I mean... they can defend his larger stance against censorship. That’s fine. He’s welcome to that.

Boy, Lipschultz really picked a stupid hill to die on here.

The writing was a bit unclear... he just meant that it started life as a flop, and Nintendo had to go into emergency mode to rescue it.

“And now, it’s ditching its biggest selling point.”

That’s a huge presumption.

As you note, one way or another, censorship requires force.

It’s true. I can’t handle the preasure.

Dude. At this point, all I can say is that your house is very appropriately named.

It assumes no such thing. Free speech comes with no guarantee of equal weight — merely the right to put it out there.

Criticism is not powerless. But it also doesn’t occur in a vacuum.

Even if that were true (which it expressly isn’t, but let’s pretend...), it would be *more than balanced out* by a world full of loud “mens’ rights activists” and other groups working tirelessly to support the continued supremacy of people who have, so far, never known anything but supremacy. There are *more than…

I’m thinking back over the past two or three years, and I honestly can’t remember a time when I felt more surprised.

And yet none of these could possibly refer, in any way, to Anita Sarkeesian.

It doesn’t “only” refer to law enforcement. But it implies a power structure that is absent in this situation.

And where are all these fictional people telling you to “yiff in hell and die”?

It’s funny that you proudly post the definition of censorship in the exact same post where you demonstrate that you don’t understand what it means.

I have a feeling it’s simpler than that.

I’m surprised to see this so frequently compared to Gone Home and Dear Esther when the central game mechanic is so similar to the first level of The Unfinished Swan.

I know that Nintendo gets a lot of flak for being so backwards about voice chat, but this kind of thing makes it clear why they’ve been hesitant to change.

“I mean I know its better quality”