I like how it seems far more pornographic with the censored images than it would if we could see them.
It's like the "I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue" *bleep* songs.
r/UnnecessaryCensorship
The prime example: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnnecessaryCensorship/comments/27cyd3/beachvolleyball/
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UnnecessaryCensorship/comments/459kz0/weve\_gone\_too\_far/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnnecessaryCensorship/comments/459kz0/weve_gone_too_far/)
That one feels like a great representation on why women should be allowed to wear more for these sports. Those censor bars are so small, they have to hide so little to make it look like they're totally nude it's comical.
Did you just link your own definition of censorship ? I mean power to you, you are very confident with your ideas but this is just like saying "source ? I made it up" but unironically
to clarify a little, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to play with the concept of sources, but your definition of censorship is partial at best, it completely denies the political aspect of it by classifying it as deliberate ignorance. It is not impossible to have individual cases as such but it's a definition that excludes dynamics of power that are very much present in what most would consider censorship
Why is your source Amazon product reviews ? Very sorry here but words do have meaning that is not unique to you and the power hierarchies that are present in censorship are necessary to the very understanding of the concept of censorship. Not trying to pick apart your comment. Again, I'm welcoming to the idea of playing with sources, definitions and all things academic to make them playful and understandable. But I think you're ignoring that sourcing your words to an external website makes it seem like you're validating your own ideas instead of trying to be more easily understood. It fixes the meaning of the word to your understanding of it instead of leaving it up for debate and therefore better comprehension. Misunderstanding doesn't stem from individual meaning alone but from miscommunication and lack of openness to a debate. I think your idea is very noble but makes it hard to argue with you about meanings of a word. The academic-ish writing paired with the external website also makes it seem like it's not your definition but an objective understanding of the word.
Then again, I think trying to communicate is always a net positive and I'm sorry for how harshly I treated your method at first, I do believe however it is quite counterproductive because of the detached pseudo-academic approach you're using, I hope you'll understand I'm not saying you shouldn't properly define terms, simply maybe not use terminology and presentation that makes it seem like a legitimate academic source.
You aslo said that you welcoming to the idea of playing with sources and definitions.
You can come up with your own definitions with pseudo-academic approach.
Do i have to write what you like?
Ok. I am wrong. What should i do now?
You're cherrypicking what I said to fit your point, playing with sources and definition is fine, a pseudo-academic approach is fine. The framing and use of terminology that makes it seem like a legitimate academic source is what's mostly bothering to me. I do sincerely believe that you're doing an effort to communicate better with definitions and that is very noble of you. I'm not telling you what you should do, you're your own person, if you want to define your own terms and have fun with them, don't let me stop you. I'm just giving you feedback because I think you're not helping yourself communicate in your effort to do so. Ultimately, unless you're replacing actually needed citations with your own opinion, it's a pretty harmless thing to do. I also understand it's an important part of your identity, at least here on reddit, and I don't want to take that away from you. I hope you can see it as an advice more than a plead.
Pyra and Mythra almost didn't make it into Super Smash Brothers Ultimate. They were "showing too much skin/being too sexually provocative". So the Smash team had Pyra wear sheer pantyhose and Mythra wear black stockings. More skin was covered, but it's generally agreed that the additions made them even more provocative.
He linked to a shock site subreddit and there’s mixed reactions I think because most people find that disgusting whereas others are upset because that’s how they get banned, by linking them as jokes and then them getting reported.
An indie game studio, that only really made point-and-click adventure games, suddenly got the license to make a AAA-style Lord Of The Rings game for some reason.
As you might expect, they couldn't pull this off. They had no experience with making games like that, so it's full of bugs and weird design choices.
I like how it seems far more pornographic with the censored images than it would if we could see them. It's like the "I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue" *bleep* songs.
r/UnnecessaryCensorship The prime example: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnnecessaryCensorship/comments/27cyd3/beachvolleyball/ [https://www.reddit.com/r/UnnecessaryCensorship/comments/459kz0/weve\_gone\_too\_far/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnnecessaryCensorship/comments/459kz0/weve_gone_too_far/)
Took me a minute to figure out they are in fact wearing bikini's
That one feels like a great representation on why women should be allowed to wear more for these sports. Those censor bars are so small, they have to hide so little to make it look like they're totally nude it's comical.
Those examples are 7 and 8 years old how did you find them
I went to that sub and sorted by top all time. The volleyball one I had seen before.
Or the count from sesame except someone bleeped out the word count
No -- I'm pretty sure that he doesn't count. (Sorry. Force of habit)
The art of [censorship](https://coofl.com/censorship---8689) has a peculiar way of turning the mundane into the titillating.
Did you just link your own definition of censorship ? I mean power to you, you are very confident with your ideas but this is just like saying "source ? I made it up" but unironically
Also they went and made this definition at seemingly the same time as this concept. So, yeah, it really is "Source?" "I made it the fuck up!"
to clarify a little, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to play with the concept of sources, but your definition of censorship is partial at best, it completely denies the political aspect of it by classifying it as deliberate ignorance. It is not impossible to have individual cases as such but it's a definition that excludes dynamics of power that are very much present in what most would consider censorship
[удалено]
Why is your source Amazon product reviews ? Very sorry here but words do have meaning that is not unique to you and the power hierarchies that are present in censorship are necessary to the very understanding of the concept of censorship. Not trying to pick apart your comment. Again, I'm welcoming to the idea of playing with sources, definitions and all things academic to make them playful and understandable. But I think you're ignoring that sourcing your words to an external website makes it seem like you're validating your own ideas instead of trying to be more easily understood. It fixes the meaning of the word to your understanding of it instead of leaving it up for debate and therefore better comprehension. Misunderstanding doesn't stem from individual meaning alone but from miscommunication and lack of openness to a debate. I think your idea is very noble but makes it hard to argue with you about meanings of a word. The academic-ish writing paired with the external website also makes it seem like it's not your definition but an objective understanding of the word. Then again, I think trying to communicate is always a net positive and I'm sorry for how harshly I treated your method at first, I do believe however it is quite counterproductive because of the detached pseudo-academic approach you're using, I hope you'll understand I'm not saying you shouldn't properly define terms, simply maybe not use terminology and presentation that makes it seem like a legitimate academic source.
[удалено]
That's exactly what I'm saying yes
You aslo said that you welcoming to the idea of playing with sources and definitions. You can come up with your own definitions with pseudo-academic approach. Do i have to write what you like? Ok. I am wrong. What should i do now?
You're cherrypicking what I said to fit your point, playing with sources and definition is fine, a pseudo-academic approach is fine. The framing and use of terminology that makes it seem like a legitimate academic source is what's mostly bothering to me. I do sincerely believe that you're doing an effort to communicate better with definitions and that is very noble of you. I'm not telling you what you should do, you're your own person, if you want to define your own terms and have fun with them, don't let me stop you. I'm just giving you feedback because I think you're not helping yourself communicate in your effort to do so. Ultimately, unless you're replacing actually needed citations with your own opinion, it's a pretty harmless thing to do. I also understand it's an important part of your identity, at least here on reddit, and I don't want to take that away from you. I hope you can see it as an advice more than a plead.
So you're trying to censor their self-source on censorship. You'd rather we pretend it doesn't exist. I'm titillated by this meta aspect of it.
[удалено]
ACLU definitions bring me back to my highschool debate days.
read further comments, I try to go more in-depth on why this precise use of self-source is titillating to me
Pyra and Mythra almost didn't make it into Super Smash Brothers Ultimate. They were "showing too much skin/being too sexually provocative". So the Smash team had Pyra wear sheer pantyhose and Mythra wear black stockings. More skin was covered, but it's generally agreed that the additions made them even more provocative.
i love what it chose not to censor, like i dont even need to care what happened in those other images i got the idea from just the two
I'll ruin the joke for you: nothing was censored, he just posted those "censored" images himself as part of the gallery for the joke.
im gonna cry on you man why
On the one hand this is VISCERALLY upsetting, on the other hand this is still the funniest thing I've seen in days.
[удалено]
fucks sake dont get us quarantined
What did he say?
He linked to a shock site subreddit and there’s mixed reactions I think because most people find that disgusting whereas others are upset because that’s how they get banned, by linking them as jokes and then them getting reported.
Thx man
Linked as a joke, you say? Was it r[slash]eyeblech?
Well, yes. Why? Are your intentions malicious?
No. Just curious.
Blocked and reported tbh
People like you are why mmc got banned.
"GOLLUM. BREEDING HALLS. NOW." -Actual quote from an orc in the Gollum game
well now i \*have\* to search "Breeding Halls" on AO3
I looked it up I only found 7 results
Less than half what I expected, and I haven't been on that website in half a decade
https://clips.twitch.tv/PoliteDullHerringSwiftRage-m2ZL83V0aFnbMZyF
Can someone explain this game to me? Is it officially licensed?
An indie game studio, that only really made point-and-click adventure games, suddenly got the license to make a AAA-style Lord Of The Rings game for some reason. As you might expect, they couldn't pull this off. They had no experience with making games like that, so it's full of bugs and weird design choices.
Pretty sure it's "wriggling".
Pota-toes. ;3
it's regional
I've heard it both ways
better than the video game
I’m wondering if they just used screenshots of the removed from Tumblr message to fill in the blanks
That's exactly what they did because that is the joke
I just really did not need this in my head someone please pass the brain bleach
r/eyebleach
[удалено]
Why
Because im an awful person.
Literally 1984.
Going through my saves & this shit popped up. Just needed you to know this still made me laugh pretty damn hard.