A game too far...

[Tunnelcat]

Just read this one when I logged into Steam.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/valve-stea ... k-content/

https://www.cnet.com/news/rape-day-deve ... eam-valve/

Now here's an ethical question for people to mull over. It's OK to kill and maim in all sorts of violent ways in today's computer games. Sure, I do it all the time as do many other people, but apparently Steam draws the line at the virtual rape of women. I'm afraid I'm in agreement with their decision. Personally, I find the concept of rape to be absolutely repulsive to even consider in a computer game. Personally, I can possibly see the entertainment value for probably a lot of teen-aged males, but I'm not one of them and my gender would be on the receiving end of their virtual lust. Sure, killing virtual people is just as morally reprehensible, but how many gamers take their fantasies to the next level and kill for real? Yes, it happens nowadays. Our society is getting more violent, but so far no one is censoring violent games or movies and most killers murder for other reasons than just for violence's sake. But now give young adolescents who are full of raging hormones coupled with little impulse control a taste of virtual rape. How many of these young men would eventually conflate sex and violence together after playing such a game? Would young men be more willing to cross the line and rape for real, especially after a game gets them going and no longer satisfies their fantasies? Even trying to victim equalize would be a nasty mess. Say virtual men could be raped by women players, or even other male players? Can you see where I'm going with this scenario? And all this doesn't include young children getting a hold of this type of game and getting an education no one wants, because a lot of parents are stupid or lazy when it comes to monitoring their children's gaming.

[Krom]

Freedom of speech means this developer is allowed to create this game. But it also means we are allowed to tell them it is bad and refuse to support it. The exceptions allowed for freedom of speech also means nobody has to sell it in their store if they object to its contents. For once things seem to be working as the constitution intended, this is the first I've heard of this game and hopefully also the last.

Freedom of speech does not include freedom from the consequences of said expression.

As for violent video games/media spurring a violent society, I really don't think there is any significant causation there. A much more likely cause of rising violence is record high and constantly rising inequality, predatory economic practices, elimination of the middle class, and the rising hopelessness and substance abuse because of it. Basically late stage capitalism is starting to significantly strain society, toss in climate change and I can only really see things getting worse even if we banned and eliminated all violent media.

[Spidey]

Hypocrisy at its best…errrr…worst.

According to the law, rape is considered violence, not sex…so what’s the ★■◆●ing difference!

Violence is violence…get over it.

[vision]

Violence is violence…get over it.

That's quite a primitive way of looking at the world, isn't it? Not all violence is equal.

[Spidey]

Ah yes, the “false equivalence” strawman, I never said they were equal.

[Tunnelcat]

OK, as a female, I would say that rape runs along the same vein as as torture because both acts cause pain, humiliation and suffering to the victim. So is it OK for players to torture other NPC's or other virtual players? I remember a scene in an older Splinter Cell game where you had to beat the answer out of a virtual character. It was pretty violent. I actually found it uncomfortable to do, but you had to do it just to advance the game. It wasn't a part I wanted to repeat either, and I shoot NPC's all the time without batting an eye. So I think when violence gets personal and up close, that's where the humanity really kicks in.

[vision]

Ah yes, the “false equivalence” strawman, I never said they were equal.

It's not a strawman because I'm responding directly to your assertion. it's not false equivalence either, and you should get in the habit of looking up fallacies before proclaiming them. You literally said they were equal. That's what the word "is" means. When you say "rape is considered violence, violence is violence" you are equating them. If you personally don't believe that, you didn't mention those beliefs anywhere in your post. This is classic Spidey right here. You chime in with a short, poorly phrased comment that only makes sense in your head, then get mad when people don't understand you. We've watched you do this for years.

[Spidey]

You’re such a bore, why don’t you comment on the OP and give people something worth reading.

My desire to debate semantics and context with you is like ...ZILCH.

Find another whipping boy already.

[Tunnelcat]

Come on you two. play nice. I kind of see vision's point. Is there a difference between up close violence where you have to interact with your victim and violence perpetrated from afar? The difference is that you don't feel the pain or see the raw emotions when you kill from a distance, but when you have direct interaction with your victim, it's right in your face. Unless of course you are devoid of all humanity and can be labeled a psychopath.

[Spidey]

Sorry, but I can’t help it if somebody doesn’t understand that “violence is violence” doesn’t mean that all violence carries the same weight.

[vision]

Sorry, but I can’t help it if somebody doesn’t understand that “violence is violence” doesn’t mean that all violence carries the same weight.

The context of your statement implies that there is no need for distinctions. Rape is violence and is treated like all other violence under the law. You said "what's the ★■◆●ing difference?" Also, "get over it" is a kind of dismissal that suggests no further discussion is necessary.

Maybe you don't intend for your statements to be interpreted this way, but they are, and it's because you're kind of a crappy writer. As we've seen over the years, you just want to drop a zinger in the thread and fade out feeling like you owned everyone with some deep wisdom. It never works that way though.

[Spidey]

Is that what you think, well you are wrong, I choose to make my statements short, so they can be further explained because I prefer a back and forth exchange instead of trying to place everything in one post.

The problem becomes when instead of asking me to explain further, you choose to let the insults fly instead, and then placing me in a defensive mode, rather than conducive to further dialog. And what you call “fading away” is just me trying to avoid…this..

So you use my “crappy writing” as an excuse to attack…what does that say about you?

Anyway…

My point was the “differences” used to decide where to “draw the line” were not things like…

Rape is worse than murder, or violence for sport or pleasure is bad…but rape is the violence that offends “me” instead. So yea that’s where the “get over it” comes from.

When others have come out against different kinds of violence in video games, they got a big POO POO, but now the shoe is on the other foot, and all of a sudden what offends “me” counts.

Now…do you want to continue insulting my intelligence and assuming you know my intentions, or do you wish to discuss the OP?

[vision]

When others have come out against different kinds of violence in video games, they got a big POO POO, but now the shoe is on the other foot, and all of a sudden what offends “me” counts.

Really though, if a person is not offended by rape in a "game" (two things that should never have an association) then that person needs mental help immediately. This is something that should be universally understood. It's also shocking to me that games like GTA are so popular. It's a sign our culture is sick.

[AlexanderBorisov]

Obviously unjustified violence is not OK in any scenario. But unfortunately it is a part of our life and everyone should learn that it is so. So what really matters is not seeing/doing the violence but your attitude to it. Obviously violence is ok in self defence, or if it is your duty - like a soldier's duty. And here those "games" go wrong - they show to us that violence is ok, it is fun and good... And there are 2 more things wrong about it. First is that thinking about it and enjoying it on the screen is not the same as doing it in real life. No, for YOU it is the same. Except they won't put you in jail. First it has the same destructive effect on your mind and body, and it is the seed that will eventually sprout in real life too. And the second bad thing is the idea that it is ok for adults, but should be hidden from children and youngsters. It's simply illogical and stupid, as children always learn from adults, and this attitude makes forbidden fruit sweeter... As well as assuring children that it is ok to lie - especially when you grow up...

[Tunnelcat]

OK, what happens when killing becomes sanitized. That's pretty much the way it is in video games because you aren't really killing another human. It's just pixels on a display. But in real war, if we sanitize it by making it easier to kill without even having to engage the enemy with our own soldiers, how does the deter the concept of war at all? I mean, the whole point of not wanting war is that it's destructive, bloody and nasty and we to have to pay for it with our own son's and daughter's blood. That's the deterrence. But when we start mechanizing war and can stand off from the killing acts from afar, that by itself makes it easier to kill without remorse because you don't have to see the violence and death close up. It's sanitized virtual reality on a screen. No consequences, no deterrence. And if we're stupid enough to develop smart autonomous drones that do the killing all by themselves, what then? The U.S. is already killing with human piloted drones and we're working on autonomous ones as I write. Good God, are we that damn stupid? What's to deter us if technology makes it easier to kill without paying the consequences in lives and suffering? Same with rape. If young men with no impulse control learn that rape seems OK in a virtual game, that it's no big deal and that it's fun, will they want to take the next step into real life?

[woodchip]

Lets take a slightly different tack here. A high court found Remington Arms is indeed libel for the way they marketed their product as a cause for the Sandy Hook killings. So what happens when a girl says some ★■◆● boy raped her because of playing this game or any others that promote rape as part of their game. Might be interesting to see the results of such a lawsuit.

[Vander]

I don't think they're comparable. Lets say the video game was designed and marketed as a rape tutorial, which I don't think is the case here, but is pretty much at the extreme end of what we're alluding to. It would be more akin to a firearm tactics training course specifically marketed as teaching assassination. I would think in both there is a case for liability. I don't know if the actual video game rises to that level.

The Remington case, however, is different. They produce the physical tool used to facilitate an act, and market it as such. Certainly, they didn't market it specifically as a tool to shoot up schools, but they do allude to things that are likely illegal. I'm also somewhat sympathetic, for a leftist, to the 'guns against tyranny' argument for the 2nd amendment. So if they're specifically designing and marketing the weapons as geared toward illegal civilian combat, it's not necessarily an excuse for liability for me.