Hulver's site || What's worse

What's worse

Playing (or making) a computer game.	6 votes - 28 %
Systematic sexual abuse of children on a massive scale.	15 votes - 71 %

21 Total Votes

Insane | 59 comments (59 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

Just imagine by MisterQueue (5.50 / 4) #1 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 04:51:36 AM EST

if Michael Jackson had played GTA with those little boys instead of just fucking them like an upstanding person!?!

------------
"porn IS a priority for you sir." -me0w

Utterly insane. by Breaker (5.00 / 1) #2 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 05:16:38 AM EST

Rogerborg also agrees with you...

Does he? by Rogerborg (5.00 / 1) #4 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 05:20:28 AM EST

Where does he say that? It looks like he's ranting about the other media story on Penny Arcade, not about the GTA thing, although with him it's hard to be sure.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

I think he does by codemonkey uk (3.00 / 0) #9 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 06:13:19 AM EST

Looks like the core issue we both posted about was shitty "reporting". Different angles, and different stories, coincidentally both with penny-arcade links, but still both boiling down to complaining about massive media crapness.

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

OK, I'll ask him next time I see him [n/t] by Rogerborg (5.00 / 1) #12 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 06:25:06 AM EST

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

: You'll find him by Breaker (5.00 / 1) #20 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 07:13:05 AM EST

In the tentacle pr0n section of the nearest DVD shop.

[ Parent ]

Yeah by Breaker (5.00 / 1) #19 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 07:12:30 AM EST

That was the angle I was going for, reporters just being knobjockeys...

[ Parent ]

Why are there no kids in the GTAverse? by Rogerborg (5.00 / 1) #3 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 05:19:15 AM EST

Is something that I've always wondered. If there's no moral judgement about the way the player chooses to act, why not let them blow up school busses?

I'm not griping (100% completion of 100% purchased versions, mind), just wondering where the line is drawn.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.

There where kids and school busses... by ShadowNode (5.00 / 1) #6 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 06:00:14 AM EST

In the original, top down view GTA.

[ Parent ]

Um, really? by Rogerborg (5.00 / 1) #7 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 06:02:50 AM EST

I must have blanked on that. School busses, sure, but I don't remember school kids, just the much missed Hari Krishnas. Gouranga!

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

: Not school kids, per se by ShadowNode (5.00 / 2) #10 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 06:18:06 AM EST

Heh, it was always just the driver that got kicked out of the bus, but you'd see children in various places. I suppose they could just have been midgets, but that's almost as good.

School busses where great for ramming through police blockades.

[ Parent ]
: the screams of children by 606 (5.00 / 2) #27 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 11:26:28 AM EST

You never actually saw kids in the school bus, but I'm pretty sure that going too fast or going over a large jump resulted in the sound of kids screaming.

-----
imagine dancing banana here
[ Parent ]

There is no place for Children in the GTA universe by codemonkey uk (3.00 / 0) #11 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 06:18:37 AM EST

I heard it argued that no one is innocent in the GTA games. I guess having kids (or worse, babies) in there would break that rule, and in doing so, break the sense of freedom to act without guilt that the game world creates.

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

Homeless people are unattractive by Rogerborg (5.00 / 1) #13 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 06:31:03 AM EST

And therefore evil, if I know my Hollywood conventions.

It's a nice piece of post facto rationalisation, but I'm not buying it. Put it to the test? How about pushing for ShadowNode's idea of midgets? Evil midgets, I mean. Midget clowns.

Meandering a bit, but have a look at Neverwinter Nights. There are kids in there, and you can attack them, but they're completely invulnerable. No explanation given.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

You ever tried to cook a 12-year-old? by MisterQueue (4.00 / 1) #14 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 06:35:34 AM EST

I did, couldn't even get the damn thing to brown. This also explains why children are so resilient to bumps, scrapes, and general mishaps.

As such, I think NWN was just going off of their base level experience with children.

Babies however.. totally different story... there's millions of ways to attack them.

Come to think of it, I want to make a game where the point of the game is attacking babies... if you get low on health, just pop and munch a baby...

------------
"porn IS a priority for you sir." -me0w
[ Parent ]

You could call it: by Rogerborg (4.00 / 1) #15 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 06:45:32 AM EST

TerminaTerror. Wipe out the dusky skinned hordes before they reach breeding age, spawn some future orphans, and then come looking for you.

Hmm, perhaps a little too close to life.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

: Oi? by MisterQueue (3.00 / 1) #17 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 06:57:16 AM EST

Why? Who've you been talking to?
Damn backstabbers, that's the last time I assemble a crack-team based solely on the Classified ads.

------------
"porn IS a priority for you sir." -me0w
[ Parent ]

Computer games are the moral panic issue... by Metatone (5.00 / 1) #5 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 05:53:42 AM EST

of our times.
It's sad to see a generation whose parents reacted the same way to rock and roll and various movies carry on in the same vein.

There probably is a decent issue to be made of the way games are rated and sold, not to mention parental responsibility... but they aren't the stuff of interesting headlines.

Equally of course there are serious issues with violent crime (which ironically the drug dealer setting highlights quite nicely) which people worry about, but again, there are more sensationalist headlines to be had from moral panic than addressing issues.

I do suspect that the "Kill Haitians" thing lacked a bit of taste, class and sense on being included. But then, I have a few old-fashioned notions in me too.

In other news by Rogerborg (6.00 / 5) #8 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 06:12:44 AM EST

Return to Castle Wolfenstein actually encourages you to kill Germans. But in the original news, GTA3 & Vice City encourage you to kill Italians, Chinese, Rastafarians, Cubans, Japanese, Cubans again, and for that matter Whitey and a bunch more that I can't even remember offhand.

If the issue is just with saying "Kill the Haitians!" rather than with the actual killing, then I fully agree that the dialog should be changed to "I say, old fellow, I'm having an intractable disagreement with those Haitian coves. What say we give them a taste of our ~~Brit-~~ American spunk?"

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]

: fair enough (n/t) by Metatone (5.00 / 1) #22 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 08:53:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Why the concern? by ti dave (5.00 / 1) #30 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 01:25:51 PM EST

I can vouch for you, that many Haitians definitely do not have any problem with killing their fellow Haitians.

You might be a bit overly-sensitive, eh?

I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

As Rogerborg noted... by Metatone (3.00 / 0) #31 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 02:19:04 PM EST

on notions of "taste and class" I am simply wrong, really, as it's in teh game, and I don't object to the game, so why not state it....

As for "sense" well... I think that they may think all the brouhaha is simply positive publicity. I think that by making a statement that look racist they make it harder for themselves. I look at the statement and imagine a different minority instead of Haitians (a minority I belong to sort of, for instance) and it's hard not to be sensitive about it. Thus it does seem to be a hostage to a certain kind of campaign. I think that may get in the way of the profits at some points. The game's content would have ensured it plenty of sensational publicity anyway...

<shrugs> marketing is not an exact science, this is a hunch that they overegged the pudding, that's all...

[ Parent ]

Missing the point. by em (5.00 / 1) #38 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 12:07:17 AM EST

I can vouch for you, that many Haitians definitely do not have any problem with killing their fellow Haitians.

But not if the victim's being Haitian is appealed to as motive and/or justification for killing them. Which is the point.

It's one thing to kill a specific Haitian guy because he flirted with your girlfriend. It is another to kill random Haitians because they are immigrants perceived to be in general criminals, and whose victimization is widely tolerated by USian institutions and culture.

And before you say "it's a game, no actual Haitians have been physically harmed", my complaint is that the game feeds off the cultural environment that tolerates such victimization. The game creators did not create this cultural environment, but they are exploiting it to their advantage. Which I think is inmoral.

--em
[ Parent ]

I don't think I am. by ti dave (3.00 / 1) #40 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 12:24:54 AM EST

Hey, I saw a Haitian woman stab another with a 12" butcher knife, over possession of a [1] bouillon cube.

I think Haitians are a special case.

I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

You are USian, right? by em (3.00 / 1) #42 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 12:42:15 AM EST

Pot. Kettle. Black.

--em
[ Parent ]

Wow! by ti dave (5.00 / 1) #45 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 12:50:59 AM EST

Straight to the ad hominem?

You could have toyed with me a bit longer. The adrenaline would've marinated my flesh.

I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

That's not an ad hominem. by em (5.00 / 1) #46 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 01:00:26 AM EST

You cite an anecdotal instance of a Haitian committing a gruesome act of violence for really small motive. If we're going to cite such things, your country's inhabitants are notorious for that sort of thing. (The US, land of serial killers, teenagers who shoot up a bunch of people in schools, stockbrokers going postal in a McDonalds, etc.) I don't see how Haitians are "special" in this regard.

And all of this is independent of any fact about you personally.

--em
[ Parent ]

: You mis-understand. by ti dave (5.00 / 1) #49 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 01:06:37 AM EST

I'm an American who takes his citizenship seriously and quite personally.
That said, yes, I know that we're all capable of senseless violence.
I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Just to make sure I don't misunderstand you. by em (5.00 / 1) #48 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 01:05:49 AM EST

Are we talking of a context where a single cube of chicken bouillon would be a significant possession? (I have in mind Haitian communities in the US, not rural Haiti...)

--em
[ Parent ]

Neither, but quite significant. by ti dave (5.00 / 1) #50 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 01:10:32 AM EST

It was in downtown Port-au-Prince.

I wouldn't proffer a single incident to *prove* my point, but I saw enough really incredulous acts of violence to convince me that the general populace needs some serious therapy.

I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Ah. by em (5.00 / 2) #51 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 01:16:43 AM EST

I took you as making the argument that Haitians are particularly violent, as exemplified by this gruesome act of presumably senseless, unmotivated violence. Yes, it is hard for us developed-worlders to imagine a single bouillon cube as a reasonable motive for murder, and I'm not exempt.

--em
[ Parent ]

: They wear their emotions on their sleeves. by ti dave (5.00 / 1) #56 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 01:51:20 AM EST

It's hard to explain, but the entire place is like a high-school drama club.
I chalk it up to cultural differences.
I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

I disagree by codemonkey uk (3.00 / 0) #43 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 12:43:09 AM EST

Haitians are not a special case, either in the game, or in real life.

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

It's the poorest, most destitute... by ti dave (4.00 / 1) #44 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 12:47:43 AM EST

country in this hemisphere.

I think it deserves that classification simply on the merits of that fact.

Desperate times make desperate men.

I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Now I'm gonna vent a bit: by ti dave (5.00 / 1) #47 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 01:03:16 AM EST

You know what really pisses me off about that place?

Here's the deal:

There are a handful of people living there, who could buy you and I several times over.
I'm talking filthy rich.

They didn't even have the decency to earn their millions by being good Capitalists, they did it by being corrupt Mo-Fo's.

I'm talking about squeezing every last fucking nickel of graft, that was there to be had.

I'm probably the last guy around here to advocate State Socialism, but if any place on the planet needs it, it's Haiti.

That entire island really chaps my ass.

I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

re: That entire island really chaps my ass. by codemonkey uk (3.00 / 0) #52 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 01:22:48 AM EST

That's an unfortunate mental image.

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

: Ass balm was a low shipping priority. by ti dave (5.00 / 1) #55 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 01:48:03 AM EST

Basically, I had to suffer in silence for 6 months.
I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Bah by dn (5.00 / 1) #33 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 07:16:27 PM EST

Computer games have been about to destroy our poor precious youths since Pac Man. Hasn't happened yet.

I ♥
TOXIC
WASTE

[ Parent ]

Crucial difference. by em (5.00 / 1) #39 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 12:16:50 AM EST

It's sad to see a generation whose parents reacted the same way to rock and roll and various movies carry on in the same vein.

Except that the taboos about sex and authority that rock n' roll stepped on are ones that are more sensible to defy than taboos on violence that video games step on. "Fornication is fun" is much more of a healthy idea than "violence is fun".

--em
[ Parent ]

anecdote by bukvich (5.00 / 2) #16 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 06:47:51 AM EST

The guy who used to office across the hall from me has two teenage boys. His claim is that playing violent video games leads directly to them behaving anti-socially. He also has a twenty year old daughter whose boyfriend beats her.

He disciplines his teenage boys by smacking them on the ass with boards.

I would like to ask him some time where he thinks his daughter got the idea implanted into her noggin that violent == manly.

When I tell him I don't think violent video games necessarily leads to rowdy behavior he dismisses my idea, categorically.

"you are not a parent; you do not know what it is like."

interesting by codemonkey uk (3.00 / 0) #18 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 07:06:41 AM EST

I wonder how he would rebut me; as I am a parent.

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

Rebut by DullTrev (5.66 / 3) #21 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 07:44:43 AM EST

Presumably with a board.

--
DFJ?
[ Parent ]

Well by komet (5.00 / 1) #24 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 09:53:37 AM EST

he'd probably say you don't have any teenage kids, so obviously you don't know what it's like.

Oh, and thanks for the badge and spider photo!

--
<ni> komet: You are functionally illiterate as regards trashy erotica.
[ Parent ]

: no need for thanks, you *won* the prize... by codemonkey uk (5.00 / 1) #25 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 11:10:22 AM EST

Which reminds me ... I still need to put EyeballKid's in the post... oops!

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

Bizarre by Dr Thrustgood (5.00 / 1) #23 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 08:59:58 AM EST

In my thoroughly selfish way, I find it rather ironic that my, morally dubious at times¹, is thought highly of by my family. But then, they still don't quite "get" what text messaging's about.

¹_{No, not spam}

my? by codemonkey uk (3.00 / 0) #26 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 11:11:12 AM EST

Your work, presumably...

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

: I believe by Herring (5.66 / 3) #29 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 11:54:22 AM EST

that Tom's family thinks that working at all is a bit vulgar.

When my grandfather became ill, my grandmother rubbed goose-fat into his back. He went downhill quite quickly after that. - Milton Jones
[ Parent ]

Bah by juriehorneman (6.00 / 1) #28 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 11:42:11 AM EST

The whole thing is ludicrous, yet it is a touchy issue for various people. I don't see what I could add that would in any way be helpful and would not lead to boring discussions.

I was reading by WetherMan (5.00 / 1) #32 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 03:05:22 PM EST

An article by William Kristol who said that to suppose that Video Games do not affect kids is to basically invalidate all literary teachings, everything we read in school, has no positive bearing on our development. To say that a type of media does not negatively effect kids by virtue of it's medium is to invalidate all media's suposed positive effects.

food for thought.

do you have a link? by dr k (5.00 / 1) #34 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 07:29:23 PM EST

I would like to read that article.

:| :| :| :| :|
[ Parent ]

: It was in the Neoconservative Reader by WetherMan (5.00 / 1) #59 Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 12:06:37 PM EST

... one of the editions, newest I think, blue binding.

[ Parent ]

Flip side of that is... by Breaker (6.00 / 3) #35 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 07:50:36 PM EST

I read (actually, was forced to read) a lot of Shakespeare at school.

I don't seem to recall murdering anyone with twenty trenched wounds to his head and leaving them in a ditch, wearing a codpiece (for 'tis well known I am a pretty piece of flesh), or having any swordfights over family honour as a result.

Then again, that blood is a bugger to shift. Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood clean from my hand? No.

Luckily, these days, we have Persil non-bio...

[ Parent ]

I'll always back you up with the shack's angle... by kirstk (6.00 / 1) #36 Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 09:17:37 PM EST

Jason Bergman posted a very nice reply to the NY Times flambé.

Hope it helps at least make ya smile for a minute.

See ya in a couple weeks.

-K

: Great link! by codemonkey uk (3.00 / 0) #37 Sun Jan 04, 2004 at 03:34:51 AM EST

Thanks. :)

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

Some thoughts by em (5.50 / 2) #41 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 12:40:23 AM EST

There's several interrelated problems here.

We live in a cultural setting that glorifies violence in many forms. Computer games where you simulate killing massive numbers of people are just the tip of the iceberg. There's lots of depiction of all sorts of violence, and of personalities that are prone to violence.
I don't own a TV, so when I do get to watch it I am shocked by what I see. One thing I remember: some sitcom where a dad challenges two puberty-age kids (I presume they're his kids) to a basketball game. The kids are standing with a particular "I'm tough" look in their faces. The dad drives to the basket, jumps up to shoot, and gets a kick in the 'nads. Then there's a close shot of the face of the kids, with their impassive "tough" faces, looking down at the dad in his pain.
Examples can be multiplied. One more: sports newscasts that devote a clip to showing you all the fights of the week.
To deny that this cultural setting has an effect on young people growing up is ridiculous. The inevitable anecdotal responses of the gamers saying "I played all these games and I never killed anybody" are completely beside the point. The games are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the glorification of violence.
The GTA3 game is at the focus of a media firestorm: the media picks up some story for 3-4 weeks, all sorts of outrage is expressed, then moves on to another story for the next 3-4 weeks, etc. The cumulative result is a lot of noise about relatively unimportant specifics ("Kill the Haitians"), that is inevitably forgotten, at the expense of the imporant issues (larger-scale analysis of the large number of small ways that violence is glorified). Media firestorms are really unproductive. They are in fact the result of submitting our media to "cost effectiveness": the result is intellectually lazy sensationalism that costs as little to produce, and drives attention from harder issues.
In short, pouring out vitriol about GTA3 is not a good idea, because no matter how ethically questionable the game may be, it's just too damn easy; to choose it when you've contemplated what the alternatives are is cowardly. (But by the same token, since immigrant minorities are underprivileged, making them easy targets, GTA3's exploitation of this fact is also cowardly.)

--em

For the sake of argument... by codemonkey uk (3.00 / 0) #53 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 01:32:20 AM EST

Of your points, your first is an observation I have no disagreement with, although I am generally more concerned with subtler social and moral 'cues' in the popular media than the issue of violence.

Your second point is irrelevant. Kids are not the target audience. In many of the areas of the world where computer games are sold, age-ratings are enforced by law, and statistically, the "typical" gamer is in his 20s.

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

: That's not relevant. by em (3.00 / 0) #54 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 01:47:36 AM EST

Your second point is irrelevant. Kids are not the target audience.
I did not claim that, nor does the point depend on this. Hell, the fact that such games are products for "adults" further contributes to their appeal to children.
Some weeks ago, I was talking over dinner with an anthropologist who did fieldwork in rural Mexico, and I took the chance to ask her a thing I'd always wondered about. In cultures where the dishes are very spicy, there is always a special menu of mild food prepared specially for children. I just wondered how the kids made the jump. The answer? Hot food has the allure of being a "grown-up" thing to do. Just like alcohol, cigs, porn, etc.
You can't segment children and adolescents off the rest of their society, and say that because they don't play these games, the games exert no effect on them. First because I'm sure that in practice adolescents do get to play them (and watch porn, and fuck, and drink beer-- not that I complain too much about the last two). Second, because presenting violence as an "adult" thing is in fact a way of glorifying it.
--em
[ Parent ]

re: point 3 by dr k (6.00 / 1) #57 Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 02:11:32 PM EST

I think GTA3 has a little more staying power than the typical media firestorm of the week (like, say, the whole yellowcake/State of the Union thing last summer). For one thing, GTA3 is actually a playable game, which has led to high sales, which will sustain the public outcry a bit longer. In fact, the current furor can be seen as the second wave of public outcry, the first wave being the one that established the ESRB ratings in the first place. Of course, the ESRB was basically established (1994) to prevent any sort of public discussion of violence in videogames. Unfortunately, like in most industries, self-regulation has turned out to be a joke. And so here we are, ten years later, and the unenforced and unenforcable ratings system has fallen into the public gaze once again.

:| :| :| :| :|
[ Parent ]

True, but why target... by kirstk (5.00 / 1) #58 Tue Jan 06, 2004 at 10:16:51 AM EST

I'll concede that the societal setting for children doesn't provide much in the way of non violent entertainment and that violence is, in fact, very glorified. I can't argue that.

I do wonder why games are "just the tip of the iceberg" and the most often cited violent entertainment these days that has such a bad reputation. Perhaps it's just in my world, but games seem to be the scape goat when it comes to a discussion about violence in media. I guess we've already gone through television and movies being the "bad guy" though...

[ Parent ]

Insane | 59 comments (59 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback


Make a new account
Username:
Password: