So I wanted to write this because I fairly recently had an argument without someone staunchly opposed to #Gamergate and the take away from the argument was the claim that creators should take into account peoples feelings. Now here’s the relevant section and I brought up the exact same argument used in this article with them later on after this part of the argument.

That’s the claim that only saying really important things is worth hurting some-ones feelings. Yet the problem with that is who gets to make the choice about what’s important and whose feelings matter? I’d like to introduce many people in the US both anti and pro #Gamergate to a woman by the name of Mary Whitehouse. Mary Whitehouse campaigned for a number of different things with her organisation the National Viewers and Listeners Association (the NVLA). Here’s an interview with her.

So as you can see Mary Whitehouse is strongly against sexualisation and it’s use the the media. She saw it as exploitative and tried to stamp it’s use out. She famously launched private prosecutions against many different people including play directors. It was Mary Whitehouse’s claim that creators has a responsibility to society with their creation and part of that responsibility was not to offend people. Sounds very similar to some present day “moral arbiters” doesn't it ?

Now I’m sure many people in Anti #Gamergate are a nodding at that sentiment. The idea of ending people exploiting peoples looks to “sex up” products etc to try and improve sale, and how this is damaging. Now I’m sure they’re also nodding about how creators are meant to have some responsibility to use their work to improve society.

Here’s what I haven’t mentioned yet. Mary Whitehouse was a devout Christian and wife of a Vicar (a priest for those in the US). Mary Whitehouse believed in the entire stance of the church at the time (and still arguable the stance today) Mary Whitehouse believed that homosexuality was a sin and therefore evil and shouldn't be shown or represented in the media or seen as acceptable. She even took poets and a newpaper to court using blasphemy as almost her entire argument. Yes Blasphemy people being offended by the use of Gods name or depictions of content deemed sinful in the bible.

I don’t think it would be going to far to say I despise everything Mary Whitehouse stood for almost in it’s entirety. I stand against sexual repression, I stand for freedom or creators and yes that includes the freedom to offend. What message is worth offending someone, the message that speech is free, the message that learning to laugh is important and being able to laugh at oneself is also important to. For everyone to be equal you it means everyone can share in the ridicule. It means not putting up protected zones or protected groups or the idea that comedians can only “punch up”. For example the character of Ali G is in reality a huge punch down at working class youth in the UK who aren't rich and in some sections of society grew up on rap and hip hop. Yet Ali G as a comic character by creator Sacha Baron Cohen is regarded quite highly still.

The idea that work should never offend anyone means you don’t get to offend people like Mary Whitehouse either. You don’t get to show content that offends them even when that content is peoples very own nature and existence.

Now the come back from most of Anti #Gamergate will be “well it’s the creators choice”. Exactly, it’s not yours and they have no obligation to bow down to your whims. If you’re claiming something should be changed for offending you then you’re either claiming only you and your opinion on what should be included is right. Or you’re arguing for everyone to be able to force changes including the Mary Whitehouses of the world and the West Boro Baptist Churches of the world. Think on that for a moment, you’re either being hugely egotistical and claiming no-one else’s view of the material should matter, not even the artists intent, and that the whole world should cater to you. Or you’re actually making the argument for the suppression of “offensive content” by those in the West Boro Baptist church who find people’s natural sexual preferences to be offensive to them because of their beliefs.

So to those reading this if you’re only reason for asking for change is you’re offended and not any logical or reasoned arguments beyond that. Ask yourself this, is the problem that you can’t take a joke ? Or are you getting offended on some-one else’s behalf to try and score some kind of social points with people? Because the reality is not everything is made for everyone and if you truly wanted to respect peoples differences then you’d respect one of the biggest differences there is, peoples personal tastes. It’s only a small step from asking to restrict content to actively suppressing content and sooner or later it will be something you enjoyed being deemed harmful by someone. When that happens (and it will) you’ll be forced to either defend people trying to suppress something you enjoy because of their feelings or you’re realise why people stand up to any indication of censorship of art.

“But everyone’s entitled to their own opinions” is another common argument. To which I say yes everyone is, however opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one and the moment you start shoving it in my face without invitation or inclination then I’ll happily return the favour. Your opinion is just that, an opinion it is not gospel truth or automatically right. If you are egotistical enough to believe so vehemently that you’re always right and that no-one should be allowed to challenge I have news for you. No-one is right all the time on everything and there’s a damn good reason people tend to rise up when someone tries to impose their will on everyone else, no matter how big a following that person may have.

So to you the offendatrons of the world who see everything as a personal attack or offensive to someone. I say this, get over yourself, the world and creators don’t have time to bother trying to offend you. The world is not out to upset you deliberately, you’re out to be upset. Oh and not everything is meant to make you feel happy. Charles Dickens (yes the writer of a Christmas Carol) faced heavy criticism for offending people with his works for showing the true extent and conditions that the poor at the time were living in. People were hugely upset by his depictions and rightfully so as it raised important questions and almost taboo subjects. It did offend people and the reason it did was it made them realise how little they had noticed or cared about the poor themselves. People in “high Society” saw it as a personal attack on them and were hugely offended but the true cause of them being offended and upset was not that Dickens broached the subject but that they knew what he was saying has some truth to it.

So next time you’re about to send death threats to a creator for offending you (as people did to Stanley Kubrick due to his film A Clockwork Orange) stop and ask yourself if the reason you’re upset is merely you didn't like the work or if there was an actual logical arguable issue with the work. If you don’t and choose to lock yourself away from criticism and choose to try to preach from on high, look out as people might try to knock you off your self made pedestal of entitlement. Just because a work doesn’t make you feel happy doesn’t mean it’s bad. Being human means feeling a range of emotions and getting used to it.