The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => Science & Nature => Topic started by: slink on December 11, 2003, 12:30:27 am
-
A webcomic in Singapore raises money for sick children in Seattle, a gamer's charity drive raises over a hundred thousand dollars in toys and donations - and then some dumb fucker pulls a firearm at a Counter-Strike tournament. This is a communique to all dumb fuckers - we're trying to do something here, idiots. Do you think you could maybe not kill anybody for the next, oh, twelve days? I know it's hard.
Over at Penny Arcade (http://www.penny-arcade.com) where they're running the fantastic Child's Play charity drive, which I have just eben filled with positivity from the success of, there's mention of this.
I watched a program last night, not entirely willingly, about the connection to hip-hop and the rise of gun crime in the UK. And someone was fuck*ng dumb enough to say (and I paraphrase) "Why do people connect this crime with rap, when no one's trying to connect it to violent films, or violent computer games".
fuck*ng MORON!
I really don't feel games have any correlation to violent crime. I believe that some people are so fucked in the head, psychologically that is (what a professional term), that they will be affected by something like a film or game. And I believe that parents need to, what was it, oh yes, actually take an interest in being a fuck*ng parent, and monitor what their kid watch/play/do. I mean, a 9 year old with a game like Vice City, just isn't good parenting!
I don't believe that on the whole, someone who wants to commit a violent crime, is going to get anything from a computer game that actually influences what they then do. I don't believe that someone who hasn't thoughtof committing a violent crime will do so because they played a fuck*ng game.
Yes, I'm biased. I play violent computer games. I watch violent movies. I listen to musicians who speak of death. I also play non-violent computer games, watch non-violent movies and listen to music about bunnies.
But at the end of the day, who's going to remind the right wing, filthy rich, quite-probably-heavily-religious-in-the-Southern-way lawyers that people who play computer games care about kids they've never met, or known existed?
I just hope someone gets a chance to. Because I am with Tycho, the argument over computer games and the link to violent crime isn't going to go away without getting a whole lot worse first.
[/rant somewhat over]
-
I consider violent video games a method to vent negative energy which might otherwise be directed toward actual violence.
-
I tend to agree with August on this one -- it's a venting thing, pure and simple. Of course, I play D&D, so what do I know about safe gaming?
(Three more levels and I get to learn the real magic!)
-
I consider violent video games a method to vent negative energy which might otherwise be directed toward actual violence.
A damn good point. And a technique I use on occasion. Although not an argument I would like to have to use in discussion of the topic. It just feels, not quite right...
And to follow u pfrom V there, I don't think it's all about venting. I mean, I played Quake because it was a kickass game. I played Max Payne 2 recently because it was a good game, with a good, silly plot and fun gameplay dynamic. I played Soldier of Fortune 2 MP because it was a pretty good DM gaming dynamic. The SP was only ever effective as venting, since it wasa shit SP game.
But I also play Asheron's Call 2 as an RPG experience, and to keep my best mate company. I play X2 for that spacey, drifty, good old days of Elite feel. And I play all the old LucasArts games for the fun. Oh and something like Mafia that could be considered violent, was a stunningly filmic game, as ought to be Doom 3 when it's released.
So it's not all about venting, but it is, and can be a big part of it.
Maybe I just care about, and get woud up about this too much, but I don't want to see it labelled as just a violent passtime. It makes me really angry that these... fuck*ng fascists, are trying to censor * one of my favourite forms of entertainment, and a whole section of personal creativity that I am hoping to get involved with again.
The same goes for the idea of censoring music, or film.
*I forgot about that piece of censoring.
-
I'm a conservative, right-wingish person who is religious though possibly not "in the southern way" who listens to such music and plays such games.
A moron is a moron no matter what music or games he plays; a person with a predisposition to violence probably could be encouraged slightly by these sort of influences. No one but no one wants to actually look at the whole population of well adjusted (if geeky) music listeners and gamers out there and actually study whether these people are "more likely" to exhibit sociopathic behavior. Why??
1) They are generally younger people who aren't going to reply to the accusations because either they don't care what people are saying or don't have a voice (it's those of us who are older who generally reply or have the means to counter the claims)
2) They are a convenient place to park the blame for so many of society's ills, be that the crime rate or obesity or whatever.
Used to be they blamed all this stuff on those of us who dared to ride skateboards around while sporting "unconventional" hairstyles. Times have changed, haven't they? It's too bad some of these parents can't seem to get their tiny little minds around the fact that if they would have spent more time watching what their kid was doing and determining whether they could HANDLE the sensory input they were getting, maybe the world wouldn't be wondering why your kid shot 6 people at school. Of course, the schools are at fault. Rather than checking out parents, we should lock down schools and make all the kids go through metal detectors and spot inspections. Even though almost all of these crimes were committed with (unsecured, parentally purchased or owned) weapons from home.
There is a critical lack of accountability in the US for behaviors for which we are responsible. This is why it is somehow legal and acceptable to sue a cigaretter maker for the cancer I got from voluntarily smoking. Or suing a gun manufacturer because someone let a kid get a hold of a gun and kill someone. People salve their guilt and shame with litigation. In the US, it has to be someone else's fault.
I'm sick of blaming pop culture for the worlds problems and I'm sick of better living through litigation.
Makes me wanna shoot a bunch of people....I better turn of the game console and the stereo and take a ' walk of sanity'.
-
An interesting, and in this light, fuck*ng refreshing quote in the press release from the owner of the LAN even where the 'fire arm drawing' took place, who also happens to be the father of the guy who had the gun pointed at his head while onlookers tried to persuade the gunman to fire...
While this is a deeply disturbing and personally frightening situation I currently attribute this matter, and the despicable actions of those who initiated and presented the weapons, to the moral fiber and character of the local community rather than the games and players who will suffer due to the actions of a these few.
Press release can be found here (http://www.gotfrag.com/?node=content&id=240), and interview here (http://www.gotfrag.com/?node=feature&id=415).
If you hadn't noticed, I can get very involved in certain things. And the current gun laws and aproaches and attitudes to them are one thing that really fuck*ng get to me. Oh just wait til I start this term and my Democracy in the US section.
-
And it's the same day they decided to retry the wrestling imitator (http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/newsboard.php?news_id=8270)
-
We have categories here for a reason, people. Plus, I don't want to be the one to drop the hammer when this shit gets too serious.
-
screwed this up good.
-
We have categories here for a reason, people. Plus, I don't want to be the one to drop the hammer when this shit gets too serious.
OK, I'm utterly confused, this is where I put it no? Or did someone send it back here? Since this is kind of where I figured it belonged. It doesn't really pertain to any one subject enough to not be in here.
Anyway, I don't care, I'm just gonna piss people off if I keep on going today...
Me for one.
-
This is a big issue for me. Like copyright law, and my own genitals. I started a post that became an essay. I'll spare the board and post a link.
Link (http://www.livejournal.com/users/pedro_picasso/3930.html)
-
Amen to you Pedro. It's so nice to see someone else who cares about this as much as me. And I guess the point being it comes from someone else who is as much (if not currently more?) involved in the industry.
I pretty much wholly agree with your post. The only thing that I would want to discuss, and on this I am more in agreement with Penny Arcade...
They're not going to turn into zombies, but it's honestly not good for them, and we can't trust their parents to keep the stuff from them. There's already a good-enough rating system in place. It has become necessary to keep the Mature for people over 12 and the Adult games for people who have legally attained that status.
I fully agree, that we cannot trust parents, on the whole, to keep unsuitable material away from their own children. The problem there however, is that we have to come up with suitable legislation to do so. And basically, I would prefer it if that job wasn't a legal issue. I just don't think the people who are going to come up with the legislation are going to do it effectively, and morally.
The current ESRB ratings for videogames are a bold, and I think good move. I feel the 'Early Childhood' and 'Children' ratings should be merged, since they, as far as I'm concerned only need to be distinguished in gameplay terms, not in legal ratings.
But I also feel that they should use the standard film ratings, since parents know what they are. And shop assistants too.
In the UK, we have started using the BBFC ratings (12, 15 and 18) on our games, and while it is currently only a guideline rating (it cannot be legally enforced yet) it does at least give people a clear idea who the game is aimed at. For instance in arguments over Grand Theft Auto and shocked parents saying 'How can we let our children play this?', the answer is, 'You don't. It clearly states it's aimed for 18+'.
If we can legally enforce the current ratings in the UK, so like movies, a shop assistant is not allowed to sell an 18 rated game to anyone under that age, I will be happy. However I fear, like movies, it isn't going to change much, and kids are still going to be able to buy unsuitable video games. This is why I fear stronger and stronger legislation, which will censor more and more one of our strongest and most promising artforms.
-
We have categories here for a reason, people. Plus, I don't want to be the one to drop the hammer when this shit gets too serious.
OK, I'm utterly confused, this is where I put it no? Or did someone send it back here? Since this is kind of where I figured it belonged. It doesn't really pertain to any one subject enough to not be in here.
I think he means this isn't really a games discussion, rather a political one. The first of it's kind actually by my reckoning. But we don't have a politics section so I think this is prolly close enough.
~Paul
-
I get politics? Oh boy.
I really disagree with the body of slink's argument. I remember visiting a friend in London and finding out we couldn't rent a grotesquely edited version of Clerks because of the rating.Even with parental permission. This is absolutely mind-boggling. Blockbuster finally conceeded why my passport showed I'd turned 18 the previous day.
I refuse to believe I'd gained an appreciable measure of maturity and understanding in that one day. That kind of legally enforced system is an insult to any thinking, mature child or teenager. Not to mention the parents who recognize them as such. The full 100% sum total of all censorship needs to rest on the parents and the parents only. Although that still fucks over the kids who are smarter than their parents, which is not a crime.
I can't believe that a 16-year-old stupid enough to be violent because a game told him too is going to be any less of a dumb motherfucker in 2 years. Or in 20 years.
There's far too much censorship in the world already. Like when a newspaper reports somebody said "I don't give a f---" That's not news, that's a lie. Nobody says "hyphen hyphen hyphen." They said fuck. It's just a word, get over it. There are no bad words. Bad deeds and bad intentions, yes. Bad words, no. (Apologies to George Carlin).
You can't show breasts in the U.S. No pubic hair in Japan. No penetration in Japan or the UK. No giraffe n chips stands exploding on St. Patrick's Day in England. It's insane. Lighten up, people.
-
But what about the CHILDREN! Won't someone think of the CHILDREN???!!!!
-
That kind of legally enforced system is an insult to any thinking, mature child or teenager. Not to mention the parents who recognize them as such. The full 100% sum total of all censorship needs to rest on the parents and the parents only.
(Well, I put it in the Lounge since it wasn't really about entertainment, but hey...)
I totally agree with you. As I said, I am scared of legislation and what it could do to gaming, but I am with Pedro - we cannot trust parents to do this.
They've proved that, with the number of 12 year olds being able to go buy violent games.
Some shops can be very strict about video ratings here, but not many. And I haven't seen a single one being strict about the, so far, voluntary games ratings.
And I agree that chances are, no one is going to develop much more maturity between the ages of 16 and 18. Some kids may be mature enough, in terms of moral development to play 18 rated games at 14, but I think as far as that goes, it's better to let the parents get the game for the kid, bypassing the legislation and letting the parents decide themselves.
But, as Pedro kind of said, parents on the whole also need to teach their children about morals.
And, as always, the few will spoil it for the many. Which is better than the few killing lots of people.
-
I refuse to believe I'd gained an appreciable measure of maturity and understanding in that one day.
Agreed. What you did gain in that one day was legal responsibility for your actions. Your parents can no longer be held accountable for the things you do, therefore they no longer have the final say on things like what you watch, where you drive, and how you smoke. This all makes sense from a legal standpoint.
Try explaining the drinking age of 21.
-
What you did gain in that one day was legal responsibility for your actions.
You god! I am citing you in my current essay.
-
Laws exist to keep good boys good.
Legislation and even enforcement is expensive. Currently we can't keep people safe from other people. A new law is not the answer.
The problem is what Pedro referred as that thing you get in that one day:
Responsibility. Of the PERSONAL kind. As long as the 'adults' continue to abrogate the responsibility for the actions of their offspring, and as long as they continue to blame teachers, games, music. televison and society in general (all the surrogates they could give the kids to make up for their inability or lack of desire to be a parent) then these kids will ACT BADLY, regardless of what is in their environment.
-
But what about the CHILDREN! Won't someone think of the CHILDREN???!!!!
A year and a half of parliamentary debate has made me want to punch everyone who ever says this. August, yer walking on thin ice -- you only get an exemption on sarcasm.
That said, I may have overstated my catharsis point. Certainly, we don't play violent games just for catharsis; often it has to do with the fact that they are, in scientific terms, totally freakin' awesome. Just that catharsis is a part of it.
As for actual age limits... honestly, if things are labelled correctly and fairly, I don't have a problem with enforcement. The problem only comes with situations like the MPAA rating systems, which tend to be bizarrely arbitrary and unfortunate in terms of what they allow children to see and what they don't.
-
But what about the CHILDREN! Won't someone think of the CHILDREN???!!!!
A year and a half of parliamentary debate has made me want to punch everyone who ever says this. August, yer walking on thin ice -- you only get an exemption on sarcasm.
That said, I may have overstated my catharsis point. Certainly, we don't play violent games just for catharsis; often it has to do with the fact that they are, in scientific terms, totally freakin' awesome. Just that catharsis is a part of it.
As for actual age limits... honestly, if things are labelled correctly and fairly, I don't have a problem with enforcement. The problem only comes with situations like the MPAA rating systems, which tend to be bizarrely arbitrary and unfortunate in terms of what they allow children to see and what they don't.
Back in the Old Days, I remember we had these people that were much bigger and older than us (they lived with us, fed us, clothed us, disciplined us when we said bad words and strived to install values in us) and they made decisions like that. And the Community more-or-less kind of self-regulated, because no one wanted to be perceived as a "bad parent", or get a talking to from the school or the Pastor or whatever. Self Regulation is inherently more powerful than external imposition of 'standards', but self-regulation has decayed because the sense of 'community standards' has eroded to the point of being irrelevant.
-
but self-regulation has decayed because the sense of 'community standards' has eroded to the point of being irrelevant.
And because people started lookin' down on the spankins.
-
Okay, how loud do I have to say it?
I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULD TAKE REGULATION INSTEAD OF GOOD PARENTING. I AM GENERALLY IN FAVOR OF PARENTING, AND ADVOCATING ONE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE YOU AGAINST THE OTHER HERE. I AM MERELY SUGGESTING THAT REGULATION, IF IMPLEMENTED WELL, IS A VALUABLE SUPPLEMENTAL TOOL.
Okay, there, I'm done. Time to have that Caps Lock key removed for the good of all mankind.
-
But what about the CHILDREN! Won't someone think of the CHILDREN???!!!!
A year and a half of parliamentary debate has made me want to punch everyone who ever says this. August, yer walking on thin ice -- you only get an exemption on sarcasm.
Bring it on, Sista!
Personally, I find that a half-hour a day of DoomII keeps me suitably non-violent.
Sorry to keep being flip in the midst of this Serious Discussion. It's just that I find the idea that violent imagery in movies, literature, video games, etc. would inspire someone to commit actual violence ludicrous. However, I do think it possible that folks can learn new techniques from these sources.
That is, DeathKillersIII may not incite you to go out and hurt somebody, but it could show you some interesting new ways to do it, were you so inclined.
-
Sorry to keep being flip in the midst of this Serious Discussion. It's just that I find the idea that violent imagery in movies, literature, video games, etc. would inspire someone to commit actual violence ludicrous. However, I do think it possible that folks can learn new techniques from these sources.
This is why I haven't piped in on this discussion so far, despite the fact that I have intense and virulent opinions on the subject - I don't particularly have anything new to add, and I'd most likely just end up making with the Jerk.
Perhaps, though, you have heard of this "National Institute on Media and the Family" that has made the news lately what with their lazy-mouthed new word for the Video Nasties: killographic. (I mean, come on, people - let's go all or nothing with the use and abuse of Classical Language Roots here.) They coughed up a list of their Top Ten Games To Watch Out For (http://www.sportplanet.com/news/archive.asp) (first article, December 8; no direct link available) and this game called Manhunt is Number One With A Bullet, HAR HAR HAR OH MY GOODNESS ETC.
Everything I've read about the game suggests:
It is an excuse to display an overlong and unrealistic Parade of Interesting Killing Methods. The amazon.com page shilling this title uses the progressively less creative "explore(s) the depths of human depravity" phrase no less than three times.
When I was entering adolescence, there was a feature in the back of selected Punisher annuals called The Punisher's Fighting Techniques. I thought these fuck*ng ruled. That said, neither I nor the kids who are going to be playing Manhunt have the strength, agility, or pure bile to pull any of this shit off. It will put ideas into their heads and their little girlfriends' fathers will die a hundred ugly stealth-based deaths. In their dreams
Interestingly, Number Four on their list is Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball, above frankly ridiculous shit like (again with the!) Backyard Wrestling. This means that giving girls presents and maybe getting a boner is more of a threat to the American psyche and way of life than putting on clown makeup and beating on the neighborhood fat kid with Mom's rake. Explain that one to me.
-
This means that giving girls presents and maybe getting a boner is more of a threat to the American psyche and way of life than putting on clown makeup and beating on the neighborhood fat kid with Mom's rake. Explain that one to me.
Your explanation:
In America, sex is evil. Violence puts the butts in the seats.
-
Interestingly, Number Four on their list is Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball, above frankly ridiculous shit like (again with the!) Backyard Wrestling. This means that giving girls presents and maybe getting a boner is more of a threat to the American psyche and way of life than putting on clown makeup and beating on the neighborhood fat kid with Mom's rake. Explain that one to me.
Well, quite clearly DoA XVB promotes some sort of "xtreme" dating mold, clearly a dangerous one for American society! Why, "xtreme" dating might well involve heavy petting.
On the other hand, thrashing those weaker than you is a suburban tradition.
-
In America, sex is evil. Violence puts the butts in the seats.
I find it funny that while we're very prissy about nudity and sexuality in the media (the TV show Topless Darts wouldn't even run on HBO here) we're very open about sex when you get down to it.
At least from what I understand in England they can show breasts on regular tv (after 11) but they can't sell an American issue of Hustler because of the penetration.
Apparently as a country we don't have any settings between "Off" and "HyperMax"
-
At least from what I understand in England they can show breasts on regular tv (after 11) but they can't sell an American issue of Hustler because of the penetration.
They can show everything but actual female genitals, or an erect member after 9pm. Though 'good taste' on the part of the channel tends to push it back to 11 or so. Same goes for saying fuck on terrestrial, although shit's can sneak in as early as 8.
As for penetration, it cannot be sold in conventional newsagents. You can only buy softcore there. You would have to go to a sex shop for hardcore. Well, or this internet thing I keep hearing about.
But then apparently it is illegal to say on UK TV that Santa does not exist. Fact.
But, overall, I'm with V on it so far. It should be a parental thing, but since that doesn't work nowadays, we should have wise and fair legislation in the meantime.
And as for DOA... well... I'll not go there.
-
But, overall, I'm with V on it so far. It should be a parental thing, but since that doesn't work nowadays, we should have wise and fair legislation in the meantime.
And as for DOA... well... I'll not go there.
Parenting and community standards is where it's at. Legislation will probably keep those 'on the edge" from violating the law.... But, like Porno and Weed, and anal sex in the Southern US States, there are those who will break the law because they like it and playing such a game is, really, a victimless crime. Frankly, for the most part, this will NOT be a law much worth enforcing... Like Cigarettes and Penthouse, one need only have an 18 year old cousin/brother/friend and voila'! Shocking Imagery! And, to take the VRWC's word, blood running in the streets soon after.
I mean, are there no guns in the hands of criminals in the UK? Have strict drug laws resulted in crack disappearing in Americas inner cities? Have people stopped killing each other yet? A law can do little to prevent a behavior if someone is predisposed to the behavior or if their need for whatever they get from the behavior outweighs their need to conform. And the desire to play a cool game or listen to music (especially with/among peers) surely outweighs the small chance a retailer will keep the game out of a kid's hands or a 18-20 year old won't supply a 14 year old with it.
-
This may sound kind of dumb, but I'm glad there aren't boobies all over the place here in the states. I have a problem with boobies. I love them. They are my life-long passion. Big, small, oddly-shaped; each of these nipple-topped mounds of utilitarian woman-flesh is a thing of beauty. They make it hard for me to think. When I go visit family in Argentina, and every magazine stand has mad boobies all over the place, all I can think is I bet I could run a magazine stand. Here in the US I can walk anywhere I want without the siren call of mind-numbing boobivision.
I'm not going to fight for the legislation that keeps nudity off broadcast television and newstands just because I have poor self-discipline and an inability to aim my firing neurons when they're subjected to the awesome beauty of the female form. But I'm not going to fight against it.
c*ckes should be allowed on broadcast television, but only for their immense comic value.
-
c*ckes should be allowed on broadcast television, but only for their immense comic value.
This may be the best argument on this thread so far.
-
c*ckes should be allowed on broadcast television, but only for their immense comic value.
Amen brotha! To all of the above.
Damn boobies.
Ooooh boobies!
Damn!
-
Someone very wise once said, "A naked woman is soft and curvy and beautiful. A naked man is just a guy who really should put on some #####."
-
What the HELL is objectionable about P A N T S?
-
Krusty: Back then, you couldn't say "pants (http://www.snpp.com/episodes/CABF10)" on TV. I was banned for ten years.
-
This may sound kind of dumb, but I'm glad there aren't boobies all over the place here in the states. I have a problem with boobies. I love them. They are my life-long passion. Big, small, oddly-shaped; each of these nipple-topped mounds of utilitarian woman-flesh is a thing of beauty. They make it hard for me to think. When I go visit family in Argentina, and every magazine stand has mad boobies all over the place, all I can think is I bet I could run a magazine stand. Here in the US I can walk anywhere I want without the siren call of mind-numbing boobivision.
I'm not going to fight for the legislation that keeps nudity off broadcast television and newstands just because I have poor self-discipline and an inability to aim my firing neurons when they're subjected to the awesome beauty of the female form. But I'm not going to fight against it.
c*ckes should be allowed on broadcast television, but only for their immense comic value.
A-frigging-MEN, brother!!
Living in Hawaii has begun to desensitize me to boobs. The Bikini top is pretty much clothing here, so I see so much flesh that it's beginning to not register. At first, I was almost to the point of having panic attacks. I mean, here you are, getting a box of eskimo pies and there is a hot girl next to you getting some chicken nuggets. She is in a bikini top. She opens the door to the cooler.....
You know the rest, boys. Two little round things go sproing and shortly thereafter is a third, less visible sproing, accompanied by an inability to focus on the pies and some general confusion and a momentary reduction in both gross and fine motor skills.
Now I am only noticing the more truly aesthetic of the boobies. And I'm learning to appreciate them on merit. It's hard, though, and I think perhaps with a few more years here I can begin to write the 12 step book for people like us, afflicted with this boobie thing.
I think it's kind of funny (and I don't know if anyone else is this way) but seeing MOST of a boobie is far worse than just plain old seeing a boobie.
-
I think it's kind of funny (and I don't know if anyone else is this way) but seeing MOST of a boobie is far worse than just plain old seeing a boobie.
"Why would you put clothes on a centrefold?"
"Well, I get tired of all this nakedness. Sometimes I just like to be teased..."
I kind of agree. I was having a discussion with my friend when he was waiting for a delivery and it was taking weeks. To take his mind off it he was about to take solace in porn, but couldn't, since well, the internet has desensitized everyone to nudity.
-
I think it's kind of funny (and I don't know if anyone else is this way) but seeing MOST of a boobie is far worse than just plain old seeing a boobie.
"Why would you put clothes on a centrefold?"
"Well, I get tired of all this nakedness. Sometimes I just like to be teased..."
I kind of agree. I was having a discussion with my friend when he was waiting for a delivery and it was taking weeks. To take his mind off it he was about to take solace in porn, but couldn't, since well, the internet has desensitized everyone to nudity.
And you know, if we could get people to be less hung up on parts that EVERYONE has, maybe the world would be a better place. Physical 'perfection' or striving for it has proven to be pretty destructive, particularly to young women. Who would have thought that the ubiquity of internet porn would help shift sexual attitudes and mores (in a way that is eventually a positive outcome)? Good if it does!
-
Who would have thought that the ubiquity of internet porn would help shift sexual attitudes and mores (in a way that is eventually a positive outcome)? Good if it does!
Has to be said, I have real bad self confidence issues. Have always hated myself, let alone my body, but every guy I've had the misfortune of seeing in porn, has made me feel way better about myself!