OT: Words fail me

[AMF]

Wrong.

There is a *very* real difference in the two cases you describe. There are no space faring races in our lives. There are no billions of inteeligent beings being enslaved by alien empires. These are not, at all, analogous to events or people or places in our own reality.

Now, if you had a game that was "How many Hutus can you kill?" or "How many Serbs can you Rape?" then, yea, we're talking similar things.

This is analogous to the game "how many women can you rape" "How many women can you pimp out"

When I play SE4, I play with certain game objects called "planets" and "starships" and "planetary populations"

When I play this pimp game, I play with certain game objects called "women".
(That last noun clause is quoted from your post, BTW)

This is the fundamental, crucial difference. And it is especially so becuase pre-teens play this game.

I'll stop there but say lastly that for what it's worth, I am not entirely convinced that this game in question is problematic - ALL I am talking about is the existence, or non-existence, of some "line" that is theoretically crossable or not. Is there such a line? That's all I'm asking.

Is there such a line? If so, where? If not, is this a good thing?

Alarik

Hunpecked said:
Alarikf and Rasorow seem to be confusing fantasy and reality here. As Dogscoff illustrated in his roundabout way, even with a game as "violent" as Space Empires, where entire "star systems" are ravaged and literally billions of "intelligent beings" are "killed" or "enslaved", NO ONE is actually harmed (aside from voluntary sleep deprivation, perhaps ). When the "emperor" gets up from his/her computer, yawns, and crawls into bed, lo and behold: the universe remains as it was. Birds still sing, the planets remain in their orbits, and billions of "dead" people go about their daily business, oblivious.

Now from what I've read of this "Pimp" game, it's pretty much the same. The "pimp" makes "money" by playing certain cards to "abuse", "exploit", and "addict" certain game objects called "women". When the game is over, however, the player (or "pimp") has no more of the real-world commodity we call "money" than he (or she) started with (and probably less, having paid some to the game's manufacturer), he doesn't drive a real-world "pimpmobile" (unless he already had one), and he hasn't done the slightest microscopic iota of harm to any real-world creatures we call "women".

Actually, one last question: why don't we hear from the majority of the earth's population and see what they think about it. Any women reading this? Hunpecked, you married or have a GF? Ask them what they think. I can't speak for them. Maybe I am too uptight.

[Raging Deadstar]

Blinks

Reads the Posted Links

Oh, It's White Wolf....Can't say I'm suprised

[Hunpecked]

Alarikf writes:

>> These are not, at all, analogous to events or people or places in our own reality.

[shrug] OK. Forget "Space Empires". How about "Grand Theft Auto"? Are any real-world vehicles stolen? Any real-world police killed? Any real car wrecks, blood, or money?

>> "How many Hutus can you kill?"

I haven't played the game, but I'll bet it doesn't let me kill any real-life people whatsoever.

>> When I play this pimp game, I play with certain game objects called "women".

Yes, and these "women" are EXACTLY as real (or unreal) as the "Planets" in SEIV.

>> This is the fundamental, crucial difference.

Um, there is no difference. Both are unreal game objects with familiar names. It's kind of like naming a chess piece a "king", even though it has no resemblance to one.

>> And it is especially so becuase pre-teens play this game.

I assume pre-teens could get their hands on this game, just as they can "Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell" and "Combat Mission" and "Grand Theft Auto". So?

>> Hunpecked, you married or have a GF? Ask them what they think.

If I ever listened to my SO, I wouldn't be a game player now, would I?

Seriously, if she showed any interest at all she'd roll her eyes and say if I buy the game then she can buy [insert trinket here] for herself. She has no sympathy for women as "victims".

[AMF]

Hunpecked said:
Seriously, if she showed any interest at all she'd roll her eyes and say if I buy the game then she can buy [insert trinket here] for herself. She has no sympathy for women as "victims".

Ok, drop the games analogy and think about hard core porn? Good for society? Bad for society?

I would never advocate censorship...but in the case of child pornography, well, I think maybe I would.

All I am saying is that it is patently naive to think that a proliferation of games that degrade or humiliate a segment of the population has NO effect on that population.

I mean, come on, do you REALLY beleive that it doesn't matter AT ALL that the vast majority of surfing is porn? Or that GTA is the highest selling game (IIRC)? Does it REALLY matter ZERO?

If that is the case, then does it still matter zero if we constantly show hard core porn or rape on public TV? Or cable, if you think that's more appropriate?

Like I said, I would march for all of these rights for everybody. I am an extreme foe of censorship. But I also an extreme foe of knee jerk naivete in the name of some political beleif. Sure, this is all about the first amendment - but that's NOT what I've been talking about.

Ah, nevermind. I guess I'm not making myself clear - and I'm tired of trying.

[Suicide Junkie]

Does it have anything to do with generic vs specific?

Eg:
Nuking the Purple Team's base to glass ...vs... Nuking the Pentagon to glass.
Mowing down generic pedestrians ...vs... Mowing down stereotypical Canadians.

[AMF]

Hunpecked said:
The "pimp" makes "money" by playing certain cards to "abuse", "exploit", and "addict" certain game objects called "women". When the game is over, however, the player (or "pimp") has no more of the real-world commodity we call "money" than he (or she) started with (and probably less, having paid some to the game's manufacturer), he doesn't drive a real-world "pimpmobile" (unless he already had one), and he hasn't done the slightest microscopic iota of harm to any real-world creatures we call "women".

Let me quote that last one again. You claim that "he hasn't done the slightest microscopic iota of harm to any real-world creatures we call "women". "

If we are engendering, even in the slightest, a generation of boys who treat women like "objects" then don't you think that we are doing at least some damage to "the objects we call women"?

I mean, shoot man, women are already treated like objects whose only real worth is physical in almost every magazine ad, movie, and other form of media. Now we sound like we're actually going to take that one step further and tell young boys that women are of even *more* value if they are your prostitutes?

Don't think that's the world we live in? Don't think the media is like that? Try this thought experiment: go see a movie. Take an action movie. Look at the genders involved and how they react and, more importanly, how YOU react to them.

Now, take that EXACT same movie and replay it, in your head, but with the genders reversed. And see how you react to that. Odds are, if you're honest with yourself, you'll react very differently to each of these movies. Why? Think about it. And think about how it affects the opposite gender, growing up with the roles as they are.

I repeat: I am *not* sure if the game in question is problematic. But I am pretty sure that there must exist *some* line of common decency, which, if we cross it as a society, there is some measure of injury. To say otherwise is to imply in part that we as humans develop completely free from any social norms or pressures that might mould who we are later in life. But, that is patently ridiculous. if I had grown up in different circumstances, then surely I'd be a very different person than I am? I can tell you for sure that if I hadn't gotten the boxed D&D game when I was fifteen, I'd be very different than I am today.

Who's to say what I would be like if, instead of D&D I got this "Pimp out women" game when I was fifteen?

No one can ever say (except perhaps the big guy upstairs). But I am not willing to say that such influences make NO difference to a person's attitudes in life and towards women.

[Hunpecked]

Alarikf writes:

>> If we are engendering, even in the slightest, a generation of boys who treat women like "objects" then don't you think that we are doing at least some damage to "the objects we call women"?

Note that what I wrote before is still unquestionably true: in the game itself no actual women come to any actual harm. Alarikf's concern is that some hypothetical "boys" playing the game may suffer a hypothetical attitude adjustment that may someday hypothetically result in some hypothetical harm to some hypothetical women. Hypothetically speaking.

Now I'm not up on the latest research, but my guess is that if there was a proven link between childhood fantasy and adult criminal behavior, games like "Grand Theft Auto" would have been legislated off the shelves long ago. No?

>> I mean, shoot man, women are already treated like objects...

Yadda yadda yadda. The question is whether it can be demonstrated (i.e. proven) that this "Pimp" game will cause significant additional criminal behavior. If so, ban it. If not, let it die its inevitable commercial death in the marketplace.

>> Who's to say what I would be like if, instead of D&D I got this "Pimp out women" game when I was fifteen?

My guess is that Alarikf might have played it a couple times, had some laughs, put it away, and gotten "D&D" at his next opportunity. I doubt that "Pimp" has the immersion value of "D&D".

>> But I am not willing to say that such influences make NO difference to a person's attitudes in life and towards women.

In other words, the "Pimp" game (and by implication all similarly "frivolous" products) should be presumed "guilty" until proven "innocent"? If we use that standard, then SEIV should also be banned, because it simply can't be proven that NOBODY is harmed in the slightest by the game (as I suspect numerous SOs can testify).

[Sivran]

There's this game I play. In it I run around with an MP-5 shooting people to death. There's another game I play, and in it I run around stealing cars and killing people willy-nilly.

There's also this game I don't play, but many others do. In it they duke it out mano a mano with fists and various melee weapons. There's a game similar to it, but not requiring so much memorization, that I do play. In it I beat up on thugs, men, women, dogs, laughing fat guys, and people with a real samurai fetish, and people with really bad hair and a superiority complex.

I, and millions of others, do not then go out and do these things in real life. I, and millions of others, choose to play or not play these games. Personally, I would choose not to play this "Pimp" card game. Not because of the subject matter, but because I'm not big on card games. Bottom line, the game is being released in a free country. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Call me nasty names for trying it, and call yourself worse names.

[AMF]

Anyways....you all need to go join the Zeta 2 game... (and get back to something more based in reality)

[Atrocities]

alarikf I think the law about child molestation would apply to your example. So long as it is not illegal, I can see no reason for "banning" a game that you are free to choose not to buy.

Now if it was being force fed to me like spam email or pop up adds, then yes, I would be for passing laws to prevent it.

I agree with the rating system for games. Its a very useful tool for parents. And I agree that any parent that would buy such a poorly tasteful game should be beaten if they bought it for their kids to play.

I agree that some things are harmful to society as a whole, but when ever we as individuals have the ability to decide for ourselves, government should not step in. Like I said, if this crap was being forced upon me, via tv, radio, bill boards, phone calls, or emails, then yes, I say put a stop to it. There are some lines that should not be crossed.

But when we start passing laws that do away with our freedom of choice, we give up that which makes us free. I would never buy a game like this, but my neighbor might. I would never presume to tell him that he is wrong for buying it, because it is his right to choose what he buys. I would choose not to associate with a sick SOB like him in that situation, but I would never support a law that limits his freedom to buy such trash.

I guess living in America, and not under an imperial state, has somewhat spoiled me. I do apologize if my desire to keep my right to choose offends any one who feels that I as an adult should not have such rights.

And personally, I would have thrown the book at Janet Jackson for what she did. A ward drobe accident my arse.