Especially love to see someone who actually experienced communism first-hand make the parallel with progressives' behavior.
There's not much of a parallel. Calling on game makers to make more diverse games is the essence of free market capitalism — consumers driving change with their words and dollars.
I agree so far as some progressive activists are fighting against being offended rather than fighting for rights. No person has a right not to be offended, and not every creative piece should be required to target all demographics.
Yes, laws exist about harassment and should be enforced since that can effectively violate rights. But, I have no right to require the content from artists, TV producers, movie producers, and game companies meets my word view. I can simply not buy the game or movie, but other people have the right to do so if they wish. And, I cannot harass the producers about the content that doesn't meet my world view to an extent that violates their rights--i.e. several internet catastrophes that resulted in lost jobs and people scared to leave their home due to death threats.
Really? I was confused starting with "attempts by certain groups to dictate to artists what they should create".
That's certainly meant as a metaphor, no? While I'm certain there are people who want laws passed to enforce their beliefs, they would be a fringe group and not representative of "progressives". In any case, such laws in the US would be unconstitutional, so all that's left is the force of argument, protest, boycott, and persuasion - all of which are allowed under free speech.
The next reference to dictatorship is "...totalitarianism, censorship, lack of freedom and a regime that dictated what people should think, write and create, I utterly abhor any attempt to reintroduce such things in the name of any kind of good intentions." This is the sort of "dictate" which carries the force of law, or at least institutional power, behind it.
I can't figure out why the metaphorical use of 'dictate' in the first paragraph connects to the literal use in the latter. Could you explain the connection?
We can point to places where the force of law does prevent artists from doing what they want to create. A classic example is the Red Cross symbol that many games, going back to at least Doom, use for health power-ups. Thing is, it's a protected symbol under the Geneva Conventions, and US law prohibits that use ( 18 U.S. Code § 706 ):
> Whoever, whether a corporation, association or person, other than the American National Red Cross and its duly authorized employees and agents and the sanitary and hospital authorities of the armed forces of the United States, uses the emblem of the Greek red cross on a white ground, or any sign or insignia made or colored in imitation thereof or the words “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” or any combination of these words—
> Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
More recently the ICRC has been pushing game companies to not use that symbol, which is why the recent Xbox 360 port of Doom no longer uses that symbol.
Here we have a case where there is a law that prevents game artists from doing what they want, and passed for humanitarian reasons ("good intentions") - and reasons that I fully agree with, by the way.
As expected, there are many people who protest this restriction on artistic freedom, and on nostalgia. But to say it's equivalent to an oppressive Communist dictatorship is so overblown as to be meaningless.
Do you think this law prohibiting the use of the Red Cross symbol is an example of an oppressive dictate that should be removed? If not, how is it that people using their free speech rights to change things they don't like is equivalent to them wanting dictatorial power?
