I disagree that "killing is killing." That's like saying "stealing is stealing" while ignoring the circumstances under which the crime happens. Loaf of bread to feed a starving family and all that.
Or better yet, "drugs are drugs," so possessing an eighth of weed is just as bad as a kilo of cocaine. Or the same quantity of drugs, but one person is using recreationally and the other has intent to distribute.
There is more to an action than just the action - intent and motivation matter, and reflect underlying social issues.
Sure, there are plenty of examples where we draw arbitrary lines. I'm fine listening to Deathspell Omega, who write songs like "Mass Grave Aesthetics" about a generalized desire to see all of humanity die. But when Recluse says something like "Kneel down and accept your sacraments/ of lead and Zyklon gas," that's a different sort of hate, and one with which I'm less comfortable.
Regardless, it's worth discussing because people have emotional reactions to it, and the media is intended to provoke said emotional reactions.
How is a game about killing gays any different than Call of Duty or any other violent game? If you're prepared to ban that game as being hate speech, what about everything else that depicts killing? No, most other games with killing don't explicitly promote genocide, but killing is killing, and life has the same value regardless of any factors other than humanity.
Well a very glaring difference is that people in a Call of Duty game are shooting back at you and are ready to kill you. People in the banned game are not doing anything. You're just killing them for the sake of killing them, or thinking that they're bad because of their identity. They're also not using copious amounts of derogatory slurs in Call of Duty.
No, I didn't get "shut down hard". I asked why someone should have their game removed from Steam because they're an asshole. I qualified it with "Well, maybe if X." Then somebody confirmed X and I said "Well OK in that case I agree in this instance."
Not sure where the smackdown is that you're seeing there. Seemed like a conversation, to me. Seems it was much more loaded for others.
Don't argue semantics. You were wrong about something. Therefore you got "shut down." It's only hard because you can't admit it.
I don't agree that it's semantics, but this isn't an interesting conversation (I doubt it is for you, either) so I won't belabor it.
Axel - in reference to your post, I totally get you. What happened on my end is that my work firewall filters out Youtube and lots of other stuff and the video was totally invisible to me. I didn't see it at all before replying in the thread.
And I'm sorta on board with Ilmarinen here even though I think that targeting specific groups, like LGBT people, to shoot at takes quite a bit more hate and specific animosity than just buying into the very ingrained and well-spread culture that makes action movies and war games entertaining to us rather than disgusting. Maybe that's a fine hair to split but I do understand why there's a distinction.
I'm okay with being harsh with Muppet after he's wasted my time on multiple occasions by being willfully ignorant of a specific example in a discussion and continuing anyway. I'm not surprised to see it happen again with others. It's worth pointing out in a way that catches attention.
The general question of what suitable criteria should be for removing objectionable speech from a massive private market place that is essentially infrastructure is FAR more interesting than the slam dunk question of "Hey should Valve ban a game where you hunt down gay and transgendered people that was only published as a troll in the first place?" What's to discuss in the latter scenario?
I know you don't like me Luke, and I don't care that you don't like me, but you're being an ass in this thread. Not me.
I disagree that "killing is killing." That's like saying "stealing is stealing" while ignoring the circumstances under which the crime happens. Loaf of bread to feed a starving family and all that.
Or better yet, "drugs are drugs," so possessing an eighth of weed is just as bad as a kilo of cocaine. Or the same quantity of drugs, but one person is using recreationally and the other has intent to distribute.
There is more to an action than just the action - intent and motivation matter, and reflect underlying social issues.
Sure, there are plenty of examples where we draw arbitrary lines. I'm fine listening to Deathspell Omega, who write songs like "Mass Grave Aesthetics" about a generalized desire to see all of humanity die. But when Recluse says something like "Kneel down and accept your sacraments/ of lead and Zyklon gas," that's a different sort of hate, and one with which I'm less comfortable.
Regardless, it's worth discussing because people have emotional reactions to it, and the media is intended to provoke said emotional reactions.
Stealing IS stealing, regardless of the context and moral righteousness. Intent and motive do not matter to the law, and neither do the underlying social issues. However, killing in war and killing by civilians are different in the eyes of the law and society, so CoD probably wasn't as good an example as say, GTA.
In any case, is continually showing a different attitude toward speech/art/games against gays and other discriminated-against minority groups helping anyone? Doesn't making that distinction between gay or straight undermine the goal of LGBT activists, feminists, et. al? (The goal being accepted as equal members of society without discrimination for any reason) I'm not saying that hate speech should be accepted or condoned, but banning a game for being specifically offensive while ignoring all the broadly offensive media that exists strikes me as odd.
I disagree that "killing is killing." That's like saying "stealing is stealing" while ignoring the circumstances under which the crime happens. Loaf of bread to feed a starving family and all that.
Or better yet, "drugs are drugs," so possessing an eighth of weed is just as bad as a kilo of cocaine. Or the same quantity of drugs, but one person is using recreationally and the other has intent to distribute.
There is more to an action than just the action - intent and motivation matter, and reflect underlying social issues.
Sure, there are plenty of examples where we draw arbitrary lines. I'm fine listening to Deathspell Omega, who write songs like "Mass Grave Aesthetics" about a generalized desire to see all of humanity die. But when Recluse says something like "Kneel down and accept your sacraments/ of lead and Zyklon gas," that's a different sort of hate, and one with which I'm less comfortable.
Regardless, it's worth discussing because people have emotional reactions to it, and the media is intended to provoke said emotional reactions.
Stealing IS stealing, regardless of the context and moral righteousness. Intent and motive do not matter to the law, and neither do the underlying social issues. However, killing in war and killing by civilians are different in the eyes of the law and society, so CoD probably wasn't as good an example as say, GTA.
In any case, is continually showing a different attitude toward speech/art/games against gays and other discriminated-against minority groups helping anyone? Doesn't making that distinction between gay or straight undermine the goal of LGBT activists, feminists, et. al? (The goal being accepted as equal members of society without discrimination for any reason) I'm not saying that hate speech should be accepted or condoned, but banning a game for being specifically offensive while ignoring all the broadly offensive media that exists strikes me as odd.
I get what you're trying to say, but that's a completely flawed way of thinking about it. The problem is that the "art" itself is singling out the specific community. On top of that it's directing actions and words typically associated with hatred at that group. We're talking about it specifically, because that's the context that the particular game presents it. In a specific context, and if the game itself wasn't so explicit about it's intent, it may be viewed in a different light.
GTA as it stands is sort of a gray area. It's a "sandbox". The game often isn't having you target genders, religions, identities, etc, in a completely hateful way. I'm not saying it never does this, but for the majority of the story based missions it's never as superficial. I actually can't think of any specific examples, but it tends to provide more context for it's plot points as well. Generally, when you commit acts of violence in such a targeted fashion, it's the doing of the individual playing the game.
Banned game, from what I saw in that video, provides no context except to reward you with points based on killing a specific community of people.
Stealing IS stealing, regardless of the context and moral righteousness.
Now this is just semantics. You're arguing spirit in the one case and semantics in the other. Your arguments aren't consistent.
Yes, I did that to make a point about how the laws surrounding theft are different than the laws for murder. Theft is theft in the eyes of the law, killing can be "justifiable", 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree, manslaughter, not a problem because it was a soldier etc.
I actually haven't seen the game, so now that I know it's just a bullshit hate rant, I fully support taking it down.
The video was right there. How could you go off on this diatribe and not click the youtube video embed that you could find within a simple scroll upwards?
I actually haven't seen the game, so now that I know it's just a bullshit hate rant, I fully support taking it down.
The video was right there. How could you go off on this diatribe and not click the youtube video embed that you could find within a simple scroll upwards?
Addressed this two posts ago (edit - sorry, it was 3 posts ago), along with what a boring conversation it would have been without being more generalized.
I also didn't go off on a diatribe, that's not only loaded language it's nonsense. I get that this thread is in Flame Wars and all, but holy shit are some of you melodramatic about nothing.
The general question of what suitable criteria should be for removing objectionable speech from a massive private market place that is essentially infrastructure is FAR more interesting than the slam dunk question of "Hey should Valve ban a game where you hunt down gay and transgendered people that was only published as a troll in the first place?" What's to discuss in the latter scenario?
I know you don't like me Luke, and I don't care that you don't like me, but you're being an ass in this thread. Not me.
I don't not like you, I just find debating anything specific with you tiresome. In this case, there was a specific news story about a specific game and a specific course of action. Not every single specific thing needs widening out into the broadest possible question and then examined.
This IS a slam dunk question. It doesn't need debating. The only reason it was being debated was that other people thought you knew what you were talking about, and you acted like it, and then you admitted you hadn't even bothered to check. People were talking specifics with you, and you were debating generalities with them.
Not sure I agree with that (based on previous GTA games I have played.) I disagree with someone's right to spread lies and misinformation to get stores to pull games. However, the store itself should have the ability to refuse giving it shelf space be that virtual or physical.
GTA doesn't single out women, but it does (seemingly) have a unique mechanic in that prostitutes are the only in-game NPC where you can spend money for something and then immediately steal your own money back. Stores don't work that way. This exclusively incentivizes you to murder and rob prostitutes, which is problematic.
GTA doesn't single out women, but it does (seemingly) have a unique mechanic in that prostitutes are the only in-game NPC where you can spend money for something and then immediately steal your own money back. Stores don't work that way. This exclusively incentivizes you to murder and rob prostitutes, which is problematic.
That's true, but its also no longer the case. Anyone using an ATM and store owners now all drop cash.
GTA doesn't single out women, but it does (seemingly) have a unique mechanic in that prostitutes are the only in-game NPC where you can spend money for something and then immediately steal your own money back. Stores don't work that way. This exclusively incentivizes you to murder and rob prostitutes, which is problematic.
That's true, but its also no longer the case. Anyone using an ATM and store owners now all drop cash.
Okay. No one could confirm that for me the last time I asked. Good to know.
Here's the thing: There is nothing inherently wrong with GTA being a game in which the player does horrible things to other 'people'. That being said, there are definitely some activities that the player can participate in that are morally reprehensible. But it is also in the context of the player being a fucking criminal and generally not a fine upstanding member of the community. The player is a bad guy. The game makes you do bad things. This does NOT mean that GTA is above criticism. It's important to talk about those issues and recognize what they are, who plays the game, and what players take away from the experience. If there was no redeeming quality to the game, then it should deservedly be shunned, as this sad attempt at 'free speech' was.
Here's the thing: There is nothing inherently wrong with GTA being a game in which the player does horrible things to other 'people'. That being said, there are definitely some activities that the player can participate in that are morally reprehensible. But it is also in the context of the player being a fucking criminal and generally not a fine upstanding member of the community. The player is a bad guy. The game makes you do bad things. This does NOT mean that GTA is above criticism. It's important to talk about those issues and recognize what they are, who plays the game, and what players take away from the experience. If there was no redeeming quality to the game, then it should deservedly be shunned, as this sad attempt at 'free speech' was.
Who decides or how are redeeming qualities determined? A bit semantic but valid. I don't think GTA should be banned but some 48k+ people did for reasons I disagree with. Is it games that intentionally offend? Who decides what is or is not offensive?
The only reason it was being debated was that other people thought you knew what you were talking about, and you acted like it, and then you admitted you hadn't even bothered to check. People were talking specifics with you, and you were debating generalities with them.
Rather, I "admitted" that I wasn't able to see some of the thread content and had a similar confusion to the others. Agreed that we mostly talked past each other, which sucks. Oh well.
I think specific examples are rarely useful for discussion unless all you want to do is cheerleading for your side, which can have value and all but only so much (not much.)
To catch back up with the thread: GTA has artistic merit and a shooting gallery style piece of crap that nobody would have put a quarter into even in the 1980s for the sole purpose of trolling... doesn't.
Subjective stuff is frustrating for people who like to quantify everything, but we live in a subjective universe. Such is life.
Oh and I'm totally on board with a GTA V bacon mod. Somebody get on that! I have no idea what the specs would be on such a thing but I'm thinking it doesn't really matter because BACON!
Yeah, you are literally incorrect about this. There are a number of crimes, particularly in the assault and homicide category, that are separated solely by intent.
I used "stealing is stealing" because you framed "killing is killing" as a question of moralistic philosophy and not as one of legal standing.
And independent of the law, a judge can exercise lots of discretion in handing out punishments for specific crimes. So while two people may steal the exact same sandwich, someone stealing it because they're starving may indeed receive a much lesser punishment.
Yeah, you are literally incorrect about this. There are a number of crimes, particularly in the assault and homicide category, that are separated solely by intent.
I used "stealing is stealing" because you framed "killing is killing" as a question of moralistic philosophy and not as one of legal standing.
And independent of the law, a judge can exercise lots of discretion in handing out punishments for specific crimes. So while two people may steal the exact same sandwich, someone stealing it because they're starving may indeed receive a much lesser punishment.
Yeah, but the law does not care about intent in cases of theft, and a judge's discretion is rarely exercised for theft, except to give a harsher punishment than usual. The law shouldn't care about intent in the case of killing either, but the law does not reflect morality. I only mentioned legality because I thought that was what you were basing your statements on (due to wording and the morally suspect consideration of intent rather than actions).
Yeah, you are literally incorrect about this. There are a number of crimes, particularly in the assault and homicide category, that are separated solely by intent.
I used "stealing is stealing" because you framed "killing is killing" as a question of moralistic philosophy and not as one of legal standing.
And independent of the law, a judge can exercise lots of discretion in handing out punishments for specific crimes. So while two people may steal the exact same sandwich, someone stealing it because they're starving may indeed receive a much lesser punishment.
Yeah, but the law does not care about intent in cases of theft, and a judge's discretion is rarely exercised for theft, except to give a harsher punishment than usual. The law shouldn't care about intent in the case of killing either, but the law does not reflect morality. I only mentioned legality because I thought that was what you were basing your statements on (due to wording and the morally suspect consideration of intent rather than actions).
...
You are talking entirely out of your ass at this point.
Yeah, you are literally incorrect about this. There are a number of crimes, particularly in the assault and homicide category, that are separated solely by intent.
I used "stealing is stealing" because you framed "killing is killing" as a question of moralistic philosophy and not as one of legal standing.
And independent of the law, a judge can exercise lots of discretion in handing out punishments for specific crimes. So while two people may steal the exact same sandwich, someone stealing it because they're starving may indeed receive a much lesser punishment.
Yeah, but the law does not care about intent in cases of theft, and a judge's discretion is rarely exercised for theft, except to give a harsher punishment than usual. The law shouldn't care about intent in the case of killing either, but the law does not reflect morality. I only mentioned legality because I thought that was what you were basing your statements on (due to wording and the morally suspect consideration of intent rather than actions).
...
You are talking entirely out of your ass at this point.
I really hope I'm not the only one struck by the irony in this statement.
Comments
Or better yet, "drugs are drugs," so possessing an eighth of weed is just as bad as a kilo of cocaine. Or the same quantity of drugs, but one person is using recreationally and the other has intent to distribute.
There is more to an action than just the action - intent and motivation matter, and reflect underlying social issues.
Sure, there are plenty of examples where we draw arbitrary lines. I'm fine listening to Deathspell Omega, who write songs like "Mass Grave Aesthetics" about a generalized desire to see all of humanity die. But when Recluse says something like "Kneel down and accept your sacraments/ of lead and Zyklon gas," that's a different sort of hate, and one with which I'm less comfortable.
Regardless, it's worth discussing because people have emotional reactions to it, and the media is intended to provoke said emotional reactions.
Axel - in reference to your post, I totally get you. What happened on my end is that my work firewall filters out Youtube and lots of other stuff and the video was totally invisible to me. I didn't see it at all before replying in the thread.
And I'm sorta on board with Ilmarinen here even though I think that targeting specific groups, like LGBT people, to shoot at takes quite a bit more hate and specific animosity than just buying into the very ingrained and well-spread culture that makes action movies and war games entertaining to us rather than disgusting. Maybe that's a fine hair to split but I do understand why there's a distinction.
I know you don't like me Luke, and I don't care that you don't like me, but you're being an ass in this thread. Not me.
In any case, is continually showing a different attitude toward speech/art/games against gays and other discriminated-against minority groups helping anyone? Doesn't making that distinction between gay or straight undermine the goal of LGBT activists, feminists, et. al? (The goal being accepted as equal members of society without discrimination for any reason) I'm not saying that hate speech should be accepted or condoned, but banning a game for being specifically offensive while ignoring all the broadly offensive media that exists strikes me as odd.
GTA as it stands is sort of a gray area. It's a "sandbox". The game often isn't having you target genders, religions, identities, etc, in a completely hateful way. I'm not saying it never does this, but for the majority of the story based missions it's never as superficial. I actually can't think of any specific examples, but it tends to provide more context for it's plot points as well. Generally, when you commit acts of violence in such a targeted fashion, it's the doing of the individual playing the game.
Banned game, from what I saw in that video, provides no context except to reward you with points based on killing a specific community of people.
I also didn't go off on a diatribe, that's not only loaded language it's nonsense. I get that this thread is in Flame Wars and all, but holy shit are some of you melodramatic about nothing.
This IS a slam dunk question. It doesn't need debating. The only reason it was being debated was that other people thought you knew what you were talking about, and you acted like it, and then you admitted you hadn't even bothered to check. People were talking specifics with you, and you were debating generalities with them.
As far as GTA goes as comparison some people obviously believed it singled out women for violence as compared to all other groups. https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-grand-theft-auto-5-this-sickening-game-encourages-players-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women
Not sure I agree with that (based on previous GTA games I have played.) I disagree with someone's right to spread lies and misinformation to get stores to pull games. However, the store itself should have the ability to refuse giving it shelf space be that virtual or physical.
This does NOT mean that GTA is above criticism. It's important to talk about those issues and recognize what they are, who plays the game, and what players take away from the experience. If there was no redeeming quality to the game, then it should deservedly be shunned, as this sad attempt at 'free speech' was.
I think specific examples are rarely useful for discussion unless all you want to do is cheerleading for your side, which can have value and all but only so much (not much.)
To catch back up with the thread: GTA has artistic merit and a shooting gallery style piece of crap that nobody would have put a quarter into even in the 1980s for the sole purpose of trolling... doesn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
Subjective stuff is frustrating for people who like to quantify everything, but we live in a subjective universe. Such is life.
Oh and I'm totally on board with a GTA V bacon mod. Somebody get on that! I have no idea what the specs would be on such a thing but I'm thinking it doesn't really matter because BACON!
I used "stealing is stealing" because you framed "killing is killing" as a question of moralistic philosophy and not as one of legal standing.
And independent of the law, a judge can exercise lots of discretion in handing out punishments for specific crimes. So while two people may steal the exact same sandwich, someone stealing it because they're starving may indeed receive a much lesser punishment.
You are talking entirely out of your ass at this point.