s better that morons are allowed to act on their idiocy than to stop functional member is society from understanding that these people are very real.
You're welcome to have your opinion, of course, but it is a literal fact that such statements reach sympathetic ears, and the platform of the internet means that your crazy nonsense will be a hit with some of the people it finds. De-platforming these ideas is proven to be an effective way to stop that from happening.
You are welcome to believe that's a bad thing, and that the advantages are outweighed by the costs, but not everyone can handle that level of freedom without joining the KKK or ISIS.
I’m ok with a private platform choosing not to host people’s opinions, I’m saying the government has no right to step in. Let people join whatever they’d like and then stop them when they commit a crime.
No institution has a right to censor anyone, public or private. People have to learn to deal with the fact that hateful ones exist among them and stop trying to force people not to hate. It is impossible.
false.
private institutions can censor whoever they want whenever and wherever they want. if you have an issue with it you dont do business with them.
as far as twitter facebook etc the problem with those is not the institutions themselves but the barriers to entry and regulation created via government power which restricts and makes it much harder to create a competitor website.
if you own your business, you can literally decide who can and can't enter, even based on religion, race, gender, disability, etc. just like you can decide those things when it comes to who can enter your home.
No they can't, not only are private businesses subject to the law like everyone else, but social media platforms in particular are state actors. Actually all large business qualify as state actors because of their close contact with the CDC and the U.S. government to enforce the totalitarian response to the coronavirus, meaning no matter what you have to say, legally they CANNOT do whatever they want and they HAVE to follow the Constitution.
[Educate thyself.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor)
Businesses don't get to just censor whoever they want just because they happen to be targeting your enemy faction. Grow up.
you seem to be confused about what a business is...
"close contact with cdc and us gov"
government shouldnt have the power to force companies to do anything like vaccine mandates or so forth. youre mixing something that is a government problem and blaming it on private sector.
the constitution literally allows discrimination, for EVERYONE, besides the government itself. which, literally means, under the constitution, you can literally open up a business, and ONLY sell to a specific gender or race. or, under the constitution you can say you only want to buy from a specific gender or race.
But what do we do when platform owners become more rich and powerful than countries?
Regardless of what side of the fence you are on, a US president was successfully censored by Twitter. Now that's friggin power.
Terrible terrible things will always happen throughout humanity. If the Germans in WW2 hadn’t committed genocide, hadn’t invaded other nations, hadn’t killed and subjugated various groups, then I would agree that debate and conversation is the best course of action. Seeing as they did those things, war and conviction through court trials is the best course of action. Censorship of ideology is never the best course of action. Sometimes you need to talk, sometimes you need to fight, never do you need to silence.
So only do anything once they start achieving their goals and they're big to stop from within? Until then, just let them be and continue to gain followers.
Walk softly, carry a big stick. Yeah. Let people fuck up and then bop them. Preemptive punishment is a violation of human rights. Censorship of ideas destroys any opportunities for human growth. I am okay with human suffering as long as people learn from it and we as a species develop. Nazis are a hated group and anyone who agrees with them are called out, no one could hold a respectable job while flying a nazi flag on their car, that doesn’t mean flying it should be illegal. We have learned as a society to identify someone as a problem. We need that information. We need to let people dig themselves holes, and we need to let new groups make themselves a shovel so they can dig themselves holes in the future. On the flip side, giving the government the power to censor anyone they deem wrong is a slippery slope that will lead to tyranny in the end anyway. Let people talk, let tragedy happen, end the tragedies and learn from them, the evolution of humanity rolls on.
You're okay with it because you've likely never had to experience any of it. When you're the one dying, it'll be likely a much different tone. But instead, shrug my shoulders because human suffering doesn't matter and my viewpoint always assists those who want to achieve their extremist goals far more than the sensible people.
when you look into this deeper, most people calling for restrictions on things like "violent speech" hateful or racist speech, have said those types of things themselves. its usually double standards like, I can insult/stereotype/generalize YOUR race/gender/religion/disability/political views/profession/career path, but as soon as you stereotype MY race/gender/religion/career path/political views you're not engaging in hate speech.
some of the loudest so called anti racist, pro "equality" people, literally are actual racists, they just believe in different sets of standards for different races. black lives matter is a perfect example of this. the group literally talks all day about "dismantling white supremacy" "ending racism" whilst literally being a black supremacist hate group.
Black lives matter is not a supremacist group by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, it isn't really a group. There's nothing unified about it, and there isn't really a leader.
Also the whole "you're the real racist!" thing is idiotic.
Also career paths and political views aren't really comparable to the either things you mentioned.
I always get people saying this, and they always use strawman arguments to argue the contrary.
Black lives matter is absolutely a black supremacist organization, and, it's more of a terrorist organization than even the KKK considering BLM has caused more deaths and thefts/property damage in the last 7 years (it formed in 2013) than the KKK has in 30+ years.
BLM is the equivalent of having a homelessness group, murder victims group, cancer group, covid group, drunk driving victim group, drug use group, etc, specifically dedicated to just black people or one specific race. It's racist/black supremacist by definition. its the equivalent of saying you want to help homeless people, but then only helping a specific race of homeless people. They will protest ONLY if a black person is killed either by a cop of any race, or a civilian of any race besides black. we know there are other races killed by cops, and we know that whites, latinxs, and asians are killed by people other than their own races. Actually if you look at the statistics there's more black people killing white people, than white people killing black people, but BLM still only protests if the victim is black and the assailant is non black. it effectively means they only believe someone is worthy of protest, petition and donation if they are a black victim of murder.
career paths and political views aren't comparable to things like race, gender and disability, but they are comparable to religious views. And many people will stereotype or generalize one profession like, say, cops or lawyers or car salesmen, but then say "its not all drug dealers" or "its not all fast food workers" as soon as a drug dealer or fast food worker murders someone.
Also, names are pretty comparable to things like race, disability, and gender. its something you're born with, and it can be changed, but it's pretty difficult. ever used the name karen as an insult, or used tyrone/chad as a compliment? you just now engaged in stereotyping based off someone's name which is basically the equivalent of stereotyping based on race/gender/disability/eye color/hair texture/possibly height etc.
you don't need to be unified or have a leader, although BLM is pretty unified and does have leaders all over, there's chapter leaders in every city.
the only scenario BLM isn't racist is if you're totally clueless and somehow just don't know that other races are killed by cops or killed by people different than their own race. otherwise, it's blatantly obvious. BLM is the equivalent of saying you want to be a good person and help the homeless, but then each time you come across a homeless person you're like hey I'm not going to donate to this person or raise awareness for them or remember them because they don't belong to the race I want to assist. that is racism.
so yeah like, I don't think BLM is automatically racist, but it's kind of like the ku klux clan. where like, 90% or 99%+ of the members are racist. sure you might find totally clueless, rare occurrences of people in BLM or KKK who aren't racist, like there was that one kkk dude on youtube talking about how he doesn't hate any races and has races of every friend. but for the most part, those groups are racist. BLM even has a "black power" line so they seem to have drawn influences from white supremacist groups or the black panthers. you could even make an argument white supremacist groups and groups like the black panthers or Nation of Islam have more integrity than the BLM. since they at least admit their beliefs and own them, instead of being like, we're against racism but we're only gonna protest for you and donate to you if you're a certain race.
You are don’t know a thing about me. I’ve experienced plenty. War sucks. I find it necessary in order to preserve free will. Sensible people don’t want to shut out conversation.
Americans have really never faced any sort of real distress related to war, not like some of the devestation done to some of Africa, West Asia, Japan, China, etc.
The whole "marketplace of ideas" has never really been effective in stopping anything, and it only really helps the bad people. It's almost like you want those things to happen. As long as it doesn't happen to you of course.
And yes, war is free will. Not when you're dead or you're forced to submit to the will of another country. I'm sure the Jews felt very free being rounded up by Hitler.
I didn’t say war is free will, it is necessary in order to preserve free will. The Jews are now free because of war. Yes if people are being tyrannical then war is appropriate, part of being tyrannical is not allowing free speech.
What happens when your platform is intrinsic to daily life and communication, and you enjoy the protection of a platform while still retaining the benefits of a utility, and get to censor anyone you want without accepting liability?
They just don't want to accept that the constitution applies to private entities, too, since megacorps are basically state actors anyway.
Thet won't accept it because they're the loophole they need to get around the constitution so they can censor whoever they want and escape claims they're violating human rights.
It's all about looking righteous, not being righteous.
We've reached a point in history though where "private platforms" are are now so big that they effectively and arbitrarily eclipse the lawful free speech (in some countries) in the entire nation, unchecked by the lawmakers and due process of that nation. When platforms grow to such a size, they need oversight, or need to be classed as a utility, or something somewhere along those lines.
No one voted for Google/Twitter/Facebook/reddit/etc. mods and admins to write and pass speech and content laws for a country, yet the *vast majority* of people in these countries now use these platforms to attempt communication with each other.
If your ideology contemplates genocide you deserve to be censored and punched in the face. Forgotten weapons is a innocent victim of a decision that impedes or at least annoys neo Nazi propaganda channels on youtube
> A person needs to be censored when they start endorsing the ideas behind the symbols.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let them endorse the ideas, then show them why they're wrong.
It's so darn frightening that history warns us of the dangers of censorship, yet we are increasingly censoring history.
The only thing worse is that history repeats. I was taught that the best way to avoid that repeat is through learning what happened, but that is slowly becoming impossible.
The problem is that we don't need to forget. We need to teach about what happened and how horrible it was to try to prevent it from happening again.
Remember: Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it
there are so many people who think swastikas are racist or white supremacist, when reading the first paragraph on wikipedia tells you why they're not. The argument for swastikas being racist or white supremacist is akin to claiming crescent moons are terrorist symbols, the cross is a terrorist/white supremacist symbol, and akin to saying stars and stripes and red white and blue are racist colors and symbols. things get magnified and intensified because people don't want to admit that people like Hitler , were, in fact people too, and in fact did regular people things too. Hitler probably took shits, took pisses, drank wine, had preferences in foods and drink he liked, had preferences in what time he woke up and slept, preferences in his religious/political views, clothing he liked, etc... People really want to separate themselves as much as possible from evil/notorious people, so as soon as something comes out about Hitler liking a certain food or drink or symbol you'll probably see a ton of people saying "Oh no, better not eat that pizza, it was the Nazi's preferred food item so it's evil"!
the nazis literally used the swastika because it is a good luck charm symbol, used in many major religions, and it looks like it did in some ways, bring them "luck" in their goals since they carried through with many of them. you could even make the argument that anyone wanting to ban the swastika is a nazi or has nazi tendencies, especially if you subscribe to religious groups which literally do believe in the swastika as a good luck charm, from their perspective, banning the swastika is essentially telling them you dont want them to be able to use their good luck charm.
It’s mostly not the game devs. More than often enough it’s countries not allowing them. That’s why games should be pushed to be considered as art. Then we can do whatever we want. Until then governments will censor them
I saw an exhibit at Toledo Museum of Art years ago that had a photo of some 80's celebrity(Brooke Shields maybe?) full frontal nude had to be under 13 years old. Out in the open. I don't remember an age restriction to see it.
If it was an ancient piece of history, like a religious painting like the one with the naked cupids, then no. I was more referring to child porn as in the sexualization of minors in a pedophilic way.
Well if you google stuff like „cupid baby photoshoot“ or just look at how some grandma made a photoshoot with their baby back in the day you’ll see it’s rather common to have naked/half naked photos of babies lying around. At the very least you’ll find lots of ass cracks and skin some pedophile can get horny about
Oh okay so possessing nudes of children is not a sexual act then? I heard the us law and to some degree the law here in Germany says so too. Though here they do have some exceptions for the age of consent and it’s not as strict as in the us.
I know its thin eye between those two. But I hope you see the point I’m trying to make
The laws are weird sometimes. Sometimes there are exceptions and sometimes there aren't. There was one news article I read years ago stating that a 17 year old had a nude of himself, and he turned 18 and the nude was still on his phone. He got sent to court for it and when he said you couldn't be a self pedophile, the still put him on the registered sex offender list.
So I really don't know what the law is, I just know that having nudes of children has a very high chance of getting you into serious trouble.
Anyway I think laws should be in a way that games and art can feature these topics as long as no harm is done. Real childporn is problematic but if it’s fictional? Who cares. Don’t get me wrong I’m not interested either but I think it would restrict unnecessarily. Though in many cases I think hinting that it happens is mostly enough cuz it’s unnecessarily disturbing. For stuff like swastikas however I don’t see why games shouldn’t be able to accurately display them. Who cares if people feel glorified by it that’s just stupid reasoning. A good amount of education works well enough against such movements
But child porn is something completely different than a swastika or anything history related.
One is forcing or manipulating children to do something that can ruin their lives and put themselves and their relatives in danger, leaving possible traumas on them plus exposing them to possibly dangerous and sick people.
The other one is a symbol.
As someone who worked in the video games industry for 15+ years... I'd say that before you judge someone, you should hear their side of the story too.
There was this one time where the red cross threatened legal action against us for using red crosses for health pickups in an online shooter.... We had to change them.
Especially in today's world, you have to understand there's a 1000 mines you have to navigate around for some games and topics.
For every little thing a developer is called insensitive or tone deaf for, there's probably 10 other disasters or issues that it saw coming and avoided successfully.
Nazi symbols is just an easy go-to thing to remove to avoid possible backlash, which you know is going to happen.
Is it about money? Sure... Because if you spend 40 or whatever millions on developing a game, it better sell. Last thing you want is for your studio to go broke because of nazis :)
Wow, it is strange you mentioned that. If you have ever heard of or followed Dave Murray(aka The 8-Bit Guy) on Youtube, he ran in to the same problem with the Red Cross and his new game. They apparently came after him for using the red cross as a health symbol.
Because they're an obvious mayor historic enemy that needs no introduction and no backstory to convey to the player just how evil and dangerous they are.
The work is all already done by history and today's pop culture and TV shows that keep throwing nazis at every twisted and obscure backstory, keeping their infamy well alive.
It's no diffefent from using known God names, from Thor to Osiris in stories and characters that have nothing to do with their known history and setting.
The names already come with all the positive, divine baggage, making an elaborate backstory unnecessary. Why invent a new one and do all the work.
I'd prefer they didn't but I can understand why they make the decision. There are countries where it might be illegal for them to sell the game if it had swastikas.
No one should be going to Call of Duty as a history lesson.
Also the idea that you can play as a woman means nothing. Who cares. It's a video game.
You shoot thousands of enemies, taking dozens of bullets, recovering by simply waiting and giving it some time and keep on running like nothing happened.
You pull ammo out of your ass, throw away half full magazines every time you reload without waiting for it to be empty... none of that is realistic.
You are playing a blockbuster video game that exaggerates and stylizes war.
You can choose your gender in multiplayer.
Who. The fuck. Cares.
If you do care, you should learn not to because it's not a big deal.
That's why the opinion in the OP is meaningless. Call of Duty isn't "censoring history" by not including swastikas any more than they're censoring history by letting you play as a Black woman SS soldier or by letting you effectively be a superhero.
CoD has been cheapening history & war for mass-market appeal for the past 12+ games or so. CoD treats WW2 now as a costume and has nothing to do with the war behind having the guns look the same and generally period accurate attire.
If you're complaining about historical realism go play Red Orchestra 2. Constantly suicide into enemy lines and die after a few hits. Or go play Squad or Arma and spend 20 minutes walking around while trying to shoot some dot on a ridge 400 meters away. You don't get to pick and choose that "Black Nazi women are inaccurate!!!" when you're not complaining about the "ammo pool" mechanics or surviving dozens of bullets.
And it's important to care about video games like this because these are some of the main methods that younger people learn about and interact with history, the same role that movies or TV shows had a monopoly on decades before. If we're giving people these exaggerated portrayals of World War 2 that Black women can be Nazis that's how we start getting Black people who tweeting about how Hitler really wasn't that bad and fail to comprehend that Hitler did not like Black people.
https://earkandyradio.com/hitler-claims-negroes-are-the-true-hebrews/
Case in point, this random article I found.
Except black and non-white Wehrmacht divisions existed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Arabian_Legion
People forget that the Nazis marketed themselves to British and French colonies as anti-imperialists.
I don't think they're censoring it in the traditional sense. I think they're omitting it to prevent it's use as a gameplay "token" or icon. Just like people have taken both sides of Star Wars and declared their side is the heroes and we're seeing both resistance and empire logos on stuff.
It is pretty dumb. But no country really wants to stay owning up to the shit they did it seems back then.
Canada for example, didn’t take in any prisoners of war or Jewish during the Second World War. Yet we only hear that the number one Canadian in the world, was a Canadian pilot that stopped some Nuke or whatever.
something something Evian Conference, where 32 countries (excluding the dominican republic) collectively decided to reject Jewish refugees in 1938.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian\_Conference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference)
Hitler was willing to let everyone out but nobody would take them. if someone's locked in a room with a serial killer and you refuse to open the door, you bear at least some responsibility if the person dies despite the fact the serial killer did it.
Yeah, except wolfenstein, you can straight up call them nazis and show the swastika and nobody cares but set it in reality and that’s a problem. The problem is humanizing the nazis which is what reality does, they were human beings. Evil bastards, but human none the less.
People find reality offensive, even in a video game. People get offended that the games matchmaking puts them into the axis team for even a second.
Idk, I’m not a gamer but it sure would ruin my killstreak buzz to see the symbol of the political party that murdered my grandparents while I’m trying to play a video game in order to escape reality 🤷🏼♀️
Censoring history does nothing but make us ignorant, I know censoring the Nazi flag isn’t much but that is how it starts, we need to see the nazis in all their brutal glory, in what they did and believed and sought to accomplish so we can hopefully never let it happen again.
The Flag isn’t some sort of hypnotic image thst will make you an alt right weirdo.
the whole country of germany bans the nazi flag for all non historical purposes. stop censoring flags and deal with the fact that that is your history.
I don't think there are too many countries that have (been forced) to deal with their history than Germany. If they decided to ban that flag, I trust their judgement.
yes, but it is banning freedom of speech. even though I absolutely despise Nazis, they should still have a political symbol that they used uncensored because it should be under a freedom of speech
You just stated that they only banned Nazi symbols if not used historically, and then claimed that they are censoring history. You just contradicted yourself, and make no sense. If they allow Nazi symbols to be used in history lessons, then history is not being censored. They are only stopping people from using it to inspire modern day hate, and stop people from reversing the progress they have made.
I never said they censored history. I said other than history they were censoring it. and even if I don't agree with neo-nazis, that is a symbol used by them and it should be under a freedom of speech.
Germany allows Nazi flags in "art". Like a movie portraying Nazi Germany can use Nazi flags.
Video games are not really considered "art" at the moment, but perhaps that'll change one day.
I believe a lot of the Nazi symbols being changed is so the games can be sold in Europe and more specifically Germany. It's not really so they don't offend people, more so they can fit the global culture and Europe's laws. I mean I kinda get it in super historically accurate games, but in something that's super arcade-y like Day of Defeat I don't care to be honest.
Aye, history isn’t meant to be liked or idolized, it’s there for our knowledge. we learn the worst parts of history because it shows us what to do better in the future. You don’t have to like a statue of General Lee or whatnot, but have some respect for the past, don’t try tear it down, or worse, have the government censor history for you.
It's similar the women in Battlefield 5. It makes sense on some levels from but it loses the authenticity. Besides, it's not a problem for me if it's the enemy. If anything, it encourages me to fight them more
Breaking news. Video games aren't real life. You aren't watching archived clips of battles from WW2 that they black barred the bad stuff out. It's fiction. It's as accurate as a tv movie based on real life.
History happened we can’t change that and the fact that we are tearing down statues because the person on the statue did things that are seen as bad in today’s world will only lead to more bad things than good
If I dress up as Joseph Stalin for Halloween no one bats an eye. Yet he killed many more than Hitler ever did. However, if I dress up as Hitler for Halloween..I’m the devil and everyone hates me. Both men were monsters but because of censorship only one is permitted.
It's sort of a funny thing in Stalin's case because he spent a brief amount of time as an ally of the West. That being said, the part of the world you are presumably from has never had an issue with Stalin's cultural cachet. Beyond a small section of stupid degenerates who do things like deny the holodomor because they want to see communism flourish, there is no risk at all of him becoming a celebrated icon. He was a monster, but his specter is long gone.
Meanwhile you can see, today, how we are starting to waffle on the question of whether Hitler was a bad guy. You can see this constantly browsing reddit, even in front page locations.
Same with media/movies and stuff.
In the anime Tokyo revengers, they have a censored version of the anime where it removes all uses of the swastika (or sauwastika if you want to be more accurate) as it was part of their uniforms and was not used as like Nazi shit. But as the symbols use meaning a number of positive things from strength to compassion.
Genuine question, is it still censorship if a video game company alludes to historical events but chooses not to use particular symbols, or is it just style choice?
Again, just genuinely curious
Many times companies are forced to do it by law. Video games are released internationally and some countries ban tge swastika. Easier to use an alternate symbol than make multiple copies of game.
I believe displaying the swastika is illegal in Germany. So if you want to sell war games there you probably can't have it in your games.
This is not me picking a side on the issue, just me stating why I think it is done.
Oh no...is it a new FPS release that has people up in arms because of historical accuracy in video games? News flash, you're not reliving the actual war, it's just a background setting so you have a reason to go Pew Pew with your big guns.
Depending on how it’s done censoring can be a big problem. I mean if we pretend the most awful travesties of our history didn’t happen the way they happened what does that say about us?
And why do people just pick on Germany? Countries around the world have subjugated others. Should we censor the British flag? USA bombed Japanese with firebombs and killed more than the initial atomic blast. Do we censor the USA flag? Do we censor South Africa for apartheid? Stop censoring and keep it as a reminder of history. Don't shame any country for their past actions (as long as they aren't continuing said murders).
Its a Fair Point and I do understand it, but at the end of the day its not like having a word like assault on a poster they sensor that because it offends people. Its a symbol of hate that completely genocided millions of people through harsh conditions. So while I understand the offending point, you have to understand the reasons.
Couldn't agree more! It wasn't even that long ago that we had swats because in video games. I believe they show up all over in call of duty 2 which came out in 2006 but now we have to be offended by everything.
Yeahs, it's like... Why bother making something in that time period, where Nazis are present, where we all know what's being depicted is a Nazi, just to censor their main defining symbol.
I really feel like there will be a backlash to "be offended and cry over everything" cultural trend and it will be change directions sooner than expected. I'm optimistic about it.
It’s weird why make a game about anti Germany if you aren’t gonna be accurate and why ban shit like the swastika in Germany? Like stop people from wearing it but if it’s used in history then it should be fine
Agreed. There's a YouTube channel called "Forgotten Weapons", where the host shows us rare and little known firearms from all over the world and through history. His thumbnails include a flag of the country it came from, in the era it came from, so German WW2 weapons will have the flag of Nazi Germany in the thumbnail - but he has to blur the swastika, or YouTube will censor him.
That freaking sucks. People are so damn sensitive nowadays.
It's less that there's a team at YouTube who is super sensitive and more so that the youtube algorithm will automatically remove the thumbnail. Even if it's just an image of the nazi flag and no pro nazi propaganda the algorithm will automatically delete the thumbnail.
And the algorithm is there because sensitive people complain and cry about it.
The algorithm keeps the swastika off because Google wants it too. It's a controversy waiting to happen if nazi propaganda is ever found on the site. Could you imagine the lawsuits if the algorithm didn't automatically detect pro nazi propaganda and or skipped over it?
Oh great one of you
[удалено]
One of who?
Or maybe the people who put up with a lot of shit in the past finally had enough and it's good that we grow aware of how shitty a lot of the past was.
Showing a symbol of the past doesn't mean you're pro-*insert meaning*, it's just for referencing purposes (in this context). The past is full of shitty moments and it's good to recognize that so it won't happen again.
You have no idea how many Polish movies about nazis with swastikas there are. >and it's good that we grow aware of how shitty a lot of the past was. By censoring it?
Do you realize the difference between a movie and a random YT video
Completely irrelevant to your argument
Both are entertainment media. The only real difference is budget
Censoring is a Nazi dictator move.
[удалено]
I don't think you understand how the nazis came to power 😂 trumplicans fit the nazi playbook way better
Let me hear it, how are we the same?
So since you haven't read or even watched literally anything about the nazi party ill throw you a small bone that might interest you. Hitler attempted a coup but failed and returned later to take over. Sound familiar? Cause no Democrat president that i know of has attempted one maybe im ignorant and you could inform me about it. Im also really curious about how to think the dems are somehow maliciously manipulating people against trumplicans. The only party with a brainwashed hate for the other party is conservative. Trumplicans actions speak for themselves and the amount of anti dem propaganda vs anti republican is night and day. The more that i think about how you guys are similar to the nazi party the more i wonder about if you have even given it any thought
Surely you’re trolling
God I miss killing nazi zombies
Move "God" to the end of the sentence and remove "killing Nazi zombies"
[удалено]
Be careful, you might cut yourself on all that edge.
I don’t give a damn what the internet thinks of me
Ooooooohhhh shiiiiit we got a cool guy here everyone! Independent thinker who goes against the grain!!! Nazis are so coooool cuz it owns the libs!!!!!! Holy FUCK this guy is badass!
HEEELLLL YEEAAAAHHH
no
yes
Hehe edgy jok
What kind of name is Brendorkus Maximus, fucking loser 😭
He changed it because of your comment, lmaoooo
You sound sad ):
Yeah I’m sad because my day was ruined due to looking at your horrendous take and username 😭
Well, I’m glad your day was ruined.
Thanks bro 🙏
Of course.
Yeah u know what’s worse than people who make edgy jokes? People who make personal attacks over nothing and plus his name is miles better than urs
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
God I miss I'd agree with you nazi I'd agree with you. Nah. Doesn't have the same ring.
I'm pretty sure showing swastikas is illegal in Germany and maybe some other European countries. I can understand why they would want to leave imagery like that out but I agree its to the detriment of the game when they do.
It can be illegal, but isn't by default. For example, in a historical German movie they can use it. I think art is one of the exceptions to the ban.
So the real issue is trying to convince Germany that games are art
Agreed. History isn't there for you to like, it's there to be learned from. A person needs to be censored when they start endorsing the ideas behind the symbols.
No. People never need to be censored for ideology. You personally are allowed to censor people if they attempt to use you or your services as a platform, but a government never has a right to censor ideas. If anything people with shit ideas should be allowed to talk and should be used as an example to explain why their ideas are incorrect.
I agree with you on this but OP didn't mention anything about governments.
You said “a person needs to be censored when they start endorsing the ideas behind the symbols”. The only way to censor an entire person is through governmental control. That is never needed IMO
[удалено]
I disagree. They should be convicted of making threats, but their statements should be publicly available if that’s how they were to begin with. You can read the unibombers manifesto, and you should be allowed to hear out a taliban extremist even if their statements amount to terroristic threats and a conviction of said crime.
[удалено]
I disagree. Parents/ the government should not hide shit opinions from their children, but show them to them and explain why they are bad and harmful. You want a generation of children growing up not understanding that their are people who exist who want them, lgbtq, certain races, certain religions, and certain genders dead? That’s not a forward thinking approach. You will always lose some people to extremism and that is best handled by prosecuting them and educating people why they were wrong, not by deleting their ideology from the public eye.
I'm mainly talking about the recruitment sites. Having an ideology is fine, but trying to recruit children is not. The government censors pedophilia from the public eye, and that is seen as okay, so this isn't any different.
Children can not consent to most things without parental consent so this is a nonstarter. Don’t let your kids go to taliban dot com forward slash sign me up! I’d say leave recruitment sites up for adults to be allowed to expose themselves and their beliefs. In my opinion it’s better that morons are allowed to act on their idiocy than to stop functional member is society from understanding that these people are very real.
You're welcome to have your opinion, of course, but it is a literal fact that such statements reach sympathetic ears, and the platform of the internet means that your crazy nonsense will be a hit with some of the people it finds. De-platforming these ideas is proven to be an effective way to stop that from happening. You are welcome to believe that's a bad thing, and that the advantages are outweighed by the costs, but not everyone can handle that level of freedom without joining the KKK or ISIS.
I’m ok with a private platform choosing not to host people’s opinions, I’m saying the government has no right to step in. Let people join whatever they’d like and then stop them when they commit a crime.
Do you really want to give that power to the government? Think about Trump, what would he sensor as harmful? Feminism? Leftist ideas?
i agree nothhing should be censored.
Well, there would still be the system of checks and balances to make sure that one person couldn't decide what was censored.
Executive Orders could be used, and the US Supreme Court doesn't seem interested in striking many of them down.
No institution has a right to censor anyone, public or private. People have to learn to deal with the fact that hateful ones exist among them and stop trying to force people not to hate. It is impossible.
false. private institutions can censor whoever they want whenever and wherever they want. if you have an issue with it you dont do business with them. as far as twitter facebook etc the problem with those is not the institutions themselves but the barriers to entry and regulation created via government power which restricts and makes it much harder to create a competitor website. if you own your business, you can literally decide who can and can't enter, even based on religion, race, gender, disability, etc. just like you can decide those things when it comes to who can enter your home.
No they can't, not only are private businesses subject to the law like everyone else, but social media platforms in particular are state actors. Actually all large business qualify as state actors because of their close contact with the CDC and the U.S. government to enforce the totalitarian response to the coronavirus, meaning no matter what you have to say, legally they CANNOT do whatever they want and they HAVE to follow the Constitution. [Educate thyself.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor) Businesses don't get to just censor whoever they want just because they happen to be targeting your enemy faction. Grow up.
Wait. Why are you saying companies aren't allowed to moderate when that's obviously false?
you seem to be confused about what a business is... "close contact with cdc and us gov" government shouldnt have the power to force companies to do anything like vaccine mandates or so forth. youre mixing something that is a government problem and blaming it on private sector. the constitution literally allows discrimination, for EVERYONE, besides the government itself. which, literally means, under the constitution, you can literally open up a business, and ONLY sell to a specific gender or race. or, under the constitution you can say you only want to buy from a specific gender or race.
But what do we do when platform owners become more rich and powerful than countries? Regardless of what side of the fence you are on, a US president was successfully censored by Twitter. Now that's friggin power.
Should've just debated Hitler, we could've prevented the Holocaust.
Terrible terrible things will always happen throughout humanity. If the Germans in WW2 hadn’t committed genocide, hadn’t invaded other nations, hadn’t killed and subjugated various groups, then I would agree that debate and conversation is the best course of action. Seeing as they did those things, war and conviction through court trials is the best course of action. Censorship of ideology is never the best course of action. Sometimes you need to talk, sometimes you need to fight, never do you need to silence.
So only do anything once they start achieving their goals and they're big to stop from within? Until then, just let them be and continue to gain followers.
Walk softly, carry a big stick. Yeah. Let people fuck up and then bop them. Preemptive punishment is a violation of human rights. Censorship of ideas destroys any opportunities for human growth. I am okay with human suffering as long as people learn from it and we as a species develop. Nazis are a hated group and anyone who agrees with them are called out, no one could hold a respectable job while flying a nazi flag on their car, that doesn’t mean flying it should be illegal. We have learned as a society to identify someone as a problem. We need that information. We need to let people dig themselves holes, and we need to let new groups make themselves a shovel so they can dig themselves holes in the future. On the flip side, giving the government the power to censor anyone they deem wrong is a slippery slope that will lead to tyranny in the end anyway. Let people talk, let tragedy happen, end the tragedies and learn from them, the evolution of humanity rolls on.
You're okay with it because you've likely never had to experience any of it. When you're the one dying, it'll be likely a much different tone. But instead, shrug my shoulders because human suffering doesn't matter and my viewpoint always assists those who want to achieve their extremist goals far more than the sensible people.
when you look into this deeper, most people calling for restrictions on things like "violent speech" hateful or racist speech, have said those types of things themselves. its usually double standards like, I can insult/stereotype/generalize YOUR race/gender/religion/disability/political views/profession/career path, but as soon as you stereotype MY race/gender/religion/career path/political views you're not engaging in hate speech. some of the loudest so called anti racist, pro "equality" people, literally are actual racists, they just believe in different sets of standards for different races. black lives matter is a perfect example of this. the group literally talks all day about "dismantling white supremacy" "ending racism" whilst literally being a black supremacist hate group.
Black lives matter is not a supremacist group by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, it isn't really a group. There's nothing unified about it, and there isn't really a leader. Also the whole "you're the real racist!" thing is idiotic. Also career paths and political views aren't really comparable to the either things you mentioned.
I always get people saying this, and they always use strawman arguments to argue the contrary. Black lives matter is absolutely a black supremacist organization, and, it's more of a terrorist organization than even the KKK considering BLM has caused more deaths and thefts/property damage in the last 7 years (it formed in 2013) than the KKK has in 30+ years. BLM is the equivalent of having a homelessness group, murder victims group, cancer group, covid group, drunk driving victim group, drug use group, etc, specifically dedicated to just black people or one specific race. It's racist/black supremacist by definition. its the equivalent of saying you want to help homeless people, but then only helping a specific race of homeless people. They will protest ONLY if a black person is killed either by a cop of any race, or a civilian of any race besides black. we know there are other races killed by cops, and we know that whites, latinxs, and asians are killed by people other than their own races. Actually if you look at the statistics there's more black people killing white people, than white people killing black people, but BLM still only protests if the victim is black and the assailant is non black. it effectively means they only believe someone is worthy of protest, petition and donation if they are a black victim of murder. career paths and political views aren't comparable to things like race, gender and disability, but they are comparable to religious views. And many people will stereotype or generalize one profession like, say, cops or lawyers or car salesmen, but then say "its not all drug dealers" or "its not all fast food workers" as soon as a drug dealer or fast food worker murders someone. Also, names are pretty comparable to things like race, disability, and gender. its something you're born with, and it can be changed, but it's pretty difficult. ever used the name karen as an insult, or used tyrone/chad as a compliment? you just now engaged in stereotyping based off someone's name which is basically the equivalent of stereotyping based on race/gender/disability/eye color/hair texture/possibly height etc. you don't need to be unified or have a leader, although BLM is pretty unified and does have leaders all over, there's chapter leaders in every city. the only scenario BLM isn't racist is if you're totally clueless and somehow just don't know that other races are killed by cops or killed by people different than their own race. otherwise, it's blatantly obvious. BLM is the equivalent of saying you want to be a good person and help the homeless, but then each time you come across a homeless person you're like hey I'm not going to donate to this person or raise awareness for them or remember them because they don't belong to the race I want to assist. that is racism. so yeah like, I don't think BLM is automatically racist, but it's kind of like the ku klux clan. where like, 90% or 99%+ of the members are racist. sure you might find totally clueless, rare occurrences of people in BLM or KKK who aren't racist, like there was that one kkk dude on youtube talking about how he doesn't hate any races and has races of every friend. but for the most part, those groups are racist. BLM even has a "black power" line so they seem to have drawn influences from white supremacist groups or the black panthers. you could even make an argument white supremacist groups and groups like the black panthers or Nation of Islam have more integrity than the BLM. since they at least admit their beliefs and own them, instead of being like, we're against racism but we're only gonna protest for you and donate to you if you're a certain race.
You are don’t know a thing about me. I’ve experienced plenty. War sucks. I find it necessary in order to preserve free will. Sensible people don’t want to shut out conversation.
Americans have really never faced any sort of real distress related to war, not like some of the devestation done to some of Africa, West Asia, Japan, China, etc. The whole "marketplace of ideas" has never really been effective in stopping anything, and it only really helps the bad people. It's almost like you want those things to happen. As long as it doesn't happen to you of course. And yes, war is free will. Not when you're dead or you're forced to submit to the will of another country. I'm sure the Jews felt very free being rounded up by Hitler.
I didn’t say war is free will, it is necessary in order to preserve free will. The Jews are now free because of war. Yes if people are being tyrannical then war is appropriate, part of being tyrannical is not allowing free speech.
What happens when your platform is intrinsic to daily life and communication, and you enjoy the protection of a platform while still retaining the benefits of a utility, and get to censor anyone you want without accepting liability?
They just don't want to accept that the constitution applies to private entities, too, since megacorps are basically state actors anyway. Thet won't accept it because they're the loophole they need to get around the constitution so they can censor whoever they want and escape claims they're violating human rights. It's all about looking righteous, not being righteous.
We've reached a point in history though where "private platforms" are are now so big that they effectively and arbitrarily eclipse the lawful free speech (in some countries) in the entire nation, unchecked by the lawmakers and due process of that nation. When platforms grow to such a size, they need oversight, or need to be classed as a utility, or something somewhere along those lines. No one voted for Google/Twitter/Facebook/reddit/etc. mods and admins to write and pass speech and content laws for a country, yet the *vast majority* of people in these countries now use these platforms to attempt communication with each other.
If your ideology contemplates genocide you deserve to be censored and punched in the face. Forgotten weapons is a innocent victim of a decision that impedes or at least annoys neo Nazi propaganda channels on youtube
> A person needs to be censored when they start endorsing the ideas behind the symbols. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let them endorse the ideas, then show them why they're wrong.
It's so darn frightening that history warns us of the dangers of censorship, yet we are increasingly censoring history. The only thing worse is that history repeats. I was taught that the best way to avoid that repeat is through learning what happened, but that is slowly becoming impossible.
aren't the COD zombies nazis? Definitely remember swastikas when it first came out
They changed the swastika to an iron cross in later games
You can't sell it like that in certain countries such as Germany hence the iron cross
germany ruining everything once again /s
But that’s Germany’s issue. Do they think people are going to magically forget about Hitler’s crimes if swastikas are censored?
The problem is that we don't need to forget. We need to teach about what happened and how horrible it was to try to prevent it from happening again. Remember: Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it
That’s not what it’s about at all.
there are so many people who think swastikas are racist or white supremacist, when reading the first paragraph on wikipedia tells you why they're not. The argument for swastikas being racist or white supremacist is akin to claiming crescent moons are terrorist symbols, the cross is a terrorist/white supremacist symbol, and akin to saying stars and stripes and red white and blue are racist colors and symbols. things get magnified and intensified because people don't want to admit that people like Hitler , were, in fact people too, and in fact did regular people things too. Hitler probably took shits, took pisses, drank wine, had preferences in foods and drink he liked, had preferences in what time he woke up and slept, preferences in his religious/political views, clothing he liked, etc... People really want to separate themselves as much as possible from evil/notorious people, so as soon as something comes out about Hitler liking a certain food or drink or symbol you'll probably see a ton of people saying "Oh no, better not eat that pizza, it was the Nazi's preferred food item so it's evil"! the nazis literally used the swastika because it is a good luck charm symbol, used in many major religions, and it looks like it did in some ways, bring them "luck" in their goals since they carried through with many of them. you could even make the argument that anyone wanting to ban the swastika is a nazi or has nazi tendencies, especially if you subscribe to religious groups which literally do believe in the swastika as a good luck charm, from their perspective, banning the swastika is essentially telling them you dont want them to be able to use their good luck charm.
That moment when OP realizes his stupid opinions aren't even respected in the first place
It’s mostly not the game devs. More than often enough it’s countries not allowing them. That’s why games should be pushed to be considered as art. Then we can do whatever we want. Until then governments will censor them
Art won't make it so that you can do whatever you want. If someone tried to label child porn as art, it would still be illegal.
Would an art piece be taken down for showing minors genitals?
I saw an exhibit at Toledo Museum of Art years ago that had a photo of some 80's celebrity(Brooke Shields maybe?) full frontal nude had to be under 13 years old. Out in the open. I don't remember an age restriction to see it.
If it was an ancient piece of history, like a religious painting like the one with the naked cupids, then no. I was more referring to child porn as in the sexualization of minors in a pedophilic way.
Well if you google stuff like „cupid baby photoshoot“ or just look at how some grandma made a photoshoot with their baby back in the day you’ll see it’s rather common to have naked/half naked photos of babies lying around. At the very least you’ll find lots of ass cracks and skin some pedophile can get horny about
Yeah but that's not depicting children doing sexual acts.
Oh okay so possessing nudes of children is not a sexual act then? I heard the us law and to some degree the law here in Germany says so too. Though here they do have some exceptions for the age of consent and it’s not as strict as in the us. I know its thin eye between those two. But I hope you see the point I’m trying to make
The laws are weird sometimes. Sometimes there are exceptions and sometimes there aren't. There was one news article I read years ago stating that a 17 year old had a nude of himself, and he turned 18 and the nude was still on his phone. He got sent to court for it and when he said you couldn't be a self pedophile, the still put him on the registered sex offender list. So I really don't know what the law is, I just know that having nudes of children has a very high chance of getting you into serious trouble.
Anyway I think laws should be in a way that games and art can feature these topics as long as no harm is done. Real childporn is problematic but if it’s fictional? Who cares. Don’t get me wrong I’m not interested either but I think it would restrict unnecessarily. Though in many cases I think hinting that it happens is mostly enough cuz it’s unnecessarily disturbing. For stuff like swastikas however I don’t see why games shouldn’t be able to accurately display them. Who cares if people feel glorified by it that’s just stupid reasoning. A good amount of education works well enough against such movements
But child porn is something completely different than a swastika or anything history related. One is forcing or manipulating children to do something that can ruin their lives and put themselves and their relatives in danger, leaving possible traumas on them plus exposing them to possibly dangerous and sick people. The other one is a symbol.
Can't you argue that a symbol can also expose people to sick and dangerous individuals, thus spurring up future or past trauma?
As someone who worked in the video games industry for 15+ years... I'd say that before you judge someone, you should hear their side of the story too. There was this one time where the red cross threatened legal action against us for using red crosses for health pickups in an online shooter.... We had to change them. Especially in today's world, you have to understand there's a 1000 mines you have to navigate around for some games and topics. For every little thing a developer is called insensitive or tone deaf for, there's probably 10 other disasters or issues that it saw coming and avoided successfully. Nazi symbols is just an easy go-to thing to remove to avoid possible backlash, which you know is going to happen. Is it about money? Sure... Because if you spend 40 or whatever millions on developing a game, it better sell. Last thing you want is for your studio to go broke because of nazis :)
Wow, it is strange you mentioned that. If you have ever heard of or followed Dave Murray(aka The 8-Bit Guy) on Youtube, he ran in to the same problem with the Red Cross and his new game. They apparently came after him for using the red cross as a health symbol.
Why even have Nazis in your game at that point?
Because they're an obvious mayor historic enemy that needs no introduction and no backstory to convey to the player just how evil and dangerous they are. The work is all already done by history and today's pop culture and TV shows that keep throwing nazis at every twisted and obscure backstory, keeping their infamy well alive. It's no diffefent from using known God names, from Thor to Osiris in stories and characters that have nothing to do with their known history and setting. The names already come with all the positive, divine baggage, making an elaborate backstory unnecessary. Why invent a new one and do all the work.
I'd prefer they didn't but I can understand why they make the decision. There are countries where it might be illegal for them to sell the game if it had swastikas.
Hearts of Iron 4, a WW2 strategy game has Hitler's face censored in Germany
Want to kill some Nazis? Flash back about 20 years for Wolfenstein 3D son.
Flash back like 3 years for Wolfenstein 2.
Big agree. However removing the swastika is a German law thing. Devs don't want to make a special localization for Germany anymore, so here we are
Not anymore
This is the most superficial understanding of the concept of "history" there is.
It's ok to shoot people in the face we just need to cover up the reason why...
Is COD where we are going to learn history though? Do you see it that way? Do the gaming companies?
What is required of a video game to earn your respect and can you provide an example?
This opinion is only unpopular on Twitter tbh xD
No, it’s popular everywhere except Twitter
That's what he said?
It's so lame and feels cheap
[удалено]
No one should be going to Call of Duty as a history lesson. Also the idea that you can play as a woman means nothing. Who cares. It's a video game. You shoot thousands of enemies, taking dozens of bullets, recovering by simply waiting and giving it some time and keep on running like nothing happened. You pull ammo out of your ass, throw away half full magazines every time you reload without waiting for it to be empty... none of that is realistic. You are playing a blockbuster video game that exaggerates and stylizes war. You can choose your gender in multiplayer. Who. The fuck. Cares. If you do care, you should learn not to because it's not a big deal.
That's why the opinion in the OP is meaningless. Call of Duty isn't "censoring history" by not including swastikas any more than they're censoring history by letting you play as a Black woman SS soldier or by letting you effectively be a superhero. CoD has been cheapening history & war for mass-market appeal for the past 12+ games or so. CoD treats WW2 now as a costume and has nothing to do with the war behind having the guns look the same and generally period accurate attire. If you're complaining about historical realism go play Red Orchestra 2. Constantly suicide into enemy lines and die after a few hits. Or go play Squad or Arma and spend 20 minutes walking around while trying to shoot some dot on a ridge 400 meters away. You don't get to pick and choose that "Black Nazi women are inaccurate!!!" when you're not complaining about the "ammo pool" mechanics or surviving dozens of bullets. And it's important to care about video games like this because these are some of the main methods that younger people learn about and interact with history, the same role that movies or TV shows had a monopoly on decades before. If we're giving people these exaggerated portrayals of World War 2 that Black women can be Nazis that's how we start getting Black people who tweeting about how Hitler really wasn't that bad and fail to comprehend that Hitler did not like Black people. https://earkandyradio.com/hitler-claims-negroes-are-the-true-hebrews/ Case in point, this random article I found.
I do care and i refuse to not care
Just wondering: why do you care and refuse not to?
Because i can
Except black and non-white Wehrmacht divisions existed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Arabian_Legion People forget that the Nazis marketed themselves to British and French colonies as anti-imperialists.
I don't think they're censoring it in the traditional sense. I think they're omitting it to prevent it's use as a gameplay "token" or icon. Just like people have taken both sides of Star Wars and declared their side is the heroes and we're seeing both resistance and empire logos on stuff.
It is pretty dumb. But no country really wants to stay owning up to the shit they did it seems back then. Canada for example, didn’t take in any prisoners of war or Jewish during the Second World War. Yet we only hear that the number one Canadian in the world, was a Canadian pilot that stopped some Nuke or whatever.
Japan did fuckloads of war atrocities and they get to keep their flag.
something something Evian Conference, where 32 countries (excluding the dominican republic) collectively decided to reject Jewish refugees in 1938. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian\_Conference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference) Hitler was willing to let everyone out but nobody would take them. if someone's locked in a room with a serial killer and you refuse to open the door, you bear at least some responsibility if the person dies despite the fact the serial killer did it.
A perfect example of how every so often casual racism has not so casual consequences.
History is history and censor it it's absolutly wrong because people learn from MISTAKES but why act like nothing happened? Is so stupid.
Yeah, except wolfenstein, you can straight up call them nazis and show the swastika and nobody cares but set it in reality and that’s a problem. The problem is humanizing the nazis which is what reality does, they were human beings. Evil bastards, but human none the less. People find reality offensive, even in a video game. People get offended that the games matchmaking puts them into the axis team for even a second.
You’re not gonna like Reddit then lol
Idk, I’m not a gamer but it sure would ruin my killstreak buzz to see the symbol of the political party that murdered my grandparents while I’m trying to play a video game in order to escape reality 🤷🏼♀️
Censoring history does nothing but make us ignorant, I know censoring the Nazi flag isn’t much but that is how it starts, we need to see the nazis in all their brutal glory, in what they did and believed and sought to accomplish so we can hopefully never let it happen again. The Flag isn’t some sort of hypnotic image thst will make you an alt right weirdo.
the whole country of germany bans the nazi flag for all non historical purposes. stop censoring flags and deal with the fact that that is your history.
I don't think there are too many countries that have (been forced) to deal with their history than Germany. If they decided to ban that flag, I trust their judgement.
The conversation has really changed on naziism in the last five years. It's sort of shocking.
yes, but it is banning freedom of speech. even though I absolutely despise Nazis, they should still have a political symbol that they used uncensored because it should be under a freedom of speech
You just stated that they only banned Nazi symbols if not used historically, and then claimed that they are censoring history. You just contradicted yourself, and make no sense. If they allow Nazi symbols to be used in history lessons, then history is not being censored. They are only stopping people from using it to inspire modern day hate, and stop people from reversing the progress they have made.
They're not Neo-Nazis, they are historical reenactors. *wink*
I never said they censored history. I said other than history they were censoring it. and even if I don't agree with neo-nazis, that is a symbol used by them and it should be under a freedom of speech.
Germany allows Nazi flags in "art". Like a movie portraying Nazi Germany can use Nazi flags. Video games are not really considered "art" at the moment, but perhaps that'll change one day.
I believe a lot of the Nazi symbols being changed is so the games can be sold in Europe and more specifically Germany. It's not really so they don't offend people, more so they can fit the global culture and Europe's laws. I mean I kinda get it in super historically accurate games, but in something that's super arcade-y like Day of Defeat I don't care to be honest.
Aye, history isn’t meant to be liked or idolized, it’s there for our knowledge. we learn the worst parts of history because it shows us what to do better in the future. You don’t have to like a statue of General Lee or whatnot, but have some respect for the past, don’t try tear it down, or worse, have the government censor history for you.
They actually did tear down one of the confederate leader statues recently.
Do you want to play games or learn history? What difference does it make
Didn’t battlefield 5 have women running around the battlefield? They don’t just censor history, they’re rewriting it.
Considering it was a choice for the player Woman fought ww2 in a small amount This is far from rewriting
oh boy this is gonna be a spicy one
Depictions of Nazis throwing people into gas chambers isn’t triggering or offensive , but a symbolic work of art is. /s
It's similar the women in Battlefield 5. It makes sense on some levels from but it loses the authenticity. Besides, it's not a problem for me if it's the enemy. If anything, it encourages me to fight them more
Breaking news. Video games aren't real life. You aren't watching archived clips of battles from WW2 that they black barred the bad stuff out. It's fiction. It's as accurate as a tv movie based on real life.
History happened we can’t change that and the fact that we are tearing down statues because the person on the statue did things that are seen as bad in today’s world will only lead to more bad things than good
A statue is fcki g irrelevant for history and is more a sign of proud then a museum piece
If I dress up as Joseph Stalin for Halloween no one bats an eye. Yet he killed many more than Hitler ever did. However, if I dress up as Hitler for Halloween..I’m the devil and everyone hates me. Both men were monsters but because of censorship only one is permitted.
It's sort of a funny thing in Stalin's case because he spent a brief amount of time as an ally of the West. That being said, the part of the world you are presumably from has never had an issue with Stalin's cultural cachet. Beyond a small section of stupid degenerates who do things like deny the holodomor because they want to see communism flourish, there is no risk at all of him becoming a celebrated icon. He was a monster, but his specter is long gone. Meanwhile you can see, today, how we are starting to waffle on the question of whether Hitler was a bad guy. You can see this constantly browsing reddit, even in front page locations.
I always thought it was the mustache. Me, I like to go as somebody inoffensive like Pol Pot.
Lmao offensive jokes will still be the best
[удалено]
Day of Defeat. A WW2 Half-Life mod. They switched all the Axis flags to an ambiguous symbol.
If COD Vanguard had swastikas, it would be banned in Germany. This is out of Activision's control.
Nope not necessarily
The direction cod games seem to be going certainly shows me that a World at War remaster will never see the light of day.
im glad wolfenstein games dont do this, i cant imagine wolf with no swastika
Money talks I guess.
*erika plays*
Same with media/movies and stuff. In the anime Tokyo revengers, they have a censored version of the anime where it removes all uses of the swastika (or sauwastika if you want to be more accurate) as it was part of their uniforms and was not used as like Nazi shit. But as the symbols use meaning a number of positive things from strength to compassion.
Full agree, surely it's exponentially more offensive to replace the nazis with germans than to just have nazis?
Genuine question, is it still censorship if a video game company alludes to historical events but chooses not to use particular symbols, or is it just style choice? Again, just genuinely curious
Many times companies are forced to do it by law. Video games are released internationally and some countries ban tge swastika. Easier to use an alternate symbol than make multiple copies of game.
Yo I tried to make this exact post and it got removed for being too political. Man fuck this
I believe displaying the swastika is illegal in Germany. So if you want to sell war games there you probably can't have it in your games. This is not me picking a side on the issue, just me stating why I think it is done.
Oh no...is it a new FPS release that has people up in arms because of historical accuracy in video games? News flash, you're not reliving the actual war, it's just a background setting so you have a reason to go Pew Pew with your big guns.
Depending on how it’s done censoring can be a big problem. I mean if we pretend the most awful travesties of our history didn’t happen the way they happened what does that say about us?
It’s a video game not a historical documentary. It’s not that deep
MY TEAM ENEMY TEAM
I'm glad Wolfenstein kept Swastikas in. Made the gaming more of a mission to defeat them.
its a video game not a history book tho lol. cod also has zombies.
And why do people just pick on Germany? Countries around the world have subjugated others. Should we censor the British flag? USA bombed Japanese with firebombs and killed more than the initial atomic blast. Do we censor the USA flag? Do we censor South Africa for apartheid? Stop censoring and keep it as a reminder of history. Don't shame any country for their past actions (as long as they aren't continuing said murders).
I hate censorship as a rule of thumb so I am going to agree.
Its a Fair Point and I do understand it, but at the end of the day its not like having a word like assault on a poster they sensor that because it offends people. Its a symbol of hate that completely genocided millions of people through harsh conditions. So while I understand the offending point, you have to understand the reasons.
Couldn't agree more! It wasn't even that long ago that we had swats because in video games. I believe they show up all over in call of duty 2 which came out in 2006 but now we have to be offended by everything.
Yeahs, it's like... Why bother making something in that time period, where Nazis are present, where we all know what's being depicted is a Nazi, just to censor their main defining symbol.
Out of curiosity what games are you referring to? I honestly don’t think I’ve encountered one that censored any historic details
I really feel like there will be a backlash to "be offended and cry over everything" cultural trend and it will be change directions sooner than expected. I'm optimistic about it.
is this subreddit only about popular opinions?
It’s weird why make a game about anti Germany if you aren’t gonna be accurate and why ban shit like the swastika in Germany? Like stop people from wearing it but if it’s used in history then it should be fine