Slashdot Mirror
Bully Gets In Trouble With School
The Miami Dade school district is moving to pressure Rockstar games over its upcoming game Bully. From the Next Generation article: "Last Thursday, a board committee unanimously approved the resolution. A full board vote is expected this Wednesday. Rockstar issued a written statement to the Herald, which said, 'We all have different opinions about art and entertainment, but everyone agrees that real-life school violence is a serious issue which lacks easy answers.'"
So instead of fighting the bully problem within their own school district, they're fighting a video game company?
What's the matter, James? No glib remark? No pithy comeback?
What will it take to make sure the First Amendment is no longer trampled here and there???? Here, the school district is acting like a bully...
So you want to take away the first amendment rights of the school board and members of the community instead? They aren't trying to prevent Rockstar from making titles, they are just exercising their rights as Americans and consumers to deal with something that they don't deem appropriate.
This reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon when Dilbert accuses Dogbert of being insensitive. Dogbert replies "you are obviously insensitive to my insensitivity".
'We all have different opinions about art and entertainment, but everyone agrees that real-life school violence is a serious issue which lacks easy answers.'
So is war, but that hasn't stopped people from playing games based on war for at least thousands of years.
Chess, anyone?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
What people fail to realize is that you're not a bully in the game. Here's the game synopsis:
As a troublesome schoolboy, you'll laugh and cringe as you stand up to bullies, get picked on by teachers, play pranks on malicious kids, win or lose the girl, and ultimately learn to navigate the obstacles of the fictitious reform school, Bullworth Academy.
And since when was this "real-life school violence?" Last I checked, this was a video game.
I was bullied as a child, and the thought of kids playing as a bully really turns my stomach.
Congratulations, you've been sucked in by the Jack Thompson hype. Bully is a game where you fight against the bullies. But don't let little things like facts get in the way, will you?
This is the "think of the children" mindset at work. You are outraged and ignorant. That's a hell of a lot more dangerous than any game, especially when school boards are full of people just like you.
2. We have a legally enforcable age rating system for games in the UK which seems to work reasonably well and, to some extent, has taken the heat out of the violent games debate over here (San Andreas is rated 18, so Hot Coffee just wasn't an issue). Isn't the problem with introducing a similar age rating regimen in the US the fact that Walmart (and possibly other stores) will refuse to stock adult rated games thus effectively preventing their distribution and making them uneconomic to develop. I may be mistaken as I don't live in the US to find out first hand, but it's always seemed to be this, rather than any point of principle, which causes the game industry to object to so strongly to age rating laws over there. If the retailers would be a little more reasonable maybe this wouldn't be such an issue?
The purpose of blaming Rockstar is to direct attention away from themselves, and it's working. If it wasn't Rockstar, they would be blaming Bush, or Harry Potter, or anything else but themselves for how they are taking our tax dollars and failing our children.
1) How about respecting the right of self-defense of victims of bullying. How about congradulating the victim for beating the hell out of the bully when the bully picks a fight and brings violence instead of the school rather than suspending the victim. Strangely, feminists who scream OMG HE'S BLAMING THE VICTIM!!! whenever someone suggests that a rape victim partially instigated her rape by dressing like a whore in a very bad section of town while drunk at 2AM, are eerily silent about this which is the ultimate "blame the victim" card. Yes, little johnny or susy was violently assaulted by a bully, but the pushed the bully back so that makes them bad too. That's how the schools see it. You get repeatedly punched and kicked in the face, but if you touch the aggressor, you're now suspended for fighting. Fascism, brought to you by America's "education system."
2) Expel the violent and disruptive students.
3) Enforce the rules fairly, even if the parents are insanely rich or part of one of those untouchable, Always Noble Protected Classes Whose Shit Never Stinks Especially In Front of An Oppressor Class(tm).
4) Finally, and I know this will be the most controversial one, how you about show no love to the wannabe thugs who attack the black and hispanic kids who actually want to learn. If the thugs want to keep it real, they can do that on someone else's dime, on the street where they won't harass the minorities who want to be something other than street trash.
You think you've got problems? I've been playing The Sims. Now I can't stop myself from cooking, watching TV, going to work, and attempting to build relationships.
This game should be banned!
I disagree wholeheartedly. My son (and other kids) were being bullied by a kid in his school. I tried talking to the teachers, but they said that their punishments weren't having much effect and the kid's parents weren't interested.
So, I taught my son three rules:
I also directly informed the teachers about our plan (their one-word reaction: "good!").
That was two months ago, and after two good smacks in the snout (and one miss - my son missed and nailed him in the eye), the bully is no more. My son wasn't the only one to benefit, either: the other kids realized that this worked pretty well.
I made it clear to my boy that I never, ever condone him starting fights. However, neither will I ever punish him for defending himself.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I fail to see the legal aspect of this. I do see citizens banding together to voice strong concern and opposition to problems they see. This is how a democracy works. Citizens have the right to express their views and yes, they even have the right to organize boycotts. It amazes me how people who shout, "You are removing their rights!" are essentially saying people shouldn't have the right to decide where money goes. A community decides they don't want violent games promoted within their community so they pressure local businesses to avoid the violent games. Local businesses, recognizing it makes good economic sense to avoid the games, do so. In these cases businesses continue to have the right to sell such games, but through the free exercise of democracy they have realized that they will do better if they do not carry the games.
But let's have a quick lesson in rights. Rights do not give you permission to do what you wish, and to hell with everyone else! Rights are given equally to everyone and one person's rights do not supercede someone else's rights. We work in balance as a free society. Many of our laws reflect the balancing of rights. Speed limits exist to protect everyone, slowing down those who would claim that it is their right to go as fast as they wish. Many drug laws, while recognizing the harm drugs can do an individual, often pay more emphasis to the effect drugs have on community. Your rights do not mean you can do anything you want without regard for its effect on society. From that basis, I'm among those who would not oppose actual legislation to limit the amount of violence in games, movies, and yes even music. No rational thinker has any doubt that there is a causative link between media violence (those of you who will quickly shout out about correlation and causation can see which category I place you in). A society fixated on fantasy violence will become a society enacting more and more violence. There are many factors at work that are completely sabotaging our society, violence in media is just one aspect. It is not the only problem that should be addressed, but it is a problem and it does need to be addressed.
People might cry out to allow any human action, defending their cries with some appeal to human rights. Their actions accomplish the opposite. Rights are about community, not simply about an individual. It's a perspective that says, "Everyone in our nation has these rights" rather than "each person has these rights". It's a subtle difference, I admit, but the former perspective works to balance rights so that rights actually mean something, and the latter simply creates anarchy when ultimately there will be just one dictator rising above them all, asserting his own right to domination.
I love my sig.