Forums

Topic: hatred

Posts 81 to 100 of 116

Yoshi_Prime

Let's review it on the merits of its gameplay. The graphics certainly look better than Ethnic Cleansing.

Yoshi_Prime

Haru17

iKhan wrote:

Just for the record, I'm pretty conservative, and I support hatred existing.

EDIT: WOW, I really need to read my posts before I submit them.

Too right m8! Lol, wow, umm, yeah. Anyway I'm super progressive personally, more so than most 'progressive' parties and I think this game has the right to exist. I hardly support it and it doesn't have the inherent right to be sold at any private vendor's stores, but the company's freedom of expression shouldn't be violated. Conversely, I definitely hope that, if this game is as bald-faced as we've been lead to believe, it flops spectacularly.

I mean really, they went to the trouble of programming in people begging for mercy; if the game still encourages you to kill civilians and cops after that, with no ulterior narrative, then it's just trash.

Edited on by Haru17

Don't hate me because I'm bnahabulous.

CM30

So, people are still arguing about this game? I mean, it's got some questionable morals, but come on. Art and media is all about freedom of speech and expression, no matter how 'controversial' or 'horrible' that speech or expression may be.

Other mediums have been more controversial and 'shocking' than this. You've got certain adult cartoons on TV which make jokes about every group and minority under the sun and show violent and sexual crimes as about one a minute. Is this really any worse than some of what's on Adult Swim nowadays, at least based on what I hear? Worse than say, some of the things shows like Brickleberry feature?

You've got literature which features all kinds of horrors. Like say, one I forgot the name of with Jesus being responsible for all the worst atrocities of the 20th century... directly.

Webcomics... well, god help you if you see some of things featured there. Is this game really more 'offensive' than that comic where some cartoon network character caused 9/11 and the Holocaust? Or actual neo nazi propoganda in webcomic form?

Yes, people should be opposed to the ideas put forward in these types of works. Yes this game should come across as tasteless, and yes I morally hate everything about it.

But that doesn't mean art and media should be censored for 'moral' reasons. If others enjoy something you find disturbing as heck, why try and stop them (if its legal)? Heck, maybe this game might end up doing some good for humanity, by distracting some genuinely horrible people away from actually carrying out some actions in the real world. I'd rather a wannabe psycho or terrorist or serial killer play as one in a game like this than actually be as such in real life.

On another note... this could be interesting to see the reviews come in. To see both whether a game like this can ever be 'good' on the gameplay front and whether any reviewers can put aside their disgust of the concept to review the work based on its technical qualities. Could be a nice way to find out what reviewers take their own 'ethical' opinions into account in their review scores...

Try out Gaming Reinvented, my new gaming forum and website!
Also, if you're a Wario series fan, check out Wario Forums today! Your only place for Wario series discussion!
My 3DS Friend Code: 4983-5165-4...

Twitter:

LzWinky

CM30 wrote:

So, people are still arguing about this game? I mean, it's got some questionable morals, but come on. Art and media is all about freedom of speech and expression, no matter how 'controversial' or 'horrible' that speech or expression may be.

First of all, I have the right to dislike an art's existence. I don't have to accept it just because there is "freedom of speech". Secondly, freedom of speech only protects media from the government. Private companies (even public) can freely censor art as much as they please. Lastly, refusing to sell a game is not censorship.

Current games: Everything on Switch

Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky

Blast

The developers for this game are doing this purely for attention. I'm not buying this garbage. Go ahead and let it exist/release. I don't care. Its not getting my money.

I own a Wii U and 3DS. I also own a PS4!

Master of the Hype Train

3DS Friend Code: 2921-9690-6053 | Nintendo Network ID: Mediking9

LzWinky

As for me, I don't like the central theme of this game, but at the same time I do not really care either way if it exists or not

Current games: Everything on Switch

Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky

skywake

Dezzy wrote:

I think we're talking cross purposes. I was suggesting that a re-evaluation of the term "progressive" was in order. I understand you're using it in the colloquial and popular sense but I was pointing out the fact that given that we never had absolute free speech in the past, as well as the fact that hardly any countries on earth have it at present, supporting absolute free speech should technically be considered a progressive position. And in my own case, I certainly consider it to be (simply in the sense that it would improve society, and I think the evidence is clear that free speech does just that).

If "progressive" simply meant "a position with the aim to improve society" then everyone would call themselves progressive. Because I don't think any well meaning person of any particular point of view holds views that they think will not improve things. Everyone's intent is to improve things. I think the main difference between the two poles would be that a conservative view is concerned about personal freedoms where as progressive views are more concerned about collective freedoms. If that makes sense.

Dezzy wrote:

Although regarding that video, I don't accept that you can be bigoted against a religion. I think that's an incoherent idea. I think the term "bigoted" only makes sense when applied to immutable characteristics like race, gender, sexuality etc etc. The reason being that a religion isn't just a group of people. It's also a collection of ideas. If you lay down a social protection (which is what a word like 'bigoted' is designed to do, to stop arguments) for a religion, you might well protect a group of people, which is a good thing, but you'll also protect a collection ideas. Which isn't acceptable (for example, because most religious holy books are incredibly bigoted themselves and therefore need to be criticised).

The video was out of context a bit so let me clear that up a bit. Our government had just introduced a bill that was intended to repeal large parts of the racial discrimination act. Largely because a fairly prominent conservative commentator got fined for writing a piece that criticised people for identifying as indigenous even though they "looked white". When defending this legislation that politician made a remark that "people had the right to be bigots". So there are limits to freedom of speech and it is largely the progressive side of politics who are putting them up.

As a side note that nutjob in Sydney from this week? He got caught up in the same thing. There was apparently an ongoing court case about some nasty letters he wrote to the families of dead soldiers. He was trying to argue that it was ok because of "freedom of speech" and the court disagreed a couple of days before he did that crap he did. And I don't hear anyone defending his rights in either case. Not that I'm equating the publication of a game to this but I think it's clear that there are good reasons for some of the limits to freedom of speech that do exist.

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

LzWinky

I made my statement in another thread, and I will make it here. I do not support absolute free speech. People should not be allowed to say or do whatever they want without restriction. I would dare even compare this to anarchy.

Worst case scenarios would include death threats to someone and their family, harassment, negative PR for a company because of employees, etc.

We do not have to respect free speech. I do not have to accept hate speech or harassment. However, I do understand that free speech also allows constructive opinions, which I do support. I also support the restriction of speech on privately owned websites, etc.

Overall, absolute free speech is a terrible idea. I support a restricted free speech that allows for free debate as long as it is constructive.

Current games: Everything on Switch

Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky

Dezzy

skywake wrote:

As a side note that nutjob in Sydney from this week? He got caught up in the same thing. There was apparently an ongoing court case about some nasty letters he wrote to the families of dead soldiers. He was trying to argue that it was ok because of "freedom of speech" and the court disagreed a couple of days before he did that crap he did. And I don't hear anyone defending his rights in either case. Not that I'm equating the publication of a game to this but I think it's clear that there are good reasons for some of the limits to freedom of speech that do exist.

WaLzgi wrote:

Overall, absolute free speech is a terrible idea. I support a restricted free speech that allows for free debate as long as it is constructive.

Some good objections. We obviously need to clarify the specifics. Part of the problem is that we don't necessarily have terms to distinguish these subtle differences. I guess what I'd technically want to advocate is the protection from prior censorship for publicly expressed view and creations. So that's not technically absolute free speech, depending on your definition, but it gets at the core issue.
So that doesn't protect things like harassment, like sending letters to families. Those are private issues that it's fine to stop. If, however, the guy was just publishing open letters to families in some kind of public forum, I think that'd have to be defended. The key difference being that everyone could, after reading them, just choose to ignore him. The same for issues like death threats. And no, I don't think there should be a racial discrimination law. It doesn't solve the problems it pretends to, it just hides them, and often precludes genuine solutions because we've got an entire culture that is terrified of ever talking about race issues.

So relating that to the game, I don't think anyone should have the right to ban something, ignoring the private company rights issue temporarily, before people have played it. No-one is capable of deciding ahead of time that something will definitely be damaging. If, however, the week after it was released there was a sudden increase in mass murders by like a factor of 10, with an obvious link to the game, then by all means remove it from public consumption. But the burden of proof really should be quite high like that, you should have to be able to demonstrate a clear link to harm being done. You can't just make a vague assertion like "oh GTA encourages hating women" or "this is deeply offensive to our beliefs" or the newest term that has been engineered to cover for this range of nonsense ideas, "this is hate speech" (a term which seems to be able to morph into covering anything you dislike)

Edited on by Dezzy

It's dangerous to go alone! Stay at home.

skywake

Saying racial vilification and letters to dead soldiers isn't "crossing the line" is a bit odd. Again it really depends on the tone and intent and that's where stuff gets tricky. However if someone is harassing, vilifying or discriminating against people particularly when it's in relation to race, gender etc? I think there's good cause to restrict that sort of speech. And in the case of that conservative commentator it was on a nationally circulated opinion piece, so dude got some heat. It's like in the US where that church/cult I choose not to name pickets the funerals of dead soldiers. Does the fact that it's "public" make it 100% ok? Should the police tell them to bugger off? I know what I think.

I don't think that this game will result in violence, not at all. However that's not even the point. I personally don't particularly care either way whether this game is banned or not. But saying there should be no limits and there is no line where I think a game should be banned? I know that's not true. There is a point where I would be calling for a game like this to be banned just as there is a point where I become ok with the game again and it would only require subtle changes. As I said earlier if there ends up being some sort of in-game retribution for the stuff the dude does, the cops swarming on him etc, that would make me less keen to support the "ban" argument. On the other hand if instead of "the genocide", which is a large part of the reason why I'm 50:50 on it, it was instead "the lynching" or "the final solution"...

There is a line and the game is straddling it

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

SkywardLink98

skywake wrote:

restrict that sort of speech.

If we're referring strictly to Steam removing Hatred, than no speech was actually "restricted". Steam chose to uphold it's right to choose what it's selling, and eliminated no rights of the dev/pub. Choosing not to sell a game is pretty much the same as a mod deleting/locking a post on a privately owned site.

My SD Card with the game on it is just as physical as your cartridge with the game on it.
I love Nintendo, that's why I criticize them so harshly.

3DS Friend Code: 4296-3424-5332

Dezzy

skywake wrote:

Saying racial vilification and letters to dead soldiers isn't "crossing the line" is a bit odd. Again it really depends on the tone and intent and that's where stuff gets tricky. However if someone is harassing, vilifying or discriminating against people particularly when it's in relation to race, gender etc? I think there's good cause to restrict that sort of speech. And in the case of that conservative commentator it was on a nationally circulated opinion piece, so dude got some heat. It's like in the US where that church/cult I choose not to name pickets the funerals of dead soldiers. Does the fact that it's "public" make it 100% ok? Should the police tell tm to bugger off? I know what I think.

I don't think that this game will result in violence, not at all. However that's not even the point. I personally don't particularly care either way whether this game is banned or not. But saying there should be no limits and there is no line where I think a game should be banned? I know that's not true. There is a point where I would be calling for a game like this to be banned just as there is a point where I become ok with the game again and it would only require subtle changes. As I said earlier if there ends up being some sort of in-game retribution for the stuff the dude does, the cops swarming on him etc, that would make me less keen to support the "ban" argument. On the other hand if instead of "the genocide", which is a large part of the reason why I'm 50:50 on it, it was instead "the lynching" or "the final solution"...

There is a line and the game is straddling it

I said letters to soldiers families WASN'T ok. Nor directly harassing. Picketing funerals is tough as it's on the borderline between private and public. As for the conservative commentator, well that sounds like it's just up to judgement of his publication. I don't think the state should be able to decide that a publication should silence him, if they've chosen to allow it in their pages. The correct response is just not to buy it! And again, silencing people doesn't solve problems. Silencing people just makes middle class people feel better because they can ignore the problems that are causing that type of speech. Tribalism is a completely natural phenomena that is very likely encoded in our genes. The idea that simply quietening it down will make it go away is deeply misguided view of human nature. Especially when we know that alternative approaches (like education and forcing groups to intermingle) do actually improve things.

As for your last paragraph, you seem to be saying that it's very much based on your own judgement about the content on offer, and you say it's not about a potential violent outcome. I think the exact opposite. We should only ever consider a very clear and measurable outcome as grounds for censoring because we simply can't trust our own judgements. People just aren't very good at thinking clearly, we have so many biases that lead us in the wrong direction. Everyone is equally as sure about their moral views, despite the fact that they're often mutually exclusive of other people's. In a democratic system, the only potential outcomes of following such an approach would be that we get a kind of relativism where any beliefs are given the same right to censor as long as enough people support them OR we get a situation where whoever is overseeing this censorship, either consciously or unconsciously, ends giving a greater weight to those views that he or she happens to agree with.
Your view seems to me to rest on the assumption that democratic vote is a good way of solving problems. I think it's about as useful as consulting tea leaves. Most people are wrong on most issues, almost by a logical necessity.

Edited on by Dezzy

It's dangerous to go alone! Stay at home.

skywake

SkywardLink98 wrote:

skywake wrote:

restrict that sort of speech.

If we're referring strictly to Steam removing Hatred, than no speech was actually "restricted". Steam chose to uphold it's right to choose what it's selling, and eliminated no rights of the dev/pub. Choosing not to sell a game is pretty much the same as a mod deleting/locking a post on a privately owned site.

I was talking about this idea that anything goes in general when it comes to speech. Whether it's the state or a corporation deciding what's ok and what isn't the discussion is largely the same.

@Dezzy
So you think that if the game used KKK/Nazi euphemisms for genocide and that was the motivation for the protagonist that still wouldn't be "crossing the line"? I think we should just agree to disagree on that one. It would be quite easy for it to go too far. I think it's clear that there is a limit to "free speech", there just is. It also is subjective but whether action is taken or not is largely in the hands of the courts and the person who was the target of it. The conservative commentator in question got into the trouble he did mostly because the people he specifically named took him to court over it. The game is close to doing that, it's dealing with a fairly sensitive topic and it could easily cross the line.

And I disagree with you completely about the democracy point although maybe that's partly because of how decent the system is in Australia. The dude I like doesn't always win but because of compulsory voting there is a constant fight for the middle ground rather than a pandering to the extremes. At the same time the fact that there's preferential voting at every level means that if an electorate is unhappy with moderates they can (and do) vote for a third party. Then ontop of that the courts are actually independent and frequently make rulings that the government of the day doesn't like. I mean imagine that, a system that actually does all of the right things! If you think democracy isn't a good way to do this sort of stuff then maybe you just need a better democracy

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

DefHalan

I think a big question people overlook when they talk about censorship is who should have the right to censor products from the general public? Some products may step over a line for you personally, but not for others. I know I won't be buying the game and I don't know why the developers made a game like that, but what gives me the right to refuse that game to be made? What gives anyone the right to say others shouldn't be allowed a product based on other's opinions? If you don't agree with a product or think it is in bad taste then don't buy it, nothing is forcing you.

People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...

3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan

skywake

DefHalan wrote:

Some products may step over a line for you personally, but not for others.

Just because some don't understand what the problem is doesn't automatically mean there is no problem. The fact that some are impacted and others are not is to be expected for this sort of thing, it's not an excuse for it. Not that I'm saying I have a problem with this game being published because I don't particularly. All I'm saying is that there is a point where something can go too far and this game is pretty borderline. I reckon if the game at all tied into some real life events that could be a tipping point and people would rightly want it banned. It's such a sensitive topic and their approach is so haphazard that they could even do this accidentally.

I wouldn't want a game like this to be banned by the state this early on. What I can understand is Valve being cautious about publishing it and I think it's well within their rights to choose not to publish a game for any reason they want.

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

Jaz007

@Skywake But when the government steps in to censor media like, what stops them from making that line stricter? The problem giving government the ability to decide isn't a good idea. Also how the does the government discern between a joke and something serious? You start to get into a lot of problems when the government starts censoring media.

Jaz007

DefHalan

skywake wrote:

DefHalan wrote:

Some products may step over a line for you personally, but not for others.

Just because some don't understand what the problem is doesn't automatically mean there is no problem. The fact that some are impacted and others are not is to be expected for this sort of thing, it's not an excuse for it. Not that I'm saying I have a problem with this game being published because I don't particularly. All I'm saying is that there is a point where something can go too far and this game is pretty borderline. I reckon if the game at all tied into some real life events that could be a tipping point and people would rightly want it banned. It's such a sensitive topic and their approach is so haphazard that they could even do this accidentally.

I wouldn't want a game like this to be banned by the state this early on. What I can understand is Valve being cautious about publishing it and I think it's well within their rights to choose not to publish a game for any reason they want.

Valve isn't publishing it like a normal publisher. What they are doing is allowing the community to decide if Valve should sell it in their store.

I am surprised no one has brought up Super Columbine Massacre yet (at least not from what I have seen)

People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...

3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan

skywake

Jaz007 wrote:

@Skywake But when the government steps in to censor media like, what stops them from making that line stricter? The problem giving government the ability to decide isn't a good idea. Also how the does the government discern between a joke and something serious? You start to get into a lot of problems when the government starts censoring media.

Well the way the Australian system "works" at least is that the classification board (which is something that exists everywhere) is funded by government but is independent of the government. The government collectively sets the guidelines, the classification follows those guidelines and they then publish their decision and the reasons why it made that decision. If the government wants to change something (like add an R18+ rating for games) it has to get all of the states to agree to it. Which means that the greatest problem is that the system tends to move slowly

I think on this sort of thing I'm less worried about the classification board. I don't always agree with their decision but I think they're not likely to abuse their powers which, in this digital age, are pretty limited. What worries me are the attempts to monitor, throttle and filter internet activity... a lot of which is more to do with US policies not some tiny little classification board on some tiny corner of the world

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

Jaz007

skywake wrote:

Jaz007 wrote:

@Skywake But when the government steps in to censor media like, what stops them from making that line stricter? The problem giving government the ability to decide isn't a good idea. Also how the does the government discern between a joke and something serious? You start to get into a lot of problems when the government starts censoring media.

Well the way the Australian system "works" at least is that the classification board (which is something that exists everywhere) is funded by government but is independent of the government. The government collectively sets the guidelines, the classification follows those guidelines and they then publish their decision and the reasons why it made that decision. If the government wants to change something (like add an R18+ rating for games) it has to get all of the states to agree to it. Which means that the greatest problem is that the system tends to move slowly

I think on this sort of thing I'm less worried about the classification board. I don't always agree with their decision but I think they're not likely to abuse their powers which, in this digital age, are pretty limited. What worries me are the attempts to monitor, throttle and filter internet activity... a lot of which is more to do with US policies not some tiny little classification board on some tiny corner of the world

But the Austrailain classifications board routinely bans and censors games for being a joke, games that aren't like Hatred, for being tastless. They banned Saints Row, a game that is a complete joke. It shows the system fail, and simply restrict freedom.

Edited on by Jaz007

Jaz007

Ralizah

My personal strategy: wait for the game to actually release, read reviews about whether it is anything more than a terrified civilian killing simulator, and then make a decision based on that information.

I don't foresee myself getting it anytime soon either way, of course. Next year is full of Final Fantasy, Zelda, Xenoblade Chronicles, Metal Gear Solid... why would anyone waste time on this?

Currently Playing: Advance Wars 1 + 2: Re- Boot Camp (NS)

This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.