Support NeoGAF

[lazorexplosion]

Or how "whoever publicly or with the intent to propagate in a wider circle makes a statement or other communication by which a group of persons is threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to fine or imprisonment up to 2 years". Yet this "censorious" censorship is justified, wouldn't you say?

At least the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" analogy is a relevant to a discussion of restricting video games because of shootings. This? Wat? I have no idea what the relevance of this is supposed to be other than a red herring to change the topic of free speech to something less embarrassingly linked to also supporting censorship under the sedition act. And no, imprisonment for up to 2 years because you insulted some stupid religion is ridiculously censorious.

 

[Lime]

At least the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" analogy is a relevant to a discussion of restricting video games because of shootings. This? Wat? I have no idea what the relevance of this is supposed to be other than a red herring to change the topic of free speech to something less embarrassingly linked to also supporting censorship under the sedition act. And no, imprisonment for up to 2 years because you insulted some stupid religion is ridiculously censorious.

I was giving the example of a country's racism paragraph to illustrate how there's justified cases of censorship, thus showing that freedom of speech isn't absolute. Having a protest that advocates "Kill all Jews!" should not be condoned, for example.

And it's everything between a fine and 2 years of of imprisonment, depending on the action.

 

[nullref]

When something significant in a moral sense is presented without any justified context or treatment. See the Splinter Cell: Blacklist torture and execution scene as an example of gratuitous violence.

To be clear, are you arguing that the Blacklist torture scene is significant in a moral sense because:

1. (Real) torture is significant in a moral sense, and the simulation of it inherits this significance.
2. Such simulations of violence contribute to the glorification of it, affecting attitudes about it in a way that you think is bad (i.e., immoral).

I assume you mean #2, because that's a reasonable argument, however difficult it may be to support with evidence. I only bring it up because people seem to frequently confuse the two in these kinds of discussions, and #1 is a mistake.

That claim doesn't make sense and you aren't explaining why you find it unchallenged or why you find it to be "too moralistic", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Calling it "too moralistic" could mean that either Riposte thinks you've made the mistake of #1, or that he simply doesn't feel the same way about #2. (Riposte can correct me if I'm wrong; I don't want to put words in his mouth.)

 

[FGMPR]

I dont ignore that at all. I think that the National Guard is completely necessary. I also believe though that its pretty straight forward about our rights as free human beings. You cant pick and choose, and while im not sure if our founding fathers would find modern weapons appalling, I am pretty positive that they created a government thats whole concept was to be "by the people, for the people." funny how we forget those things.

Of course you can pick and choose your rights as citizens, that's why the American constitution has a built-in mechanism that allows those adjustments to be made from the top down. In that regard, why can't "by the people, for the people" equate to "the people are sick of these shootings, therefore, the people demand change"?

It's as if you're treating the social contract as an all or nothing proposition, forgetting that "freedom" in itself is defined by this very concept. We all sacrifice some of our freedom (some more willingly than others, it appears) in order to live in a relatively harmonious society that allows us to live our lives and strive for our goals without the thread of violence, or unnecessary interference. In fact, the freedom to live your life without the threat of being shot-down by a gun-toting maniac is as much a valid concept of freedom as the one you appear to subscribe to.

 

[lazorexplosion]

I was giving the example of a country's racism paragraph to illustrate how there's justified cases of censorship, thus showing that freedom of speech isn't absolute. Having a protest that advocates "Kill all Jews!" should not be condoned, for example.

And it's everything between a fine and 2 years of of imprisonment, depending on the action.

And again there's no logical link here. What are you saying, restrictions on racist speech exist therefore restricting videogames is a justifiable limitation on free speech? There's no connection at all. The sedition act can restrict critics of the draft, amirite guys, it's fine because racist speech is restricted too. Logic!

 

[Instro]

Sponsored by Doritos.

 

[Lime]

To be clear, are you arguing that the Blacklist torture scene is significant in a moral sense because:

1. (Real) torture is significant in a moral sense, and the simulation of it inherits this significance.
2. Such simulations of violence contribute to the glorification of it, affecting attitudes about it in a way that you think is bad (i.e., immoral).

I assume you mean #2, because that's a reasonable argument, however difficult it may be to support with evidence. I only bring it up because people seem to frequently confuse the two in these kinds of discussions, and #1 is a mistake.

Yes, scenes like the torture scene in Splinter Cell: Blacklist is morally significant because of the moral agents and their attitudes being exposed to or affected by a simulation of something that corresponds to real-world moral actions or events, such as torture.

And again there's no logical link here. What are you saying, restrictions on racist speech exist therefore restricting videogames is a justifiable limitation on free speech? There's no connection at all. The sedition act can restrict critics of the draft, amirite guys, it's fine because racist speech is restricted too. Logic!

You need to cease the hostility if you want to have a fruitful discussion. Twice now you've been posting with an uncalled for ridiculing tone.

Anyway, if you had read the post that I was initially replying to, you would notice that I was not making a case for banning violent video games, but to argue against Angry Fork's claim that art/media should never be regulated by politicians/law. The example of the racism paragraph shows there exist justified regulations of media. See below

Art/media should never ever be regulated by politicians. It is a complete non debate, anyone in favor of such regulation is suspect imo.

So, lazorexplosion, please relax and act more pleasant in the future.

 

[Agent Unknown]

The administration wants "input" from the videogame industry on how to help create an environment where children are better protected. Please. I think it's great the Administration wants to tighten up on guns and assault weapons but in all fairness, I would've told Biden right to his face that Obama's predator drones have killed and will continue to kill more children than videogames ever possibly could.

 

[benjipwns]

In fact, the freedom to live your life without the threat of being shot-down by a gun-toting maniac is as much a valid concept of freedom as the one you appear to subscribe to.

How exactly is this "freedom" supposed to be protected though?

For example, in Jose Guerena's case. Or Kathryn Johnston's.

 

[FGMPR]

How exactly is this "freedom" supposed to be protected though?

For example, in Jose Guerena's case. Or Kathryn Johnston's.

Positive freedoms are protected through regulation, the police, laws etc. In the example of those two cases, I'd actually consider them anomalies in the grand scheme of things. That's why you've heard of them before.

And as for protecting those freedoms, as long as the same government that provides the police/SWAT team (in this case) provides the mechanisms that allow those responsible for the anomaly to be prosecuted without any corrupting governmental interference, then they are being protected. It may not always work, but its a lot better solution than giving everybody the right to handle deadly weaponry.

 

[benjipwns]

In the example of those two cases, I'd actually consider them anomalies in the grand scheme of things. That's why you've heard of them before.

as long as the same government ... provides the mechanisms that allow those responsible for the anomaly to be prosecuted without any corrupting governmental interference, then they are being protected

My question remains on how restricting their rights would protect their "[freedom to live] without the threat of being shot-down by a gun-toting maniac" and your answer seems to be to trust the "gun-toting maniacs" because it'd somehow be worse if citizens maintained their self-defense rights.

And just to be clear, mass shootings (and serial and spree killings in general) by "civilians" aren't anomalies unlike these constant deployments of violent force which Guerena and Johnston's murders are just the first two of countless examples that came to mind.

A good chunk (I assume a majority if not a supermajority but I haven't looked at the numbers) of the gun violence (and culture really) in this country is related to the violence imposed by the war on drugs. Perhaps we should look at bringing light to that black market and restoring citizens rights there instead of (or at the very least before) bringing the peaceful efficiency of drug control to guns.

 

[Rentahamster]

I guess you are looking at games thematically rather then mechanically; as a means of interacting with the world, a mario games gameplay grammar is primarily movement based, and jumping is by far the most common 'verb' you use in gameplay.

If you describe gameplay in language terms, a level in mario would have 'kill enemy' far fewer times than 'move right' or 'jump'. 'move' is not a term of 'violence', where 'jump on enemy head' / 'shoot fireball' / 'kill enemy' would be.

A very tricky jump or sequence of jumps would provide a challange, or 'conflict' to a player, but would not be intrinsically 'violent'.

However, if you take a game like call of duty and describe it in linguistic terms, you will see that the majority of actions would be inherently violent terms; 'shoot', 'kill', 'reload', 'throw grenade', 'stab' etc.

I think I'm looking at it both thematically and mechanically. I agree with you that while both games have the player employ tools of violence to progress, CoD's "toolbox" is filled with a much higher percentage of violent "tools", and the depictions of those gameplay mechanics are much more realistic and gory than Mario's fantasy cartoon-violence.

 

[chickdigger802]

Can't make new threads anymore, but i think this might be relevant.


http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...:+GamasutraNews+(Gamasutra+News)#.UPWYxid9LgW

During the meeting, Mr. Biden went around the room and asking all in attendance to speak for three-to-four minutes to suggest ways to improve the industry's perception. The researchers in attendance suggested, appropriately, further research should be done, but by accounts most of the industry executives and representatives weren't prepared to give positive suggestions.
----
The Vice President's suggestion that the video game industry improve its public perception wasn't just friendly advice. It might have been a warning: clean up your act, or bad things could happen if it comes down to a vote.

"He didn't say this, I'm reading between the lines, but there might have been an element of... [video game violence] might come up when we have to address gun control or mental health or whatever else," says Ferguson.

"There's just been so much talk about video games in the news media, there's been so much discussion about that, and there's been of course Senator Rockefeller's bills. I think they weren't going to get away without addressing it."

"Hopefully the industry will come up with some positive suggestions."

 

[Mario]

I think this part is the better quote

By all accounts it doesn't appear that any restrictions on video game sales will be a part of that proposal. Indeed, he and his task force appear unconvinced that there is a link between violent video games and violent behavior.

"He said upfront that he didn't think the evidence he'd seen showed a link between violent video games and real life violence," says Olson. "And he said even if the research were to show a link, it would be a tiny influence compared to the influence of the other factors he was looking at."

But public opinion is a powerful thing, especially in politics, and a large, uneducated part of the population remains convinced that games are harmful.


"You have not been 'singled out for help,'" Vice President Joe Biden told a clearly relieved John Riccitiello of EA on Friday.

"I think Biden's point was to that to those individuals you're not that much different from the cigarette industry, in the sense that they think that you're hiding research that suggests that video games are bad and that you're peddling something that you think is harmful," Texas A&M's Christopher Ferguson, who was also in attendance, tells us.

"I think his message was, 'I don't believe that, but other people do. So what can you do to try to fix that?"

Pity the industry reps were seemingly only prepared to be on the defensive, but at least Biden has given them a nudge in the right direction and hopefully can offer government support in any messaging/educational efforts that are put forward.

 

[TheUnsane1]

I posted in the wrong topic some how, nothing to see here.