China bans video game trailer due to footage from Tiananmen Square massacre

[Revoltingest]

As if pissing of the Chinese is any more difficult than farting in the wind.

Both are good things to do.

 

[Tambourine]

I thought @Tambourine was suggesting that there was some kind of relationship between China's banning of the trailer and the developers not mentioning racism in their games.

I believe that there is a relationship in the sense that both are fundamentally politically motivated decisions.
But I don't think the two are causally linked, no.

EDIT: As @Father Heathen has noted, a lot of major US publishers have tried their very best to make their games politically palatable for the Chinese market. In this light, I personally find it more surprising that the CoD publishers did not bend over backwards to Dengist sensibilities, but instead went the other way.

But then again, CoD has always been noted for pandering heavily to American militarist beliefs. If I recall correctly, for earlier iterations of their games, the developers had even hired "consultants" from the US Army.

 

[Stevicus]

I believe that there is a relationship in the sense that both are fundamentally politically motivated decisions.
But I don't think the two are causally linked, no.

EDIT: As @Father Heathen has noted, a lot of major US publishers have tried their very best to make their games politically palatable for the Chinese market. In this light, I personally find it more surprising that the CoD publishers did not bend over backwards to Dengist sensibilities, but instead went the other way.

But then again, CoD has always been noted for pandering heavily to American militarist beliefs. If I recall correctly, for earlier iterations of their games, the developers had even hired "consultants" from the US Army.

I think the American businesses mentioned by @Father Heathen were motivated more by money than politics. For that reason, they'll generally take the path of least resistance and try to be as apolitical as they can be.

I am a bit curious why there would even be a market in China for such a game, especially if it panders heavily to American militarist beliefs. America and China were adversaries during the Cold War, after all - and one might consider our relationship is still somewhat adversarial - even if the business people from both sides are all in bed with each other.

The footage from the Tiananmen Square massacre was in the trailer for this game, but there's no indication that that event has any bearing upon or part of the game itself. But it is an event associated with the Cold War, even though our Cold War with China had considerably softened to the point where it was all but over. Even the Tiananmen Square massacre didn't really change that, as US leaders were committed to a strong economic relationship with China no matter what their government did. (That's part of the reason we're in the current situation we're in now regarding China.)

But I guess the main difference here is that people aren't even allowed to discuss the event in China, and the Chinese were apparently offended by its inclusion in the trailer for the game. So they banned it.

In the U.S., racism is clearly not a forbidden subject, so the video game makers are free to mention it. If they don't, it may be because they're trying to avoid politics or controversy.

 

[Father Heathen]

As if pissing of the Chinese is any more difficult than farting in the wind.

They banned Winnie the Pooh because someone compared the Chinese leader to the character.

 

[Tambourine]

I think the American businesses mentioned by @Father Heathen were motivated more by money than politics. For that reason, they'll generally take the path of least resistance and try to be as apolitical as they can be.

Of course, buckling to censorship or political influence is not actually apolitical in the slightest.
And neither is it apolitical to deliberately avoid certain "controversial" political subjects. In fact, it is the exact opposite: It is taking a political stance in support of the status quo, and of the authorities in charge.

In the U.S., racism is clearly not a forbidden subject, so the video game makers are free to mention it. If they don't, it may be because they're trying to avoid politics or controversy.

If everyone avoids bringing up the topic out of fear of being seen as "controversial", then what's the practical difference to an actual ban?

If you let the military dictate the actual content of your work, then where is the practical difference to actual military propaganda?

In reality, China is acting in a supremely insecure fashion here. Instead of having to use heavy handed censorship, their politicians could simply encourage companies to kowtow by yammering about "political correctness gone mad" and "politically controversial" media.

 

[Stevicus]

I agree about them being in bed together. Profit over principle is the creed of the day.

It does have advantages of communism over principle as a creed de jour.
Things have gotten much better for family over there. They're now even
allowed to travel abroad....if they're careful what they say publicly.

Communism is (or was) the principle. But the Chinese Communists wanted to get rich, so they figured out a way to lure American capitalists into what they thought was a sweet deal and also caused the U.S. government to let their guard down regarding China. Turned out bad for us, but good for China. Now, we have U.S. capitalists falling all over each other to avoid offending the Chinese government.

 

[Stevicus]

Of course, buckling to censorship or political influence is not actually apolitical in the slightest.
And neither is it apolitical to deliberately avoid certain "controversial" political subjects. In fact, it is the exact opposite: It is taking a political stance in support of the status quo, and of the authorities in charge.

Not necessarily in this case. They're not really even taking a political stance. Their only choice was to comply with the directive of the Chinese government - or their product would not be allowed to be sold in China.

It's just like with anyone visiting another country; either you follow their laws or you don't go. Compliance with another country's laws while you're on their soil is not really a political stance.

I don't think they care one whit about the politics of the government of China, but they do know what sells, and they want to sell to anyone who will buy. Their decision appeared more economically-motivated than politically-motivated.

However, I can see where it might be a political decision as to whether or not a company wants to do business with China. A lot of companies have done just that, and consumers are buying tons of products made in China. The fact that we once had a relationship where we shunned China and kept them out of the UN to the kind of relationship we have now - that was a political decision.

I'm reminded of a time back in the 60s when some rock performers were asked to change their lyrics for the Ed Sullivan Show and other programs of the era which had to be more "family-oriented."

If everyone avoids bringing up the topic out of fear of being seen as "controversial", then what's the practical difference to an actual ban?

Well, that's a good question, but not everyone is avoiding the topic. I'm not even sure that video game makers are avoiding it. But as a general point, most corporations and other large organizations tend to present themselves in a more sterile, official, and non-controversial manner, especially if they have a diverse customer base.

But it's clearly being discussed throughout society, so it's not banned at all.

If you let the military dictate the actual content of your work, then where is the practical difference to actual military propaganda?

Probably not much difference at all. I've often thought the same thing when a TV show or movie portrays the military in a somewhat propagandistic manner. But not all of them are like that.

A lot of these military games deal more with the mechanics, tactics, and strategies - and not so much with the causes or politics. For that, they might need a certain level of military expertise from a technical standpoint.

In reality, China is acting in a supremely insecure fashion here. Instead of having to use heavy handed censorship, their politicians could simply encourage companies to kowtow by yammering about "political correctness gone mad" and "politically controversial" media.

The Chinese government seems to have a different way of operating when it comes to things like this.

Although from a globalist free market capitalist standpoint, it might be viewed as "voting with your wallet," so to speak.

 

[Revoltingest]

Communism is (or was) the principle. But the Chinese Communists wanted to get rich, so they figured out a way to lure American capitalists into what they thought was a sweet deal and also caused the U.S. government to let their guard down regarding China. Turned out bad for us, but good for China. Now, we have U.S. capitalists falling all over each other to avoid offending the Chinese government.

The worst times in China were pre-capitalism.
Oppression was far worse, with high death tolls.
Capitalism actually improved things socially because
of its necessary integration with the west.
Of course, they still have much room for progress.

 

[Stevicus]

The worst times in China were pre-capitalism.
Oppression was far worse, with high death tolls.
Capitalism actually improved things socially because
of its necessary integration with the west.
Of course, they still have much room for progress.

Possibly, although I find it interesting just how quickly US capitalists jumped into bed with them.