OT: Words fail me

[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.

[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.

[AMF]

But, my entire point is that it's not YOU who I would be concerned about - it would be the kids who get the game, what types of people they grow up to be because of it, and how that affects all of us since we are part of a society.


I don't get your point about child molestation. Child molestation, by definition, is not the act of two consenting adults. (mayeb I forgot to say "adult" - my bad if so). Can you elaborate on what you mean?

[AMF]

Atrocities said:
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.

See, we agree in part. I think, fully, that two consenting adults, in their own privacy, hey, let them chop each other up and make stew out of themselves. I don't care.

But I am not talking about that, at all.

When you say "I do apologize if my desire to keep my right to choose offends" you're using loaded language. No one is talking about taking away your right to choose anything in your own life. You can totally stay home and play your own version of "pimp out chicks" - whose stopping you? So long as you and your GF both consent, you can do anything you want (as far as I am concerned, not sure about the limits of the law, but this is my opninion here).

It's the effect on *society* I'm talking about.

But, hey, how do you square your statement that :

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

with your beleif that this card game is just fine? I mean, you're really going to tell me that the former is worse?

Oh, but here's a cogent and funny article you should read about it:

"U.S. Children Still Traumatized One Year After Seeing Partially Exposed Breast On TV"
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4104

I mean, woo hoo, an exposed breast! Call out the cops! Can't have that! (but, hey, headless bodies, blood and guts, that's fine...)

[dogscoff]

If my comments in this thread seem vague, flippant and self contradictory, it's because I'm not sure where I stand.Nevertheless I'm going to rant on authoritatively.

I believe that ppl should be able to make films, books, games, whatever, about anything they like, as long as access to negatively-influential material is restricted to adults. That there is a significant market for sick stuff like this pimp-game reflects a greater problem in society, but that shouldn't be allowed to interfere with freedom of speech. I guess I'm saying that I see this pimp-game as more of a symptom of the mysoginist attitudes prevalent in society, not a cause.

I'm reminded of some utter cretin of a woman I saw on TV a few years back. She was complaining about South Park, saying it was disgusting that stuff like that should be marketted at children. What she totally failed to grasp was that South Park was NOT aimed at children- however she had clearly ignored all the "18" stickers and bought her kids the video without a clue as to its contents, and THEN complained about the content.

This game will suffer from similar problems- in the hands of well-adjusted adults, it probably isn't harmful, and the game's age rating will reflect that. THe problem is that moronic parents who can't be bothered to consider how they are raising their children will go out and buy this game for their eight-year olds. Well, maaybe not in the case of a board game, but certainly in the case of a computer game like GTA. I guess many parents still look at computer games and think that they can't be any more sophisticated or influential than space invaders.

Spare the children, eat the parents. That's what I say.

[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]

dogscoff said:
Spare the children, eat the parents. That's what I say.

Yeah, I agree fully.

Censorship or governmental attempts to control social values or mores are a terrible thing and, in my opinion, should be avoided at all costs. South Park the mOvie was all about that - and was, incidentally, one of the best movies I've ever seen.

All I was trying to get at was

1) The debate over where, if anywhere we draw that line of deceny, and
2) The fact that it's ridiculous to say that such things have no effect on society at large, and
3) the concept that, no matter how much a lkot of people would like, we all do live in a society not just a bunch of individuals in the same geographic location. And that has implications for our individual actions.

Alarik


3)

[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.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

The thing that drove me to protest was not that it was a game about pimps - it was that it was a game about pimps that attempted to turn prostitution into a joke.

Space Empires doesn't turn the murder of planetary populations into a joke. If it did, I wouldn't play it. It's true it can be played that way, but that's a matter of personal use.

And quite frankly, I consider military strategy and political options benificial things to learn (So long as you don't actually start acting like a dictator)

The petition isn't trying to make the game illegal; it's simply expressing societical displeasure at something everybody who signs it finds disgusting.