Better not use any real cathedrals in TDM!

[sparhawk]

In germany it is outlawed to have Nazi music. I was quite curious about it, and downloaded one such song. It was so stupid, I really wonder hwo you can listen to that. i guess you have to be pretty indoctrinated to find this music good. I think it's the same with these games. I once found a website with a white extremists game (forgot the link but it was posted on TTLG once in the course of a discussion about bad games). It was simply boring, with bad graphics, so the only "kick" you can get out of it is that the objectives, according to a review, are to kill blacks. Well, you have to have a pretty simple taste if that is enough to make you play a game. I have ditched better games, because they didn't appeal to me, but then, I'm not really their target audience anyway.

 

Still, I think it is not wrong to try such games, and I think in many cases it will have more effect in the opposite side, then helping their cause. Hinding them, and blaming everybody that they are wrong, wont do.

[OrbWeaver]

Hinding them, and blaming everybody that they are wrong, wont do.

 

Exactly. The solution to bad ideas is better ideas. There has never been a significant advance in human society achieved through censorship.

[greebo]

I don't really blame the game creators for creating extremely violent games (the same way I can't blame film makers for movies like Hostel or consorts). What really gives me the creeps are the people who actually enjoy these films. I can't understand for the life of me where the point is in watching those people getting tortured and killed in ways that make my dreams go bad. People seem to like it, that's what's frightening me.

[oDDity]

Seems to me you've never grown out of your naive teen rebellious stage orbweaver.

'Yeahhh man!! Let's fight it!!!'

'What'?

'Ummm...I don't know, just stuff, what ever the old farts are for, I'm automatically against!! Let's just shake it up man!! Wooohooo!!'

 

Grow up.

[OrbWeaver]

'Ummm...I don't know, just stuff, what ever the old farts are for, I'm automatically against!!

 

No, there is only one thing I am against: irrationality (which includes emotionalism, tradition, moralism, superstition and all of the other garbage that seems to dictate public policy).

 

The "old farts" can watch Songs of Praise and polish their Model T's all day if they want, I couldn't care less. The only thing I am interested in fighting for is the right to communicate and express ideas as I see fit. If that makes me "immature" then so be it, since "maturity" clearly isn't worth much anyway.

[Domarius]

It's really interesting watching the developments of atheism vs religion, now that the internet has made it so easy for massave amounts of people to communicate. Christianity has been "normal" for so long (can you believe the term "Christian name" was ever considered proper usage at some point, when refering to someone's last name??) it's good to see it being challenged in so many ways.

[oDDity]

No, there is only one thing I am against: irrationality (which includes emotionalism, tradition, moralism, superstition and all of the other garbage that seems to dictate public policy).

 

The "old farts" can watch Songs of Praise and polish their Model T's all day if they want, I couldn't care less. The only thing I am interested in fighting for is the right to communicate and express ideas as I see fit. If that makes me "immature" then so be it, since "maturity" clearly isn't worth much anyway.

 

Ok, so it's only people who watch songs of praise/go to church/believe in god who wouldn't want to see a computer game, the object of which was to sexually abuse children?

Obviously not, the percentage of any random selection of people from any country or society who would be strongly against that would be consistently in the high 90 percent region.

You just want to blindly rebel against popular opinion for the sake of it, whether it's sensible or not is irrelevant to you.

You're far more dangerous than the status quo, whatever that may be, and that's why radicals like you will never be listened to or taken seriously.

The only system you could set up where extreme radicals can get into power and realise their visions, is a totally chaotic one, coups, dictatorships - and we all know what that leads to.

[sparhawk]

What really gives me the creeps are the people who actually enjoy these films. I can't understand for the life of me where the point is in watching those people getting tortured and killed in ways that make my dreams go bad. People seem to like it, that's what's frightening me.

 

There are different ways of enjoying such movies. Usually I don't like movies that just portray violence because of the violence, because they are simply boring. I watched such a movie only a few days ago. It was just a mindless succession of extremly violent scenes, and after 30 minutes I switched off. not because I couldn't stand it, but because it was boring. I only get a thrill, if the story and depiction of it, draws me into it and makes me care for the persons. Yesterday I watched "The hole" which had only a few violent scenes, but the overall thrill was much more exciting than this violent movie, simply because it provided atmosphere and tension based on the story itself. Movies like Hostel are similar. They are pretty boring to watch, because they only count on the splatter effects but don't manage to get my emotions. If I want to see blood and inner organs exposed, then I can go to a hospital and watch a surgery (you can do this in some because they do this for students). This is at least interesting, because you can learn something from it.

Of course people like it, in the same way that people like to go on a thrill ride in a fun park, but that doesn't neccessarily mean that these people are monsters who like to watch torturing people.

[OrbWeaver]

Ok, so it's only people who watch songs of praise/go to church/believe in god who wouldn't want to see a computer game, the object of which was to sexually abuse children?

 

I'm not talking about what people want to see, that is their personal choice. I am talking about people who presume to dictate what other people can see, which is an entirely different matter.

 

Obviously not, the percentage of any random selection of people from any country or society who would be strongly against that would be consistently in the high 90 percent region.

 

Agreed.

 

You just want to blindly rebel against popular opinion for the sake of it, whether it's sensible or not is irrelevant to you.

 

If the popular opinion is rational, then I support it. Sending murderers to prison is popular opinion, but I have no problem with it because there are sound reasons for doing this.

 

On the other hand, the only rational justifications for censorship are privacy (posting somebody's home address) or imminent danger (shouting "Fire" in a crouded theatre). Censorship based on emotional content or "sensitivity" is never rational, and therefore I am always against it.

 

You're far more dangerous than the status quo, whatever that may be, and that's why radicals like you will never be listened to or taken seriously.

 

You are quite probably right.

[Domarius]

Of course people like it, in the same way that people like to go on a thrill ride in a fun park, but that doesn't neccessarily mean that these people are monsters who like to watch torturing people.

Part of me believes you, but each time I see this kind of material, the other part is revolted and just keeps thinking "What kind of fucked up person can watch that and ENJOY it??"

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

I, on the other hand, regard such material with complete neutrality because, think about it: people's decisions and desires stem from the wiring of the neurons and the relative strengths of the axons, which in turn depend on external stimulus involuntary to the person during childhood, and genetics, where genetics in turn depend on a sequence of random mutations which result in people most able to survive and procreate.

[sparhawk]

"What kind of fucked up person can watch that and ENJOY it??"

 

The same kind of persons who see a car crash and stop by to watch in the hope of seeing something that they can be properly shocked off.

[demagogue]

I, on the other hand, regard such material with complete neutrality because, think about it: people's decisions and desires stem from the wiring of the neurons and the relative strengths of the axons, which in turn depend on external stimulus involuntary to the person during childhood, and genetics, where genetics in turn depend on a sequence of random mutations which result in people most able to survive and procreate.

 

You say that the feeling is just based on this "neutral" stuff, but it seems that your attitude towards it plays a role as well ... as if you might feel these things differently if you had a different attitude towards it (otherwise, how you regard it would be "irrelevant"; it would feel "good" or "bad" to you no matter what). I don't know if you think that or not, but that's how I tend to think about it ... I mean, if it's the "rush" of gore, you're talking basically about the limbic system. There's the "neutral" part (the genetically based design, and it later adapts to stimuli), but there's also a role for "agency", a chosen attitude/value in how it works, too, sort of like a special stimulus, at least as I think about it.

 

On that note, to guess at an answer to Dom, I think people adopt a value or attitude that this stuff is a "thrill" and then live as much off the expectation than the experience itself; isn't that how fetishes usually work? The limbic system has its hardware to give us a rush, but I personally think we can cognitively manipulate it (like when you know you're going to get sex later in the day; you get so much more excited waiting for it all day than if it's just gratuitously given without foreknowledge; seems similar with a game or movie you know should be violent than violence/sex that is very out of place). But anyway, even aside from how it "feels", whether we think it's a desired thing we go after or a neutral thing to ignore has even more to do with our chosen attitude and values than the feeling itself, I think.

 

And for *that*, I think a lot of the people that get off on violent games because (for the majority of cases, anyway) it's a way they can affirm a very particular kind of value, like that games give them a chance to flaunt their "power", even if it's just virtual power -- and that's what they're after. And just as a person can't really feel a powertrip if he's doing something he's *allowed* to; so if it's something that's very unallowed but nobody can stop him, the it hits home that he's really free to do what he wants, as far as he wants to go ... And the more unallowed, taboo, unacceptable, etc, the actually stronger that message is. And maybe violent movies are a way to vicariously get the same feeling. But it's that attitude that seems more important than the feeling by itself. People that think gratuitous power trips are petty things will find the "as socially-unacceptable as possible" part just as off-putting as the former find it appealing. In both cases, the limbic "rush" you get from the gore itself it is just playing a supporting role, the same feeling thrilling one side and nauseating (or just neutrally off-putting) the other.

Edited June 22, 2007 by demagogue

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

I agree.

[Domarius]

The same kind of persons who see a car crash and stop by to watch in the hope of seeing something that they can be properly shocked off.

I still can't relate to that though. I purposefully don't look at severe car crashes too carefully in case I see something that's going to stick in my head for the rest of my life for no reason. Once I had one happen right next to me and I was horrified by the fact that I had to keep my eyes on all the cars involved in case I had to take evasive action, regardless of what I saw. Fortunately no one was really hurt more than shock and a few scratches.

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

I know that people around me are usually more shocked to see damaged humans and internal organs, but I was wondering if I'm the only one who has some kind of sorrow at the bottom of my gut when I see an expensive delicate piece of technology gutted, like a nuclear submarine or an experimental robot.

[sparhawk]

I still can't relate to that though. I purposefully don't look at severe car crashes too carefully in case I see something that's going to stick in my head for the rest of my life for no reason.

 

You see? You purposefully look away. Wich means that you would want to look, but for some reasons you don't. The urge is still there. I do the same but for a different reason. I always think that I wouldn't like people staring at me in such a situation, and I think that most other people don't like the same, so I try to respect that. Also I find it always highly annoying when a traffic jam occurs just because people have to stare.

 

Once I had one happen right next to me and I was horrified by the fact that I had to keep my eyes on all the cars involved in case I had to take evasive action, regardless of what I saw. Fortunately no one was really hurt more than shock and a few scratches.

 

The worst that I experienced was my neightbour above me. He was smoking in his bed and felt asleep. In the morning I woke up and heard some bustling outside, so I looked through the spyhole. I saw some firefighters doing something before my door, and I was 100% sure that there was a corpse. When I went to work 15 minutes later, I saw that they had put the corpse in front of my door, because they had needed leeway and so put him somewhere where he was out of the way. He was covered with a sheet, but a burnt arm was sticking out, and that was already enough to see.

[oDDity]

Exactly. The solution to bad ideas is better ideas. There has never been a significant advance in human society achieved through censorship.

 

Ok, so you disagree with censorship of any kind.

What's your stance on child pornography then?

I guess you are against it being made in the first place, but are not against it being distributed once it's been made, because that would be censorship.

Or let's say someone secretly films you doing something you wouldn't want poeple to see, should you have the right to censor it, or once it exists, does everyone automatically have the right to view it?

That seems to be your argument - once a thing exists, regardless of how it came to exist, then it automatically becomes the inherent right of every human to freely have access to it.

[sparhawk]

It seems you dont have a clue as to what constitutes censorship and what constitues your personal freedom.

[OrbWeaver]

Ok, so you disagree with censorship of any kind.

 

Aside from the two reasons I gave: privacy, and imminent danger.

 

What's your stance on child pornography then?

I guess you are against it being made in the first place, but are not against it being distributed once it's been made, because that would be censorship.

 

Almost -- I am against it being made and distributed on the grounds of the privacy of the victim. I don't believe it should be criminal just to possess it (although I can see why people want to ban this on the basis of "supply and demand") because it is physically and logically impossible for merely looking at a picture to cause harm to a third party.

 

Or let's say someone secretly films you doing something you wouldn't want poeple to see, should you have the right to censor it, or once it exists, does everyone automatically have the right to view it?

That seems to be your argument - once a thing exists, regardless of how it came to exist, then it automatically becomes the inherent right of every human to freely have access to it.

 

Again, that is the privacy argument. If somebody secretly films you in private, and then publishes the video they are clearly invading your personal privacy. Of course if such a video did exist, it would be counterproductive to try and censor it anyway because as soon as you try to censor something, everybody starts posting it to Youtube in response.

[oDDity]

Aside from the two reasons I gave: privacy, and imminent danger.

Almost -- I am against it being made and distributed on the grounds of the privacy of the victim. I don't believe it should be criminal just to possess it (although I can see why people want to ban this on the basis of "supply and demand") because it is physically and logically impossible for merely looking at a picture to cause harm to a third party.

Again, that is the privacy argument. If somebody secretly films you in private, and then publishes the video they are clearly invading your personal privacy. Of course if such a video did exist, it would be counterproductive to try and censor it anyway because as soon as you try to censor something, everybody starts posting it to Youtube in response.

 

Privacy does not just relate to an individual though. An organisation can demand privacy. A government can say 'we want to keep this private', i.e. 'we dot' want the public to see this', i.e censorship.

You can argue that if something deems something as 'private', or it is deemed 'illegal' then it no longer can fall into the category of censorship, but that gives virtually everyone free reign to censor things by stealth.

I think you can only argue against censorship if you can come up with reason as to why it would be in the public interest to see what is being censored, or why it is against the public interest for it to be censored, I don't think you can just give a blanket statement against all censorship as a principal.

Likewise, a reasonable argument has to be given as to why the item in question should be censored.

 

Now, just to trip you up, here's another scenario. One which will no doubt arise in the near future. CG child porn, so no privacy issue is at stake.

The characters are all totally photoreal CG models, so good it looks like a real movie (not quite possible yet, but it's only a matter of 10 years away at the most)

Is it ok to make this freely available to anyone who wants it, or should it be made illegal (censored).

 

Whether people distribute this by the back door is not really the issue, the issue is should a formal stand be taken against it, entirely on moral grounds.

[OrbWeaver]

Privacy does not just relate to an individual though. An organisation can demand privacy. A government can say 'we want to keep this private', i.e. 'we dot' want the public to see this', i.e censorship.

 

When I say "privacy" I refer to personal privacy only -- a government or a corporation is a public body and I do not consider the same privacy arguments to apply to them (obviously there may be some business need for confidentiality, e.g. trade secrets, but that is a different issue).

 

Now, just to trip you up, here's another scenario. One which will no doubt arise in the near future. CG child porn, so no privacy issue is at stake. The characters are all totally photoreal CG models, so good it looks like a real movie (not quite possible yet, but it's only a matter of 10 years away at the most)

Is it ok to make this freely available to anyone who wants it, or should it be made illegal (censored).

 

The gummint are ahead of you on this one -- they are already talking about censoring this, and not just photorealistic material -- even cartoons are on the table. As you might suspect I am totally in favour of artists being able to draw and publish whatever fictional material they feel like, and am disgusted by the proposal to introduce a Thought Crime based on public morality (I even responded to the government's consultation on this issue, not that they'll give a shit when 10 million Concerned Parents write in to say what a great idea it is).

 

The flip side of this same issue, is this: given that paedophiles are going to obtain this material anyway, would you rather they purchased fictional artworks, or real images that required real children in order to produce? I know where I would prefer the money to go.

[oDDity]

That's not an argument,. It's not as if real child porn will stop as soon as CG stuff becomes realistic, because people will always want the real thing. It'll probably make real stuff even more sought after.

Also this 'they're going to obtain it anyway' is not an argument, in that case you may as well not have any laws at all, since some people will break them anyway. Just make paedophilia legal and the problem ceases to exist, right?

That's what laws are, a form of censorship as decided by what the majority of the population deem unacceptable, unwanted and immoral behaviour, but presumably you obey them, and don't rebel.

[OrbWeaver]

That's not an argument,. It's not as if real child porn will stop as soon as CG stuff becomes realistic, because people will always want the real thing.

 

It's also not as if real child abuse will stop just because fictional works are censored. Laws are supposed to have real, beneficial effects, not just to "send a message".

 

Just make paedophilia legal and the problem ceases to exist, right?

 

Paedophilia is legal, child abuse isn't. Until people start learning the difference between the two, they will continue to run around in helpless circles demanding more thought crimes but not actually saving a single child from abuse (which is probably at the hands of their family anyway, and has nothing to do with "teh evil Internets").

 

That's what laws are, a form of censorship as decided by what the majority of the population deem unacceptable, unwanted and immoral behaviour, but presumably you obey them, and don't rebel.

 

And that's precisely the problem -- the majority of the population are as thick as pig-shit (half of them have an IQ less than 100), and totally unqualified for making decisions that affect everybody. They are easily led, irrational and motivated entirely by fear and other primitive emotions.

[Macsen]

Video games are abusing the mentally retarded now! Have they no shame?

 

A video game which uses a term abusive to people with disabilities is being pulled by its manufacturer.

 

MindQuiz, a brain training game for the Nintendo DS handheld console, was released in the UK by French software giant Ubisoft in March 2007.

 

However, poor performance in one section sees the player labelled in an offensive manner.

 

The company has apologised "to anyone who was offended by the game" and said it will withdraw it.

 

"As soon as we were made aware of the issue we stopped distribution of the product and are now working with retailers to pull the game off the market," a spokesperson said.

 

"The game was developed in Japan, and we unfortunately did not pick up on the offending word in our quality assurance. We are currently working with the developer to find a way to rectify the issue."

 

The problem emerged after a Belfast woman contacted BBC Radio Ulster's Nolan Show.

 

Nicola told the show she had been playing the game - aimed at ages three and above - to pass the time while in hospital giving birth to her baby son, Austin, four weeks ago.

 

It was a fraught time for the young mother, who had lost her other son, Logan, just before Christmas.

 

The three-year-old - who suffered from cerebral palsy and was severely brain damaged - passed away after contracting pneumonia.

 

Nicola was shocked when she had performed poorly at one part of the game and it rated her efforts in a manner derogatory to the disabled.

 

"I thought it was absolutely appalling that a word like this should be used to describe someone who has not achieved very well," she said.

 

"My daddy also has cerebral palsy and he is in his mid-50s and this is a word that really offends my dad."

 

Japan eh?! That explains it!