It's about ethics in games journalism, right?
Just when you think outraged gamers can't get much dumber, they go and surprise you.
Target & Kmart AU's book sections are pretty shit, and I can't recall ever seeing a bible in either store...
Fuming gamers have hit back after Target and Kmart withdrew Grand Theft Auto V from sale in Australia. Last month campaigners started a petition on Change.org to get GTA5 banned by the big-box retail chains, claiming the game "encourages players to murder women for entertainment." The campaigners also claim the game trains …
SamuraiMark, your logic is both impeccable and unassailable, and your eloquence has touched my heart and moved me to tears.
Now, when you finish your latest round of self-'congratulation' (in about 10 seconds) the tissues are in aisle 3, and I'm sure mom won't notice if you grab some clean socks too (aisle 5). Wristguards to help with the inevitable RSI can be found up the back of the store in the computer & AV section...
"....and I can't recall ever seeing a bible in either store..." Not just that, but why buy a bible when there are so many (IMHO) strange individuals that will knock on your door and offer you one for free (and 'save your soul' as a bonus)?
So they have no problems with games killing male NPC's and characters, but as soon as it's a woman NPC, they have their torches and pitchforks out? Give me a break.
Not to mention you have the gaming media pushing the agenda of a small clique of Social Justice warriors (SJW's) in San Francisco rather than the industry who signs their checks and pays for the press coverage. (We have no problem with paid coverage, as long as it's fully and openly disclosed)
Yes, it's about ethics in video gaming. We want some objectivity and basic bullshit detection rather than the whole gaming press "listening and believing" and telling most of it's consumer base they are horrible, sub humans who just want to do horrible things to women, just to appease some rich trust fund SJW's.
IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE - DECEMBER 23, 2014
MERRY CHRISTMAS: SONY AND MICROSOFT TARGET COPS FOR ASSASSINATION WITH NEW YORK CITY COMPANY'S COP-KILLING GAME
Sony Corporation, currently whining about its computer hacks and threats related to The Interview, and Microsoft, whose founder Bill Gates once admitted on national television that "video games transport you to a world you think is real," are presently marketing and selling a new video game that allows players to rehearse assassinating police officers.
To make matters worse, this game is made by Take-Two Interactive, headquartered in New York City. But assassinating cops is not a problem in New York City, right?
The new game, Grand Theft Auto V, designed for play on Sony's PlayStation and Microsoft's XBox, is a new first-person version of the cop-killing simulator which allows the player to practice killing cops in what is called first-person mode, which mode immerses the player in the violence far more disturbingly than the earlier third-person mode.
The first-person violence is so intense and so disturbing that both Target and Wal-Mart have yanked Sony's and Microsoft's version of GTA V from all stores in Australia. Even some in the video game industry press have written that the game goes too far in its violence even for them. You don't just orchestrate the violence, as in third-person mode; in first-person mode you fully enter into the violence, making it your own.
Here is a shocking video of the first-person cop-killing in GTA V:
All police departments and police organizations in the United States, especially in New York City, should demand that Target and Wal-Mart be consistent and pull the game in all countries, especially in the U.S. where there are more guns than persons.
Similarly, these departments and organizations, in light of what has just happened in New York City, should demand that Sony and Microsoft recall from all retailers' store shelves worldwide these cop-killing simulators that have been linked to numerous copycat murders in the past.
In 1992, Charlton Heston and then Miami attorney Jack Thompson persuaded Time Warner to yank rapper Ice-T's "Cop Killer" from store shelves worldwide because it was a song that targeted cops for death.
It is time for corporate America to do a similar thing again.
Why? Because "COPS' LIVES MATTER."
Contact Jack Thompson at 305-666-4366 and firstname.lastname@example.org.
... since Blair banned the glorification of terrorism?
This is a book that portrays the suicide bomber Samson as a hero in the act of his martyrdom.
And far worse, the Holy Man Elijah, who brings death and destruction to a godless people and then flees into the wilderness when the Powers That Be come after him. A role model for "9/11" on a much bigger scale, as well as for genocide of the followers of The (wrong) Lord.
Come to think of it, you don't even need a good blood&gore story to promote genocide when you have casual exhortations like "Blessed is he that taketh the Children of the Heathen, and casts them upon the stone".
It is legal because there was no test case to prove it illegal.
There needs to be a test case. Even if taken by a lawyer on a pro-bono basis (not likely), there are still expenses to be had so someone needs to start dangling a cup on one of the public financing sites.
@Nick. What were you reading ? Sampson suicided to kill his mutilators. Story told as history, not example. Stories addressed to a group of disparate tribes 1700 or so years ago stumbling toward becoming a nation. So you want to abolish all history books then in case some-one gets naughty ideas ? As for the imprecatory psalms, all one can ask if you ever lose it yourself ? Some of those old songs are just that, people having a rant. After your wife and daughters have been raped and sons killed one might feel a bit annoyed. Those psalms are a bit like ElReg at times, except for some reason, too many critics seem to think early Iron Age stories are meant as doctrine. BTW, what people did Elijah bring genocide on ? The book I read indicated it was a small group of Israelites with a penchant for $deities with a taste for killing babies as well as risking animal to human disease transmission.
As for later posters ranting about religion, I point out the most enthusiastic killers have been variations of scientific atheism. Last century mostly, unlike stories from a less warlike time 2700 years ago. But I agree, banning the Bible would be useful. For one, it wont affect the professional religious who in in the West are mostly atheists insisting it is all lies any way, and once banned, people might even read it, not about it, thus getting it wrong. Or are you suggesting that any supernaturalism _only_ should be banned. Hmm, some religions have followers who might actually do something about that.
Finally I cynically point out that as practising christians are 2% or less, it may be other groups that complained. Feminists for instance, not usually noted for their devotion to old holy books. Assorted "Think of the Children" groups. Singling out a very small powerless minority suggests that catch all word vilification. Oh wait, that only applies to non-christians.
Given that the "Old Testament" that is being referenced here is the same in the Koran as it is in the Bible, Target & Kmart Australia should ban the Koran as well as the Bible.
"Come to think of it, you don't even need a good blood&gore story to promote genocide when you have casual exhortations like "Blessed is he that taketh the Children of the INFIDELS, and casts them upon the stone".
You could argue that question on the head of a pin. But if you narrow it from The Bible to just Events for which the Church of Rome were the moral and intellectual foundation, you have a long list topped by huge-scale events like the Crusades, Inquisition, and (within living memory) Holocaust.
"Events for which the Church of Rome were the moral and intellectual foundation"
Except that - in modern times at least - it's not the Catholics that are the problem. It's extremist protestants. And I can think of (of the top of my head) at least 300 people whoa re now dead because of extremist protestants wigging the fuck out about their religion (or the perceived lack of it/inadequacy of it in others). And that's just my memory, without Google, and confined to North America.
That's not even touching organized religious warfare, driving people to suicide (thanks, Westboro Baptist Church!), or getting into far more controversial topics like "babies who died from neglect because they were born to mothers who shouldn't have been having kids, but didn't use contraception because God." Or how about "babies who died en masse due to starvation/AIDS because an entire fucking continent has been hoodwinked into no contraception because God."
You know, I'm going to go waaaaaaaaaay out on a limb here and say "deaths/rapes due to GTA influence" are way the hell lower than atrocities committed in the name of God. And that's just the Christian god. Let's not open the can of worms that is "the Abrahamic sky fairy is really the same sky fairy for a number of religions"...
"Except that - in modern times at least - it's not the Catholics that are the problem. "
The RCC is equally as guilty as the protestant evangelists in areas like homophobia, contraception, and the emphasis on sex for procreation rather than human bonding. Their dogma enshrined in law in Ireland caused the unnecessary death of a pregnant woman. They constantly try to interfere in civil legislation to make other people subject to their dogma.
"it's not the Catholics that are the problem. It's extremist protestants." I absolutely love the fact that some large subpopulation of the world we can publicly and casually debate which interpretation of Yahweh leads to more death without risking our lives to do so. Cheers! If you want to look at only the most current events, I'd probably give The Holy Bible a temporary pass and focus my efforts on the Qur'an first. Consider for example that about a third of Muslims worldwide believe people who leave the faith should be killed -- literally hundreds of millions of Muslims. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/
You're an idiot.
The issue isn't "which version of bullshit hocus pocus is believed", it's extremists and evangelists of any religion.
In the case of certain sects of the Muslim population, there is a sad truth that many of the religious leaders are encouraging radicalization and violence. Just like with extremist Protestant groups. Both of these need to be targeted for deletion. That fact that you kill in Jesus' name rather than Muhammad's doesn't make you any more righteous. You both need to be stopped.
We're fortunate that today very, very few Catholics are radicalizing people and pushing them to violence. Historically, they've been among the worse of the worst. If Catholics can move more towards a moderate, accepting religion then that's good for a huge chunk of the planet.
Unfortunately, Protestants and Muslims are both a massive problem. Too easily are whackos attracted to these religions, because they are fundamentalist and literalist in their interpretation of the scrawlings of the relevant madmen.
In the case of the protestants, we're quite lucky that most of them live in the middle of the goddamned desert and simply ferment a hatred of their federal government and shoot people who come on their land. It could be a lot worse. Sometimes - all too often, in fact, - it is worse.
The protestants don't own a whole country. They are tempered by their fellow citizens. But more than enough times they have pushed for unholy havoc to be wrought on their religious rivals.
Sadly, the Muslim radicals have more power at the moment. That makes them a more immediate threat...but it is only the immediacy of the treat that is different. Given enough time, the fringe Protestants will be riding on tanks killing the non-believers too.
Any religion that views killing those who are different as not only okay, but justified needs to be brought to an end. Fortunately, it's typically the radical elements of a religion that believe that...not the mainstream.
Unfortunately, making a dent in the fact that people believe in s ridiculous sky fairy at all is taking forever. We need to push back against all religion. The fewer people who believe in sky fairies of any kind, the fewer will become radicalized on the name of one of them.
Instead, let's teach compassion, acceptance and critical thinking. If you want to believe in a religion, that's fine...up to a point. You can believe lies if you wish, but the instant you advocate - or attempt - the restriction of the rights of others in the name of your religion, the rights to advocate and practice your religion need to end.
Regardless of whether the sky fairy you worship is Jesus, Mohammad, Yaweh, or Barney the motherfucking dinosaur.
@Denarius: Religion is a lie, regardless of what deity you choose to worship. Materialist religions absolutely can be crazy arsebags too. Look at the Randians, or the Sceintologists. They've both done some horrible things in the name of their beliefs.
Compassion and decency towards your fellow man is not the province of religion, and certainly not the province of only one particular religion. It's just what the majority of people do by default.
Unfortunately, the world is run by the "squeaky wheel", and they are almost universally extremist asshats out to do as much harm as humanly possible, all to frequently in the name of fuzzy sky fairy. Whether that sky fairy be the god of Abraham, the invisible hand of the market or anything else, it's nothing but harming others to fill some void in yourself that your desperately clung to beliefs have been unable to fulfill.
This world will not improve until we make radical religion - all of it - socially unacceptable. Critical thinking and evidence-based science are the only rational means to govern ourselves and our societies.
Dogmatic adherence to any belief results in nothing more than violent immorality in the name of an individual's faith. There is nothing more dishonorable than killing in the name of "god" or "the invisible hand of the market" or Buddha, or...
If you want to kill a man, be honest about why. Be honest with him, with yourself, with others.
"I am killing you because I want your stuff" or "I am killing you because what you say angers me" or "I am killing you because I am angry all the time and I am hoping this will make the voices stop for a while" at least have a shred of honour. "God says so" is bullshit. Bullshit of the highest order.
And that applies just as much to "god hates homosexuals" or "god says shun rape victims" or "god says get a job, ya bum".
Take some fucking responsibility for your own beliefs and your own actions. If you're going to be an asshole, don't hide behind a sky fairy that doesn't exist. if your actions make you so ashamed you need metaphysical permission then don't perform those actions. Learn to walk the fuck away and let others live their lives.
God is never a reason. God is nothing more than an excuse. Now, then, and forevermore.
"You're an idiot." Gee thanks. :) I find it funny that you say that, and then go on to agree that Muslim radicals are a more immediate threat. Consider it this way: if you have $100 to spend will you spend all $100 on a general anti-religion (or anti-dogma) stance, or will you spend $10 on Christianity, $10 on Judaism, $20 on Islam, and $70 on religion (or dogma) generally? This is the kind of question we need to answer to describe what we each believe would lead to the outcome we desire. There's no wrong answer to this sort of question. I only argue that your priorities should align with the facts of reality. It could be that your knowledge of the facts is such that you would firmly put the $100 generally, or maybe you'd put it all on Judaism, etc. For my part, I think real-world actual harm in action today is an important consideration when deciding how to prioritize spending resources. As you agreed, the facts suggest Muslims are causing more real-world harm today. It is on this basis I would spend more resources combating their worst ideas compared to Buddhists, or Jainism or the Amish. Specific beliefs matter. I do think we should put serious resources toward ending all dogmatism too -- especially religions.
"Consider it this way: if you have $100 to spend will you spend all $100 on a general anti-religion (or anti-dogma) stance, or will you spend $10 on Christianity, $10 on Judaism, $20 on Islam, and $70 on religion (or dogma) generally?"
None of the above. I'd put all $100 into anti-extremism. Encouraging a culture where we question authority, teach critical thinking and make extremism socially unacceptable. Whether that extremism be in the form of Randian economic asshattery, unbridled Nationalism or caustic religious fuckwittery.
Treat the disease, not the symptom. Radical protestants and radical Muslims are merely catchpoints for crazies. What we need to do is give these people no acceptable place to hide. If they're that far gone they need to be in hospital. It shouldn't be acceptable for them to claim "religion" and have a get-out-of-Arkham-free card.
Your problem is that you feel targeting specific religions is acceptable. It's really not. It will just create resentment and martyrs and more problems down the road. If you must target religions, you target them all equally. By the same token, however, know your enemy. Learn about them, and know how to tailor your propaganda and education so that you can slowly make their messages clearly anti-social and massively reduce the influx of people willing to champion their cause.
It's psychological warfare, mate. Do go making new enemies whilst fighting the ones you already have.
"The protestants don't own a whole country. They are tempered by their fellow citizens. But more than enough times they have pushed for unholy havoc to be wrought on their religious rivals."
Errm... Yes, the Prods _do_ own a whole country. Several, actually. With names like 'England', 'Norway', 'Sweden', 'the Netherlands', a whole bunch of others... Hint: HM Queen Lizzy is head of the Church of England. And there's actually currently enforced laws on the books in Britain which would make life rather interesting for any heir to the throne who actually dared to marry a Catholic.
You may be thinking of 'fundamentalists', not Protestants. And even there, well, things have cooled down over the last few centuries, but the CoE, the Lutherans, and the Calvinists were all pretty damn fundie in the past. Y'all might want to review your history. Or at least to have a look at some poetry from as late as the 19th century. http://www.poetrycat.com/alfred-tennyson/the-revenge
What, you thought that Muslims and fundie Xians had a monopoly on religious fervour? Read up on the life of, oh, Francis Drake.
"Errm... Yes, the Prods _do_ own a whole country. Several, actually. With names like 'England', 'Norway', 'Sweden', 'the Netherlands', a whole bunch of others... "
With the exception of England and Australia - which are pretty goddamned fucked up - those other nations are strongly secular. Protestants may be the majority belief, but they are nowhere near being able to simply dictate policy. They are not "owned" by any religion, just as the US is not.
"What, you thought that Muslims and fundie Xians had a monopoly on religious fervour? Read up on the life of, oh, Francis Drake."
No. What I said was that currently, today, fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Protestants are the biggest threat. Various groups in the past have done their share of horrors. That's not the point. I'm not singling out a religion and saying "death to this religion".
To be perfectly frank, I'm against all religion; the flavour in question doesn't matter.
No, what I am saying here by pointing the finger squarely at radical Protestants is "know your enemy". And make no mistake, they are the fucking enemy. Just as much as radical Muslims are. We need to understand them if we are to beat them...and we must counter the threat they pose before it's too late.
By this I mean socially ostracizing the radical and fundamentalist beliefs and actions. Shunning literalist interpretations of any sacred text. Teaching critical thinking to everyone, and doing so at every possible opportunity.
Take the oxygen away form these people. Identify vulnerable groups and get to them with education and the tools required to resist charlatans and preachers of all kinds. Help people be at peace with themselves without requiring a violent fundamentalist telling them what to do.
Better yet, making teaching religion to children under the age of 18 illegal, and enforce that law.
If we want to fight the real source of violence in our society we need to put resources into it. That means fundamentalist religion as much as it does gangs. It means fighting poverty and providing education. It means removing the reason for people to want to fight and running down those who champion fighting anyways.
Drive the crazy out into the open, then get them into hospital and get them help. Don't let them be caught up by madmen with a book and twisted into weapons.
And that means looking where we don't want to look. At the religions of the "good guys". At the violence we do to ourselves, not just what people of different skin colour, or dress, or whatever adhere to.
Know your enemy. Even if the enemy is you.
If you want to look at only the most current events, I'd probably give The Holy Bible a temporary pass and focus my efforts on the Qur'an first.
Up to the end of the Old Testament you'll not find a huge difference between those two books.
As always, the problem isn't the book, it's those who get a power kick out of interpreting it for the masses. Also note that one of the major reasons for protest of the early protestants was that they weren't allowed to read the Bible themselves, because the ruling cadre was worried that they might not interpret it "correctly".
Religion that is - im sorry but why should we be forced to our lives according to a set of opinions and 'values' (and i use the term advisedly) that are two millenia (and maybe more) out of date,
Sod that - Ive got my own life. These idiots are so lacking in self belief that they have to waste theirs trying to force somebody elses beliefs on the rest of us.
Get your own life and let everyone else live theirs in peace please!
You have to keep in mind that it's not "Protestants" but rather a small subset of Protestants. A lot of Protestants are just as stuffy and conservative as Catholics. It's only a particular minority of Protestants that advocate extreme anti-intellectualism and theocracy.
"Protestant" is not a terribly useful term. It pretty much just means "not Catholic" which is as useful as "not Baptist". There are 1001 flavors to contend with and a term that encompasses 1000 of them isn't terribly meaningful.
Although people that use the term "Xian" like they own it usually are part of the wingnut crowd.
Sure, but by the same token the problem isn't "Muslims", it's a small subset of "batshit crazy whacko Muslims."
The issue here is that in both cases - Muslims and Protestants - there exist at the present time a bunch of really hard-core extremist beliefs being espoused by charismatic leaders and forming their own organized micro religions. At the present time they are the biggest threat.
I am perfectly aware that the majority of Protestants are completely loony tunes (disregarding the who "they believe in a sky fairy" part for the moment; that's actually somewhat normal, sadly.) I am equally aware that the majority of Muslims are not blood thirsty whack jobs.
For now, however, the extremist elements of both collections of micro-religions are attracting a disproportionate amount of crazies and causing disproportionate amounts of harm.
Nick, sources please. Crusades: run by the traders and money men (bankers) for the traders and bankers except for one. Inquisition: Depends on estimates. 25000 to 50,000. 50% of all accused were set free. Of those found guilty, penaties were light. They were harsh times. Secularcourts were worse. The Spanish Inquisition was also a case of an indebted king wasting those he owed money to.
Holocaust ? WTF ? Couple of your intellectual company behind that. No names because one is a secular saint despite his rampant racism, obvious in his book and the other would invoke Godwins Law, the response of the intellectually dishonest all too often. And no, I distrust the mad old men in Rome
I haven't been much into games in nearly 15 years, but GTA V caught my eye last year (had never really played any GTA before), I really liked the open world it seemed to portray. When I saw that an enhanced version was coming for the next gen consoles it was enough for me to buy a GTA V+PS4 bundle a couple weeks ago. It's been quite fun to play. The flexibility is pretty amazing to me anyway, the visuals are stunning.
I still suck badly at the game, but have had a lot of fun exploring and causing mayhem.
Also got the PS4 for that game demo P.T. which I heard was pretty good. though when I tried it I got a headache pretty quick and had to stop, maybe the motion wasn't smooth enough, and/or I'm old. Tried playing my old FPS games like original Unreal Tournament a couple years ago and had to stop after a few minutes because of headaches, used to be able to play them for hours on end w/o issue.
@Nate: honestly, chances are it's a vsync issue. I hate the same problem with "twitch" games for a while, until I forced vsync at the video card. Headaches went away.
Then I discovered I liked simpler games anyways (CoH, Gratuitous Space Battles, FTL, Space Pirates and Zombies, etc.) Something about 2D games makes it easier to disconnect after 15 minutes and go do something productive. Not because of headaches, but because they're more...episodic?
Well, except Civ. One...more...turn...
I haven't been much into religious texts in nearly 15 years, but the Bible caught my eye last year. I really liked the way that the conflicting messages that you get from collecting a bunch of disparate folk tales together and then shoehorning a flimsy narrative over the top can be mistaken for wisdom. Kind of like a Dan Brown novel.
The Target corporation is a US based retail chain that got hacked.
Target Australia is not associated the the Target corporation.
By all means be peeved at both, but do not blame each for the other's behaviour.
(I know GTA only by reputation, and it is high on the list of games I do not intend to buy. I will not stop anyone else from buying it. I do not blame Target Australia listening to their customers, but their customers has wildly different opinions. They are going to have to disappoint at least one group. Perhaps this response will give them something to point at when one group tries to impose their beliefs on another.)
The Target corporation is a US based retail chain that got hacked.
Target Australia is not associated the the Target corporation.
(US) Target does, however, license use of its brand to (Australian) Target. As was pointed out in another thread, that does still make them attractive as a potential source of pressure on Australian Target, even if the clueless are unknowingly venting their ire at the wrong company!
"... both store chains caved and withdrew the title."
For the love of God how many more times must it be pointed out that the phrase is caved in.
On a generous interpretation of the writer's phrase what the two companies did was to retreat into a hole in the ground. Surely not what was meant? To be less forgiving the phrase is pure gibberish.
Funny, TheRegister.Com goes to the same place, ya poncy git. As does TheRegister.ca. Get the hell over yourself.
You lot had yer chance. It's time now for Canada to rule the world. You can be trusted with it. You fucked it up right good the last time you had it, so bugger off. Your nationalism is offensive, dangerous, and pointless, given your proven ineffectiveness.
The middle east, certainly, has had enough of British interference. We're still paying for your "superiority". So just stay on your island, cultivate your oddness and the rest of us will write our words as they are written in our lands.
Because, you know, we're not British, and never will be again.
By descent, I'm mostly French and Dutch, though there's a little British and some native Canadian in there too. But I was born in Canada, and that makes me mighty.
And I love cheese. It's a hell of a lot better than the boiled meat and lard fried lard that the Brits call "food".
Nobody likes British food. Not even the British. That's why you had to conquer other lands: so that they could teach you how to ****ing cook!. Now, if'n you'll excuse me, I've a curry waiting for me.
@Monsieur Pott, Trevor Re: Canadian usage
Not sure what is happening today, I have up-voted you several times already ... but here, I have to intervene ...
In Canadian French, rocking on a rocking chair is "se branler". Now, in France, that means to masturbate ... imagine my surprise when a Canadian invited me to his front porch:
Fancy "masturbating" on the front porch with a pint and some crisps ?
(Originally in Canadian French, translated to English according to French_France, iow, what I understood.)
Bottom-line, Canadians speak very strange "variants" of languages, if you ask me.
"Bottom-line, Canadians speak very strange "variants" of languages, if you ask me."
Must disagree completely. It's you lot that can't speak our languages properly. We're the correct, normal ones. You're the creepy ones what gets the words wrong and have the bizarre spellings.
No doot aboot it, eh?
I seem to remember you going "full tilt Bozo" when an article used unexplained US state abbreviations. BTW that's a reference to Bozo the Clown and "tilting" a pinball machine just so you could understand the obtuse reference.
I can only assume you are off your meds again today or perhaps have over imbibed on them.
You have completely contradicted yourself against the previous rant you made.
I'm afraid I don't see how. I correctly and rationally took issue with the implicit assumption that we would all know local abbreviations for things like "state names" or - as was the context in question - "political shortcuts relevant only to Americans".
I have no idea why that was any bearing on the inability of some Brit to grok proper english. "The company caved to demands" is something that - at at quick check in my fairly well populated international chat rooms - folks from .in, .us, .ca, .nz, .au and .za all got without question. Bonus element, they also got that "caved in" means "the damned thing falls on you."
Which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the inability to understand the reference is some isolated quirk of Britishness. It's not a "local colloquialism". It's recognized usage by the bulk of the international community that speaks this language.
That we should basically ignore the haplessness of the minority in this case in no way contradicts my previous dislike of using regional-only abbreviations with the expectation that the rest of the world will understand them.
Maybe you should check your meds mate. Nationalism is a disease. Are you entirely certain yours is under adequate control?
"Religion-bashing is a good thing. It needs to be bashed more. Once the cultural respectability is punctured, religion is exposed as a hollow sham peddling feel-good nonsense without any basis in reality."
I agree with you and respect your right to freely express your opinion, a right that will probably disappear if the current lot win the next election (or even of the opposition do).
A comment elsewhere was apparently an observed event in a school at Christmas. A teacher asked the class to put up their hands if they believed in Santa Claus. One girl did. The teacher then proceeded to lecture her - that at her age she should be past that sort of imaginary being. A boy then said "Is Jesus imaginary too" - and he was immediately sent out of the class.
"I've been assured, repeatedly, by readers of The Register, that not only are gamers all mature responsible adults, but that there is no religion-bashing going on here."
I think signing a sarcastic Change.org petition that highlights the hypocrisy of people who want to throw the ban-hammer at one particular thing they don't like but don't apply this consistently or with any thought, that is pretty much the way a mature, responsible adult behaves. They didn't hack Target or anything, but well, that's been done.
I must've missed the announcement when they released the patch that removed all men from the game and made all weapons only target women should any men be left in by accident.
"We don't like this thing that other people do so it must be banned!" sums up religion and these petitions very nicely.
First of all I can fully understand that some people would be offended by GTA V. And lets be honest here: there is no denying that what they say is true; you can pick up prostitutes, pay them to perform sex on you and afterwards choose to kill them in order to get (some of) your money back.
But is this reason enough to ban the game?
If I were a police officer I might get offended over this. After all: apparently its perfectly OK to murder or completely annihilate a police department but as soon as it happens to a woman then it should be a bannable offense. And make no mistake about it: this isn't just about blowing up police cars or shooting down cops. Wouldn't be the first time a cop car gets caught in the aftermath of an explosion setting both the car and the inhabitants on fire. Who then run out screaming and yelling while being burned alive. That too is GTA V ladies and gentlemen.
Now that I mention it; would I be a fireman, heck: would I work for any help service I might get heavily offended too. After all: its perfectly OK to get people to call 911 to call for help, and when help arrives you then steal their vehicles (or worse of course). As long as it isn't a woman... Think I'm making this up? Then why did this happen in both versions of the game: IV & V? In IV your cousin (Roman) gets kidnapped and you need to get a police car so that you can pull over a couple of vans which smuggle TV sets for another crime family. If you miss the cop car driving over (and the cop cars parked across the city) then your option is simple: call 911. In GTA V you need to impersonate both a cop (driving on a bike to steal two sport cars) as well as a group of firemen (depending on which heist outcome you picked) to rob a bank.
As said I can understand that some women may get upset over GTA V, I really do.
But I also think that it is unfair to single out what can happen to a woman character in GTA (V). Because the game doesn't discriminate here; you can do the same horrible stuff to any man too. Maybe even worse.. Shopkeepers in GTA V online mostly sound "foreign" to me, perhaps an Indian heritage, I dunno. And what can you do? You can buy food there to help you out (you can use this in missions to boost your health) but you can also rob them if you so choose. Even after you bought stuff to get your money back! Better yet: smack them over the head with a baseball bat (so that they don't die, you'll get less wanted stars) then clean out the cash register yourself when they have fled.
Wear a mask so that they don't recognize you! Next time you pop in you may even notice this very clearly: "Hello friend!", is how they'll sometimes greet you. Some friend you are!
My point is: yes, some women are sometimes treated poorly and can indeed be murdered after performing sexual favours. But men get treated just as poorly.
Most of all: this is all at the discretion of the player. Which is the most important thing to realize: players don't have to kill prostitutes if they don't want to. Same applies to those shop keepers.
Maybe an unfair comment, but considering how GTA is controversial by design anyway I'm going to share this anyway: personally I'd rather see people get their kicks from this violence in-game than in the real world.
...but it does make the point that you can find violence against women in far too many places if you look for it....
...violence against men in quite a few places as well. And violence against animals, aliens... you name it.
Humans can be violent creatures. But worse, I think, are the people who manufacture fake outrage because they know they won't win an argument, purely in order to suppress any debate and to enforce their will over others...
they probably discovered a few things, such as that if they work on their game on the Sabbath they have to be put to death (Exodus 35:2). Also, does Amazon's marketing team work on the Sabbath? "You shall kindle no fire throughout your houses upon the sabbath day." on top of working too?
Leviticus, is just too easy to have fun with .. even for serious drama's lighter moments
As an ordained minister in The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster I can tell you with confidence that we support fun things like GTA, and we don't support any of that misogyny nonsense. We're all about flimsy moral standards and we're all opposed to dogmatism. And when you die you get a stripper factory (of the desired gender(s)) and a beer volcano. Join us! RAmen!
Stupid idea trying to ban GTA5, may be ban a game if it is really bad, but GTA5 is pretty well liked.
Personally I prefer to play as a goody, baddy CAN be fun, but I do not enjoy killing NPCs which are not a threat. Morally ambiguous is also no real issue.
So if an alien is shooting at me, or even just an alien soldier, it will be wiped out. People trying to kill my character, bye bye.
But killing shop keepers, prostitutes, non shooting Police, no thanks.
It is possible to play the Infamous games as a baddy with good intentions without wiping out huge amounts of ordinary characters. Wipe out the baddies violently.
Yet I really enjoy morally ambiguous games, some of my favourite characters are like this (Nathan Drake & Joel for example)
I have easily read it at least 100 times, cover to cover in the course of my 14 years of religious schooling. I signed the petition with alacrity.
Perhaps, sir, your presumptions are in error. I submit that those who dislike the bible do so because of their familiarity with it. Otherwise, why care?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019