Slashdot Mirror
Biases in Simulation Video Games
Orsonwarcry writes "Kieron Gillen went to Prague to speak to Bohemia Interactive, known best for Operation Flashpoint. He goes on to discuss the effects of bias on simulation games. 'In other words, a simulation is never just a simulation. Equally, freedom is rarely actually free of designer- imposed desires. Even in games with the most self-expressed mandates of "choice" for the gamer, it doesn't mean that there isn't a message. In Deus Ex, the generally politically liberal Ion Storm Austin created a world where you could choose between violence and pacifistic approaches, but the charismatic characters urged you towards peace while the monsters suggested violence.'" Some interesting stuff in there.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
ObDisclosure: a Federal judge who was appointed by Reagan and elevated to the appellate bench by Bush considers me to be an archconservative.
ABORTION: Opposed to Roe v Wade, generally in favor of a woman's right to choose. Roe was a fishing trip in the Constitution in search of a justification: the right to abortion is inferred from the Constitutional right to privacy, which itself is inferred from the Fourth Amendment. That double layer of indirection gets the same kind of visceral response from me that a doubly-dereferenced pointer does in C--somewhere along the line, someone did an awful hack. But just because I'm opposed to Roe doesn't mean I'm opposed to a woman's ability to choose. I find abortion morally reprehensible and disgusting, but I acknowledge people have sincere differences of opinion on it. If I'm going to respect freedom, I have to start by not forcing my moral code on others.
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: Enthusiastically in favor, and not because I'm irreligious. I'm a Christian without apology and wish for my faith to flourish. Wherever I look in Europe, state involvement in churches almost inevitably leads towards the apathy of the population towards the church. I want America to be more religious, not less, and for that reason it's critically important government stay entirely out of religious affairs. However, that also means the government can't demand that all mention of God be banned from the public sphere. If a school will rent auditorium space for a private function, the school has to be obligated to rent auditorium space for a religious function. If an astronaut on a spacewalk is so overwhelmed by the sight of Creation that he feels compelled to pray, NASA can't tell him "uh... sorry, but church-and-state means we've got to tell you to wait on that until you're not on the NASA payroll."
PRO-CORPORATE: The only conservatives I know who are in favor of corporations are those that have never read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Adam Smith--not exactly a friend of socialists--in his entire groundbreaking monograph had not one word of praise for businessmen. He only said that their net effects on the system were positive, even while their motivations were venal and negative. The Enron, MCI-WorldCom, Adelphia, etc. scandals have just reinforced, in my mind, Smith's prescience. Love business, but hate businessmen.
STEM-CELL RESEARCH: It's mainly the evangelical wing of the conservative movement which is against this. The rest of the conservatives love it. I'm all in favor of it.
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS: I'm opposed to dumb environmental regulations. For instance, the danger of DDT was grossly overhyped; used responsibly, DDT was about the most effective pesticide for the buck. The environmental studies condemning DDT have often been criticized for various flaws. History also shows DDT can be used effectively; India has used DDT for twenty-five years to control mosquitos, and their ecosystem doesn't seem to be in danger of imminent collapse. Now, during the time DDT has been banned, how many people have died from (preventable) malaria? Tens of millions. Tens of millions of people died, just so we could feel good about banning a pesticide which could be used safely and cheaply. I'm not recommending the US go back to DDT today--we're a wealthy country, and we can afford other insecticides with less environmental impact--but for the love of God, two million people die each year of malaria in developing countries which can't afford modern insecticides, and we tell them that in the interests of the environment we won't let them use a cheap insecticide which they can afford? (Word of warning: DDT is still a very hot topic. I'm not presenting this as Absolute Truth. I'm only trying to get people to see there's always more than one side to a story.)
THE UNITED NATIONS: Generally in favor of it, as it was originally envisioned. The UN was originally a cle
anti-abortion
If there's no danger to the mother's life, aborting a newborn's life isn't justified.
anti-separation of church and state
Seperation of Church & State is not Constitutional; it's not found in the Constitution. Bill of Rights, right #1, says Congress can't make laws establishing or prohibiting religion. Anything outside that is lawful.
pro-corporate
We're pro-small business and pro-capitalism. Pro-corporate people are only those who are invested in large corporations, which includes both conservatives and liberals.
anti-stem cell research
You got us here, I'm with the liberals on this one.
against environmental regulations
As long as it's not hurting the American worker, we're fine with environmental regulations and even encourage them.
anti-UN
Amen. The UN has become a pit of vipers: US-bashers, Israel-haters, sure. But even more importantly, the UN has done little to fulfil it's duty as a force for peace. Does the UN even have an army? Yes, it's called the United States Armed Forces. This is why we should get out of the UN and stop being the world police.
anti-taxes
Yes! People are way over-taxed, especially the middle and upper classes.
anti-euthanasia
I would argue that killing one's self isn't a solution to everyone who considers suicide, therefore docters shouldn't be allowed to kill anyone who comes knocking at the door.
Just for fun, here's how I'd likewise describe liberals, using the same divisive, belittling terms you did:
Liberals are anti-life, anti-freedom of religion, pro-social government, against public displays of religion, anti-US, pro-taxes, elitist, protect human 'rights' when there is no right at state and when such 'right' involves moral & ethical questions, and are quite unpopular among the common American man.
Not that all of those are absolutely true, but hey, it's fun to pick on the other guys unfairly like this, isn't it?
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Here's an example of what I've been through:
A high school biology teacher had an assignment due about how the earth was created. This did not say anything about evolution, big bang, etc. Prior to the assignment, however, all topics of research and lecture were about evolution. A friend of mine wrote about how God created the world, animals, mankind, etc. He received an 'F' on the assignment, and was told to do it over again. After many parent/teacher/pricipal conferences, the teacher still refused to regrade his paper based on the assignment. She wanted him to write about how evolution is the reason we are here. Not until the parents threatened legal action did she change the grade.
In this case, taxpayer dollars were paid to denigrate my friend's religion, and he took action.
When I took the class the next year, I wrote about the same things that he did. A well thought out paper within the guidelines of the assignment. I recieved a 'C', which I could not argue. So because I chose not to write about what the teacher wanted, I got a lesser grade. Should I have just given in to the teacher to get a good grade? Or should I have written my own personal beliefs in order to get an 'A'?
That is why if we are going to remove religion from school, we remove other conflicting beliefs. If we are not going to remove all conflicting beliefs, then all religions should be respected regardless of assignment.