For those just tuning in, there was once an article in this spot which tried to make sense of the shootings in Newtown, CT via an analogy to events and attitudes present in Telltale’s Walking Dead game. The article was written hastily in the haze of anger, and sadness, and frustration following that shooting. It was mixed with an already heady emotion earlier in the day stemming from a major event in Episode Three of that game. Specifically, the idea of this being a rare sort of story where a character owning a gun is not necessarily a positive, or seen as a solution to all life’s problems, but a failure and tying this back to the shooter and the people who rushed out to defend the right to bear arms, who apparently see things quite differently. A few people actually were rather supportive of the article; more, however, saw it as a triviality which cheapened and insulted the memories of those children who had still not even been collected from the floors of Sandy Hook Elementary School.
With time to actually sit and let yesterday entirely sink in before reacting, I believe I stand with the majority. Because of this, the article has been deleted.
If nothing else, believe that I did not write the article with that purpose. I sat and watched these events unfold yesterday afternoon as stunned and angry as everyone, and as with anything else this abhorrent, tried to make sense of it as best I could, and do something with that deep-seated feeling of helplessness. I felt compelled to use the medium I’ve chosen to write about for this site as the lens with which to view it, when in fact, this is in no way the time for this medium’s contribution to the conversation, if ever there was one.
I believe quite firmly in the spirit that guided that article. I believe there’s a prevailing attitude about the implements used to end the lives of these children that contributed quite directly to this event, and the fact that there are people who are actively fighting to ensure the wrong hands still get to use them should boil the blood of every rational person in the country. But as far as moral compasses go, no matter how well executed, a video game is not the point I should have chosen to act as true north. Not while there are quite real lives ended far too soon. And for anyone offended, or insulted, or hurt by such a comparison, I am truly and deeply sorry.
Many of the people who took me the most to task are parents of children who had the right idea of how to react last night. They went home, held their children, and silently counted their blessings that they remained safe. I am ill-equipped to speak on that experience. So, I’ll settle for the silence.
–J.C.
20 comments
sensitive but unfair. I disagree with the retraction because you can be sure as hell that the gun control lobby will be raising their voices about now regardless of propriety. Now is the time they will be heard, so its just as appropriate to voice reasoned opposition.
likewise if you wrote an article flaming current regulations and lobbying for gun control as many are, you would have not received one complaint. This is because that is a left wing perspective, and the left wish to silence any voice of opposition by using the tactics of claiming offense.
for instance, will pierce morgan be making an apology for expressing his opinions? no. the more i think about your retraction the more i think its just about silencing people with different opinions http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/121215/piers-morgan-gun-control-show-leads-raging-debat
ah.. the offensive defensiveness of the right..
I think you will find many imbeciles opposing gun control.
But they are still imbeciles..
As an ex-military officer. I find the opposition to gun control, quite a baseless argument.
I personally have never met a responsible public gun owner.
A sad comment, but true
Respectfully yours.
Disagreement is not the same as censorship. I think you would be more welcoming of the debate if you thought the anti gun control arguments had a leg to stand on.
I spent my twenties as an enlisted man; my experience with civilian gun owners is the same as OzRod’s.
I agree your comment was sad. it seems that you think as an ex-military officer, that you can just call people imbeciles and it means you have made a valid argument. Many people on both sides of the discussion are doubtless imbeciles, I don’t regard them; unless as in this case, they address me. I prefer to address the content of the reasoned arguments at hand.
I’m in favour of freedom of speech, and even (sometimes essentially) in these moments, having all voices heard. In this case Justin has essentially been censored probably by a barrage of left wingers taking offense where they had no business taking any, yet in likelihood themselves blogging and commenting about their opinions on how there should be tougher regulations.
Is that the article you just read? Can you link me to it? Because I just read one about Justin responding to the responses his prior article received. He wasn’t censored, he took it down.
taking it down through his own volition after public pressure and possible editorial pressure is still censorship. whether it be self-censorship or otherwise.
That’s not censorship. That’s an editorial decision in response to reader feedback. I don’t filly agree with that decision, but I understand and respect it.
Filly? What the heck? Fully.
thats a form of censorship. honest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from criticism OF your speech, no matter what Sarah Palin may believe. Using a definition of censorship that is broad enough to include this decision is broad enough to include any negative reaction to any publication anywhere. Is every angry letter to the editor an act of censorship?
It also takes agency away from the CHUD folks. They could have kept the thing up if they wanted, but didn’t. Casting them as victims is kind of disrespectful to them, really.
1. I know what freedom of speech is and its implications.
2. I have no idea what Sarah Palin has to do with me.
3. THE categorical definition of the meaning of the word censorship, is as it is, and however broad of a concept you consider that to be in your opinion does not mean that I was incorrect in the way in which I applied the term.
4. As you will have read in the link I posted for you censorship is not defined as ”any negative reaction to any publication anywhere”.
5. An angry letter to the editor is just an angry letter, it is the response to that letter wherein the opinion piece is retracted by whatever party based on the feedback, is the censorship.
6. I’ve not disrespected anyone in stating my opinion about this retraction.
Sarah Palin has accused her critics of restricting her free speech by… you know… being her critics. It’s a position that I’ve noticed more and more often in modern politics. I was referencing her as an example of that mindset.
At any rate, you said originally that this was “censored by a barrage of left wingers taking offense.” Implying that them taking offense was an act of censorship. Now you’re putting the decision, rightfully, in the hands of CHUD. Nobody forced CHUD to do anything. If you want to call that “self-censorship”, sure. That’s still a big stretch, but whatever. I won’t quibble.
But that is not what you said. You said the post was censored BY left wingers. And, no. No it was not. By any definition you want to use.
First they came for the guns, and I did not speak up because I was not a gun owner. Then they came for the opinions, and I STFU.
I’ll happily make that sentence clearer for you to interpret. ‘ In this case Justin has essentially self-censored probably as a result of a barrage of left wingers taking offense where they had no business taking any, yet in likelihood themselves blogging and commenting about their opinions on how there should be tougher regulations.”
I self censored because after taking some time to really roll this issue around, and discussing this with a lot of people, some of whom I knew and respected prior to this, I figured that just maybe it wasn’t prudent to use a video game about zombies to talk about gun control. Sure, I could write a new feature without it, and if it’s not about movies or games, there is no reason that particular article belongs on CHUD’s main page. This decision had nothing to do with some liberal agenda, and everything to do with being a thinking, compassionate human being who changed his mind. End of discussion.
Justin, Can you clarify? I didn’t see the original article. But from your updated article it seems as though you had shared a PRO gun control point of view. However Trybrow’s argument is that you had shared a Pro Gun POV and that you got flack for it.
It was pro-control. I have no idea what the hell Trybrow *is* defending, honestly.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.