you went full censorship

never go full censorship.

Would you like to watch three people who agree about everything have a “debate” about a controversial video game?

Yeah that doesn’t sound particularly interesting to me, either.

And yet that’s exactly what takes place in the below Al Jazeera segment about the upcoming video game Six Days In Fallujah. The host and guests all just sort of agree with one another and never actually discuss the potential downsides censorship might have for artists, game developers and society as a whole. It might have been fun to have a dissenting opinion, but what do I know? Maybe that would have created an unsafe space.

Check it out:

IGN game journalist Rebekah Valentine (who has me blocked on Twitter—so brave!¹) essentially just echoes whatever the other two guests say. In fact, Valentine doesn’t take a stance at all when asked what should happen to the game—claiming rather bafflingly that she doesn’t have as much of a stake in this issue as so many others. (Not that she has to agree with me, but maybe a little pushback on the gleeful calls for outright censorship would be nice from someone whose career relies on free speech maybe?)

Last time I checked, journalists actually have a rather large stake in matters of censorship and free speech. I guess journalism isn’t what it used to be—though my critique does not extend to the many heroic journalists imprisoned across the world by censorious regimes. But sure, tell me how censorship doesn’t have an impact. Tell me how this video game is more dangerous than the power of the state or major corporations to stifle free expression.

The other guests, rapper Yassin ‘Narcy’ Alsalman and video game developer Rami Ismail, pretty much just agree with one another for the duration of the video and the host only challenges these views briefly and with only the softest of softballs.

The game is “historical revisionism” they argue, and glorifies an illegal war while stereotyping Arabic people and Muslims. It is a “war crime” game, despite depicting a battle that took place between extremist insurgent forces and coalition troops comprised of US, UK and Iraqi forces. This is not a game about the Fallujah massacre. But I would not support censoring or banning a game about that massacre either, regardless of my personal opinions.²

So yeah. It’s an echo chamber. There is nobody here that actually wants to challenge anyone else’s ideas. No debate. Only a brief pre-recorded comment from a game journalist who makes the preposterous suggestion that maybe everyone is getting ahead of themselves and should actually play the game first. Please join me in condemning this vile creature to eternal damnation for his sinful ways.³

Instead we get a round-table of people who want the US government to ban a video game they deem offensive.

Think about that for a moment.

People justifiably upset by the Iraq War want the same government that bombed and invaded that country to have this kind of power over art. It’s a chilling thought. But what about just having Microsoft, Sony and Valve deplatform the game instead?

---

This video landed at the same time as a new petition from CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) urging Microsoft, Valve and Sony to drop Six Days In Fallujah and not allow the game onto their platforms. CAIR describes the game as an “Arab murder simulator.”

“We call on Microsoft, Sony and Valve to ban their platforms from hosting ‘Six Days in Fallujah,’ an Arab murder simulator that will only normalize violence against Muslims in America and around the world.” 

“The gaming industry must stop dehumanizing Muslims. Video games like Six Days in Fallujah only serve to glorify violence that took the lives of hundreds of Iraqi civilians, justify the Iraq war, and reinforce anti-Muslim sentiment at a time when anti-Muslim bigotry continues to threaten human life.”

CAIR, like Rami Ismail, does not know what the game will actually portray or how it will tackle its subject matter. This is all just speculation presented as fact. It’s fear-mongering bullshit that peddles the right-wing lie that video games lead to real-world violence, wrapped up in the woke language of modern progressivism.

And modern progressives—eager to abandon all pretenses with regards to freedom of expression—are eating it up. Behold the noble bastion of truth and social justice, video game forum ResetEra. Every commenter agrees that the right thing to do is have Microsoft, Sony and Valve keep the game off their respective platforms.

Erik Kain @erikkain

Glad to see the social justice crowd standing up for freedom of expression and art . . . oh wait. Never change, ResetEra. Never change.

Lyle 🇹🇼👍 @Lyde15

I wonder how ResetEra is responding to the prospect of Six Days in Fallujah being removed from Steam? https://t.co/qaUtvG2xXE

When did the left fall so deeply in love with corporations and big tech? When did we decide that corporate power is a tool we should wield against things we dislike? That large corporations should engage in the financial ruin of small game studios whose projects we find personally distasteful?

Update: Here’s Kotaku entering the fray again:

Erik Kain @erikkain

Oh well.

Erik Kain @erikkain

Let me guess, Kotaku is rushing in to defend free speech and fight back against calls to censor art... https://t.co/g6dQCgDGAg

The insanity continues.

At one point in the video, Ismail even argues that “this game is intentionally censoring the real life experience of victims of war” in one of the most breathlessly ridiculous, patently inane bits of reasoning I’ve heard uttered. The game can’t censor anyone, Rami. That’s not how censorship works. You’re still allowed to make your own game that tells the story of the Iraqi people during the Iraq War. Nobody is stopping you and nobody should.

But also: Who cares if Rami Ismail thinks this game would be better if it wasn’t a first-person shooter, or if it were told from a different point of view, or that he thinks the Iraq War was wrong or that making a game about real world events is somehow problematic? These opinions have nothing whatsoever to do with whether it should be banned.

By all means, critique the game once it comes out. Criticism is important and valuable and we should embrace different ideas and debate them openly and honestly. But it’s all just conjecture until the game is released. Ismail’s opinions are little more than guesswork at this stage. Words are wind.

You can argue that this game is sending the wrong message or that it’s in poor taste or that it misrepresents Arab and Iraqi people or that it’s just a pro-war, pro-military piece of propaganda. These may all be valid points. Maybe I’ll say the exact same thing after playing the game. I just can’t know any of this until I play the game. Neither can Rami Ismail or Narcy or Rebekah Valentine, no matter how much they pretend like they do.

In a free society art is not censored. Offensive art is not banned. Critics are not stifled and journalists are not jailed.

In a healthy society, liberal-minded people do not pressure platforms like Steam, PlayStation and Xbox to deplatform a game (leading to very real financial hardship for the studio and its employees) simply because they are offended by its premise.

In a society suffering the rot of authoritarian ideologies it is more crucial than ever for liberal-minded people—whether leftists, libertarians or whatever you call yourself—to debate ideas freely. Debasing yourself with cries for censorship of someone else’s art (never your own) or speech (not your own speech, of course) is a coward’s tactic.

Social justice censors believe that their causes are just and noble and will protect the vulnerable from “harm.” Because these causes are just and noble, bad means—like censoring or banning a video game—are acceptable. Preventing “harm” is an end that justifies the means, no matter the cost. Saying otherwise means you do not care about vulnerable people.

This Machiavellian wokeness has caught on in recent years. Censorship of bad people or “harmful” speech is justified because freedom is not as important as safety. It’s a disturbing parallel to national security excesses since 9/11, as we trade our liberties for the promise of safety from terrorists and other bogeymen. The Patriot Act was a ghastly bill, but put to the test our political leaders happily made that trade. Of course, these laws don’t make us perfectly safe any more than censoring offensive art will actually prevent harm.⁴ We sacrifice our freedom for a terrible lie and a false promise built on false pretenses.

Alas, the proponents of censorship badly misunderstand how power works. They forget—or perhaps never really understood to begin with—how easily that power can be turned against them. They play with fire because they foolishly think they can control it—but the wind changes, my droogies.

And power only flows one way.

You can find me on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or YouTube. Read my Forbes blog here.

Please consider signing up for diabolical as a paid subscriber. I’ve recently opened up paid subscription options and if you want to support more of this kind of writing, I hope you’ll considering opting for that. If not, much of the content here will remain free as well. It’s my hope that I can turn a labor of love into something more and I appreciate all your support. Thanks!!

1. To Narcy’s credit, while we do not get along particularly well on Twitter, he’s the only of these three who hasn’t blocked me on Twitter. He’s the only one who has even bothered to engage with me on Twitter and while some of that has included trying to get Forbes to punish me for my post there, at least he’s willing to have a debate. Ismail blocked me as soon as he caught wind of my very first article about Six Days In Fallujah. Really intellectually courageous guy. I’ll also say that Narcy’s concluding line is one I don’t disagree with either: He says he’s not buying the game and neither should you. That’s totally fine! Vote with your wallets people!

2. I remain deeply opposed to US Middle East policy including our conflicts with Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iran as well as our alliance with the horrifically authoritarian kingdom of Saudi Arabia, its ongoing atrocities in Yemen, and our support of an unyielding Israeli resistance to a two-state solution with Palestine—just to set the record straight on my foreign policy beliefs.

3. Interestingly, I was invited on the show by an Al Jazeera rep last week. I agreed to go on but was never contacted with any sort of follow-up and I promptly forgot about the whole thing until this video aired. I’m not sure if the show’s producers just decided to go a different route, or if the other guests didn’t want to be on the same show as someone so clearly diabolical.

4. I keep putting scare quotes around the word “harm” because I do not believe art actually harms anyone and I think the word itself—which is used to describe the result of any number of “microaggressions”—is another that risks losing all meaning. Nobody will be “harmed” by the release of this video game. But we do risk actual harm by giving up too many of our freedoms to the state or to social media giants etc.

P.S. One way you can support this game—not necessarily its message or execution since we don’t really know what those will ultimately be, but just support its right to exist—is to put it on your Steam wish list and follow the game. This idea comes via Professor Chris Ferguson:

Chris Ferguson 🐉☘️🐇 @CJFerguson1111

@erikkain @Lyde15 I think the way people can support the game is to put it on their wishlist and "follow" on Steam. I have done so.