Slashdot Mirror
Lieberman Weighs In On Grand Theft Auto
Thanks to Yahoo/Reuters for its article discussing Senator Joseph Lieberman's comments regarding Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto at a recent women's forum at Dartmouth College. Interestingly, Lieberman, a Democratic presidential hopeful and long-time proponent of views on this subject, comments: "Video games have gotten better over time", but continues: "There's a couple out there that are horrendous... You ought to see one called Grand Theft Auto. The player is rewarded for attacking a woman, pushing her to the ground, kicking her repeatedly and then ultimately killing her, shooting her over and over again." Although this isn't the specific goal of the game, he continues: "I call on the entertainment companies - they've got a right to do that, but they have a responsibility not to do it if we want to raise the next generation of our sons to treat women with respect."
I have to agree with him. I've played Grand theft auto, and I belive people should be horified about the kind of guy they are playing. Horified that they can find in themselves the type of person who would do that, even in a game. Never mind that it is a game and they can recignise the difference between a game and real life, they can do that in a game.
It isn't right to make that type of game illegal (unless someone proves byond all doupt that it really does lead everyone to bad behaviour...), but that doesn't mean it is right to enjoy the game.
wtf?
sure you CAN do that but there's a good chance the cops will lock you up if you do, wasting the mission you were currently on - PUNISHING the player rather than rewarding. and there's no distinction between a woman or a regular other character walking on the roads in gta in this aspect either.
maybe it's just HIM that enjoys beating up women in gta(thus getting a 'reward' from beating them up).
shouldn't it be illeagal for them to lie about such things? soon he has a memo 'full of names of people who enjoy watching women beaten up'?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
...I think that would be a good title for a best-selling book.
So since gamers of the 80s grew up with games where you're constantly saving princesses, does that mean that generation is respectful, helpful and courteous towards women? Absolutely not. These bullshit arguments are always easy to deflate when you invert them.
Here's probably the biggest right-leaning Democrat to come around in a long time and has a major history of criticizing the entertainment industry. So when he goes to write a book, what's the first title he thinks of? Joe and Hadassah's Excellent Adventure. Granted a staffer/lawyer/publisher convinced him to change it to Amazing Adventure, but still. One side of his mouth he's criticizing games for teaching our youth to denegrate women, on the other side he's parodying (and giving tacit approval) of a movie that glorifies being stupid. I just wonder about this guy.
And then, since he was sorta surging in one of the NH polls yesterday, he claims he's doing well, because... he's "got joe-mentum". that sounds like something Jon Stewart and co-horts at the Daily Show would come up with.
... and sometimes dem virtual hoes need bitchslappin' to the floor.
This is bullshit. You can ice guys in GTA too, so it's an equal opportunity slap-em-up.
When you hit a woman in a game, you get jumped by a ton of other guys and beat down. We want reality in games right? :)
"You ought to see one called Grand Theft Auto. The player is rewarded for attacking a woman, pushing her to the ground, kicking her repeatedly and then ultimately killing her, shooting her over and over again."
There's a game out there, it's a very popular game, it's called Crazy Taxi. You are a taxi driver trying to get people from point A to point B. Wanna know what happens if you run over somebody? Nothing! People magically jump out of the way! If you bang into another car, *bang*, nothing really happens. So, in playing this game, you develop reflexes that cause you to drive in a straight line, and not care about pedestrians as they don't cause you any problems.
In GTA3, yeah you can kill some little old lady, but you're not being rewarded for it, you're being rewarded for making the game significantly harder for yourself. If you go driving through the streets in GTA just like you are in Crazy Taxi, and you drive towards a pedestrian, they don't magically get out of your way. They get squished, just like in real life. And when you drive over them, you start having to worry about police, just like real life. Run over somebody in viewing range of a police officer, and he will try to arrest you, and if he succeeds you lose a lot of things that you have acquired so far. Just like in real life. If you try to get away and wreck your car during the chase, you can cause devastation of vehicles and people's lives, just like real life. The result? Reflexively, you avoid running over pedestrians like mad. In a split second, if somebody darts out in front of your car, you're going to swerve. (That happens to be the right thing to do.)
So I have to ask you, Joey, what is really better? Avoiding showing adults realistic consequences to the choices they make, or sanitizing the game of all 'disturbing' violence and instead using video game influence to teach you that nobody can be hurt?
"Derp de derp."
It's about playing to the audience. I'm sure these women would not have cared if Lieberman went on about the whole "kill the haitians" remark in the game. He knew what would get them on his side.
:)
I hear next week he'll be speaking at a pedestrians meeting.
I've recently discovered the joys of GTA Vice City. Its taken me a while because initially I was put of by the gratuity of violence. That kind of thing is not really my bag. However I do find the game highly entertaining and enjoyable due to the whole atmosphere of the game. I still get a personal feeling of guilt when I "accidentally" run someone over. There is a "lot" more to the game than just killing innocent passers by, and treating women badly.
Violence has been around forever, we all know this. For years people have complained that certain movies and videos have made people go out and do things they shouldnt. The usual argument is, to suggest that it should be the parents who control the exposure of children to these things. I agree very much with this standpoint, but the problem is there are a lot of parents out their who do not follow this logic. And quite often children find ways around their parents rules.
What can realistically be done to ensure that parents take the responsibility for exposure of unsuitable material to minors?
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Don't forget kids, GTA killed your wife, shot your dog, repossessed your house, shattered your septic tank, stole $2 billion from Metallica, stole your girlfriend, and is the single cause of all the evils in society. Honestly. I'm not kidding.
On the serious side though, this game is rated M, that means your children, the kids that Lieberman is so sure are being desecrated by this game, are the same children that should NOT be playing the game. That's what the M rating is for.
So before you allow the government to control your children for you, why don't you try to raise them yourselves. How about you take an active interest in their life? Maybe keep tabs on what they're doing and what games they're playing. If your kid likes to sacrifice woodland animals, don't buy him GTA, and if you notice he's got it, find out how he got it and take it away from him. There is no substitution for good parenting, and allowing the government to parent for you is a surefire way to end up in a 1984-esque society.
GTA doesn't kill people. GTA doesn't teach people to kill. America's Army (the game) is just as efficient a society demoralizer as any other violent game, except it's sanctioned by the US. You'll note you never hear people complain that AA is too violent. It's ok to be violent when you're killing commies and nazis, but it's not ok to be violent when you have the ability (note, have the ability - there is much more to GTA than killing women and cops) to do things society frowns on.
In AA, you could kill your team-mates. That is just as demoralizing.
--- What preceeds is nothing more than opinion. If you take it for more than that, it is your own fault.
To the darkened skies once more, and ever onward.
Yeah, except that it would be pure fiction. Many people will agree it is a good idea, but few or none will actually live it.
Ok, to contextualize: I am no fan of Lieberman, nor of censorship.
Yet, I'm surprised that gamers, from fanboy populated forums to print media, generally have this completely defensive attitude to any kind of censorship or even discussion of violence in video games. It's as if we've been "Pavlovically" trained to automatically shriek "First Amendment" whenever we hear someone talking about excessive violence in games. I really have yet to see some intelligent discourse on why violence in games is acceptable. Why is that we can simulate purposeless murder on mass scale like exhibited in GTA and its ilk, but most of us would consider it abhorrent for a game to have a player able to enact even one simulated rape or pedophilic sexual encounter? What makes the simulated shooting down of 30 innocent people in a video game more socially acceptable?
Basically, what we haven't done is build up an apologetics of sorts for video games. We have no choice but to shallowly cite the First Amendment and quickly blame parents when people like Lieberman challenge us because we have yet to collectively think of anything better to say. Instead of developing a system of apologetics, our response is to release crap like Manhunt. What kind of piss-poor answer is that? It's not answering the cultural call to explain the violence, it's pushing back, but harder. That won't ever work and does nothing but to reinforce the idea that video games have "made" us violent. Sure, Lieberman and likeminded politicians would be saying the same thing even if we had an intelligent system of apologetics for video games (they are, after all, politicians), but I think it would, in general society, rob Lieberman of credibility nonetheless.
So, who's up for the challenge? Why is GTA's mass murder "better" than simulated rape?
It should come as no surprise that hes making these comments at a women's forum, and making a particular point of how this game 'promotes' abusing women; this always pisses people off. He negelects to mention you can get 'rewarded' (if getting a couple points and cops chasing after you is a reward) for assaulting anyone/thing in the game. By Lieberman's logic, any of us who've play GTA should be beating the shit out of each other right about now since we never learned respect for other men/women. Honestly, this strikes me less as an honest swipe at GTA rather than a thinly veiled attempt to win over women voters by appearing to oppose an 'misogynist' video game, and so portraying the game in a rather singularly unpleasant light that it promotes abuse of women. Same old 'anti-misogynist' rhetoric we've been hearing for years in this PC world.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
Kill baby: Good
Video game: Bad
Sorry, but they have their priorities all fucked up.
Its funny when you realize that these people think that videogames is for kids/young adults. A medium that was once targetted primarily to youths has now grown just like the orignal target audience has. We are pong generation all grown up we have jobs we have families and dammit we want our f'nin video games.
Are we going to let our 5 year old play Manhunt.. probably not, but should we have the government decide what we can play and what we should not. Hell no.
If Lieberman has a problem with violent video games then get the retailers to be more strict in enforcing the ratings. Video games should be classified like movies are classified, get rid of the game specific ratings and adopt the movie rating system. So then parents will have a better clue what there kids should play..
"Hmmm rated Teen.. what the hell does that mean.. rated R, well that means my kid isn't going to watch this."
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
Meanwhile, I worry about repercussions of a statement like that. Maybe it's because I read Slashdot.
So here's a politician who says someone has the right to do something, but in practically the same breath says that the thing is wrong. How long will it be before some politician (I wouldn't put it past Lieberman himslf) says that the rights themselves should be eliminated? And this is an election year, too, so any slippery slope that may exist has been lathered down with extra suck-up grease by pinwheels who want to sound like they're responding to issues (even invented ones).
There are still charges that need to be responded to. One concession does not mean the pressure's off. This could simply be the start of a new attack.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
Uh the game doesn't require mass murder to "complete". When you're killing lots of people it's usually a "war" - they aren't really civilians - they're armed, they'd shoot you if you don't shoot them. Sure there are the optional kill gang member missions, but they actually make the game _harder_ to complete - since they'll always shoot at you after that (which makes it harder to do some missions).
:). In vice city there are motorbikes, helicopters and other stuff to play with.
;) ).
There's plenty else to do with GTA3. You could be doing stunts with cars or planes. You could be an ambulance driver. Or a cab driver. Or a fireman. Or a cop. One of the hardest missions was the optional ambulance mission. Complete it for infinite run.
In the first GTAIII you could fly the dodo, do loop the loops, fly behind the mountains. You could get on the lighthouse with a boat too, if you know how
If Senator Lieberman actually played GTA3 and the only thing he found out about GTA3 is attacking random women on the street for the few bucks they have, then it reflects poorly on him or the company he keeps.
Just because you can rip heads off dolls/action figures don't make em bad toys.
Think of GTA3 as cops and robbers. And you do get to play both (but mainly the robber - hey it's called GTA for a reason
I'm not saying GTA3 is suitable for all kids or people. But I know a few kids and many adults who'd be fine playing it.
But some Senators may need parental guidance.
What makes the simulated shooting down of 30 innocent people in a video game more socially acceptable?
Basically, we as a society are desensitized to seeing acted out death; that is to say, watching someone die but they don't really die. Movies, tv shows, games, etc, all show people dying in front of us, but we know they aren't really dead...it's just a virtual world or the person is acting.
Sexual crimes, on the other hand, we have not been desensitized to. American society is becoming less sensitive to sex (see Britney, Christina and half the women falling out of their dresses on the Golden Globes), but we aren't comfortable with sex to the point that we'll expose people to it and say "That's alright, it's just fake".
In addition, rape and pedophilia are most definitely considered 'icky'. We don't like seeing, hearing or talking about them. Death is more okay, mostly because it happens in legitimate forms all the time ("Grandpa died of old age yesterday"..."Fluffy died from being hit by that car"). Sexual assault doesn't have to happen, death does, so it doesn't take the same toll on our psyches.
--trb
You can choose to kill them with a bat or sword instead of a gun, and the result is appropriately gruesome enough for most normal people to either opt for a cleaner way to do it, or to just not do it altogether. You can be brutal, but there isn't a significant benefit, and it often gets you in trouble with the police--a fact that these people always fail to mention whenever this subject comes up.
...so long as exposure to the video game is not the *first impression* those kids receive.
If that's how kids are initially learning how to make contact with the outside world, then they're almost certainly going to end up the misanthorpic violent psychos Liberman claims to fear. If they've already learned, though, that other people are actually worth something from time to time, then I really don't think these things have quite the impact so many say they do.
Still, his statement was pretty well spoken. He never said anything about forcing them to stop, just that he thought it was a moral imperative for them to do so.
(Oh, and since I don't have any mod points, I just have to give Kudos to whoever mentioned Crazy Taxi. Well argued. *nod*)
--
viqsi - See "vixen"
If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed.
I think one reason to defend the violence in gta is that video games should be held to the same standards as movies and other media. Movies containing scenes of violence equivalent to those in gta are common and there is no uproar when one comes out. Therefore, not allowing these scenes in gta discriminates against video games as a medium. Although there are movies depcited rape and even pedophilia, such scenes are typically controversial and are much less acceptable socially than scenes of violence, so we understand the fact that they will also be considered unacceptable in video games.
As far as I'm concerned, we should keep the "why is our society more accepting of graphic violence than graphic sex" issue separate from the "why are movies allowed to show things that video games aren't" issue. Defending violence in gta is fighting for the former, while defending graphic rape would be fighting on both fronts (much harder).
I'd rather be lucky than good.
"The player is rewarded for attacking a woman, pushing her to the ground, kicking her repeatedly and then ultimately killing her, shooting her over and over again."
Has he actually ever seen GTA? Beyond someone giving him an outraged briefing?
There is absolutely no difference in reward between assaulting a male and assaulting a female. You can't assault them differently, you don't get more or less money, there is no difference.
Now, were it to only allow you to assault a given gender or race, that'd be one thing. If different, more rewarding attacks became available when attacking a woman, too. If women paid more... if women were easier to assualt yet still had the same reward...
GTA may be amoral, it may even reward immoral actions. Regardless, it has absolutely no specific focus on violence against women. Violence, yes. Violence [in any way] specifically against women, no.
Trying to claim it teaches a specific kind of violence, in order to gain sympathy and votes... At best that's missing the point. At worst...?
While the comment itself is true, in context it is being presented as a synopsis of the entire game, ie: this is what the game's about, isn't it horrible? That harms the reputation of the game, the developer, the publisher, and to some extent the millions of perfectly well-balanced people who play the game.
Someone convince me that this isn't libel.
Libel with malice too, it seems.
This isn't about video games. This is about a candidate trying to get women voters to vote for him.