Bully Trailer Hits the Web

GGLucas writes "Contrary to the rumours that have spread about the Rockstar game, Bully, and it's storyline, the game's trailer as released by IGN today spins in a completely different direction, anti-game critics will not be happy. From the article: 'Bully puts players in control of 15 year-old Jimmy Hopkins — a boy who has just begun his first year in the New England-based Bullworth Academy, and a guy who's charged with the mission of ridding the school of a number of its undesirable elements.'"

Comments

Bad marketting

[Anonymous Coward]

Their target demographic is nerds, so why do they create a game about our oldest enemy?

Re:Bad marketting

[OverlordQ]

Erm, RTFA, you're the dude who's trying to take down the Bullies, so . . what was your complaint again?

Re:Bad marketting

[zerocommazero]

I guess it's the fact that NO ONE remembered (especially the editor) that the original game synopsis WAS that you were a kid who basically got fed up and fought back against bullies, bad teachers, etc.

Come on, Slashdot, you're supposed to be better than the regular news spin!

Re:Bad marketting

[Jrabbit05]

Exactly any ESRB rep worth his weight in salt should be able to see that. But who knows with the "E 10+" craze...

Re:Bad marketting

[Anonymous Coward]

The game looks really retarded! How lame can you get?

Re:Bad marketting

[db32]

1. Its about a bully who attacks other bullies. What a friend of mine calls a "Dork Defender"

2. You haven't been out much have you? The vast majority of video game players aren't geeks any more. They are Joe Sixpack buying the latest PlayBox360 Cube 2. Maybe some years ago it was mostly/all geeks...but that is absolutely not the case anymore. Geeks will still dig up ancient games that were still good gameplay although old graphics sounds. The target demographic is the ones who will spend $50 per game on the newest flashwizbang regardless of how bad the gameplay is.

I don't really have a problem with Rockstar games...The last one I played for more than 5 minutes was GTA 2, but regardless of your position on how videogames/movies affect kids, (I think they can absolutely affect kids in the absense of good parenting, but with good parenting a kid should have more sense than to believe a game is real) Rockstar games are done in unbelievably bad taste. They know just like anyone with half a brain for marketing knows...controversy, sex, drugs, etc sell VERY VERY well. I seriously doubt their meetings went "Hey, if we add beating up hookers and drugs we might get a bad reputiation..." It probably went more like "Hey, if we add this Hot Coffee thing...and then deny it when people will undoubtably find it...do you have any idea how much free press we will get?! Do you know how many people that didn't buy the game will rush to get it for this controversy! GENIUS!" Very simple math...price of getting caught...lots of free press and maybe a fine...profit of the action...tons of free press and tons of extra sales. I imagine they did the math and figured out they were more likely to make more money even if they got fined.

Re:Bad marketting

[Doctor O]

Not to offend you, but I think you don't get what GTA is about. The "sex sells" part is definitely there, but frankly the point about GTA is that they give you a world you can wreck all you like, run around doing 'crook stuff' and let off some steam doing so. "Rockstar Games" definitely has the notion of letting you feel like one - and to be honest, it's quite amusing to see yourself in slow motion, cinema aesthetics, sniping drug dealers and blowing up their whole ship.

Rockstar's games are like movies where you play the main character, and they're great fun at that. The sex might be there, but IMHO it's not an essential part, just adding to the whole atmosphere. Actually I find that the people my age (30+) enjoy the GTA series more than the teenagers and young adults I know, exactly because of the movie feeling of the series. You know, sex isn't that much of a topic if you regularly do it, and to most people I know, the sex parts of the GTA series are mildly amusing at best.

As for the hot coffee part - in my opinion as a programmer that's just an easter egg. I have lost track of all of those I left in my own projects over the decades. And a game without easter eggs just isn't complete.

Re:Bad marketting

[ooMissioNoo]

BULLIES 2! MIAMI TRIKE

Re:Bad marketting

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

don't kid yourself 30something and posting slashdot. . . doing it regularily?? HA
Okay I'm joking, I know what you mean though, the who sex theme is just getting blown up by the media. They always say things like the object of the game is to use hookers and kill them for the money back, but its just something that can be done, making the gameworld a little more authentic towards real life.

Re:Bad marketting

[db32]

All video games basically boil down to letting steam off. The whole point of Mafia was doing 'crook stuff', GTA is considerably more edgy than that. I'm not saying Rockstar are badguys or they make bad games that shouldn't be allowed to be made. I'm saying that being controversial is worth a great deal of money, and they exploit that quite well. The unfortunate side effect is that it adds fuel to the fire for the antivideo game crowd. I could sit here and make a huge list of video games that play like movies, and games that have easter eggs, and are good games (not that GTA isn't a good game), but none of them involve killing hookers or graphic sex mods. To watch RockStar blame that nonsense on "those evil hackers" like they were just adding bits to the game disc was pathetic.

This really isn't about some puritanical nonsense, they could have just slapped a label on it saying its a little more edgy and been fine, because at that point it is really out of their hands. I thought the outcry about puppet sex in Team America was stupid beyond reason, and actually made me laugh many times harder at the puppet sex scenes once I saw it. So its just a game, no biggie. Fact is its a very edgy game and Rockstar without a doubt publishes very controversial games for the sake of being controversial money making gems. GTA 2 really wasn't any different other than a lack of hookers and the graphics weren't that great. I played GTA2 in multiplayer mode for HOURS because it was great hare krishna crushing, ambulance highjacking, tank stealing, friend killing fun! The best was chasing people onto the subway tracks and watching them fry themselves.

"Its not that bad...really" arguments are nonsense...their games really are that bad for the most part...doesn't make them any less fun...just means they include very questionable content and that parents should be doing their job parenting, not crying for federal parenting assistance. A good parent shouldn't be letting their kids watch R and X rated movies because they aren't paying attention to them just like they shouldn't be letting their kids play video games with very questionable content because they aren't watching.

Doesn't seem too bad

[vinividivici]

How bad can a game about a kid countering a bully possibly be?

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Kuroji]

They forgot to mention the working title of Grand Theft Classroom; many of the bullies can be run over during driver's ed.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Daniel Dvorkin]

How bad can a game about a kid countering a bully possibly be?

Oh, very, very bad.

You see, kids who fight back against bullies are just like Harris and Klebold! They wear black and listen to scary music and have guns, lots of guns! And they kill people with them! Lots and lots of people!

In fact, any kid who fights back against a bully might just be ...

A TERRORIST! LOOK! LOOK, OVER THERE! SCARY, SCARY TERRORISTS!

TERRORISTS! 9/11! ROCKSTAR GAMES! 9/11! AL-QAEDA! 9/11! COLUMBINE! 9/11! TERRORISTS! RED LAKE! 9/11! THEY'RE ALL IN IT TOGETHER! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHIIIIIIIIIILDREN!

There. I hope this clears things up for you.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[ToasterofDOOM]

you just won the presidential vote for Utah in 2008

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[idonthack]

Hmmm....

1. Like Harris and Klebold... Well, I'm a geek in high school and I play video games. Close enough!
2. Black clothes... Check! I got like six shirts at QuakeCon.
3. Scary music... Yep, my baby sister is terrified by MC Hawking!
4. Guns, lots of guns... Well I don't actually have any, but once I downloaded a book on how to make one!

Awesome. I'm a real live terrorist.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[darkitecture]

How bad can a game about a kid countering a bully possibly be?

I can't tell whether that was meant to be a rhetorical question or not. There might have been sarcasm or you might be being fatuous, I'm not sure. But just in case you were being serious, let me highlight something:

It could be said that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (responsible for the Columbine massacre) were 'countering' the bullies that harrassed them at school. An extreme example for sure, but never underestimate human flaws when it comes to such powerful emotional forces as retribution.

With that said, I've bought several of Rockstar's games which have been considered 'violent' and probably plan on buying this game too if it seems any good. I'd like to think of myself as a successful late-20-something who has played countless violent and disturbing video games, watched graphic depiction of violence in numerous movies and tv shows and also was the victim of bullying in school (weren't we all?). Yet I'm still a well-adjusted member of society, an upstanding citizen, have never committed a crime, vote, am involved in charitable works, have a good sense of morality and have no qualms with allowing my children to play violent games with morally dubious goals and watch violent movies - as long as I've deemed they're mature enough for such things. I find it is my duty to keep a constant vigil on my childrens' moral/ethical maturity and to screen/judge their input accordingly. I appreciate there being an ratings board for games and the like, but I think this should be considered simply a guide and that parents should take some god damn responsibility and take charge.

I played some brutal games and watched some horribly graphic movies while I was a kid but I had good enough parents that they knew that although those games and movies weren't the most palatable inputs, they weren't having some sort of detrimental inpact on my growth, my education or my general health/wellbeing. They understood that *I* understood the difference between movies/video games and reality. They understood that although I might be ripping someone's spine out in Mortal Kombat, I was still writing A+ history reports and still knew my sines from my cosines. I might have been going on a Redneck Rampage with my shotgun but I still volunteered at the local Salvation Army thrift store on the occasional weekend and took out the trash and brushed my teeth before bedtime.

Ratings boards should never be considered a substitute for good parenting.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Cheapy]

I think you need to take your own advice and just...

WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHIIIIIIIIIILDREN!

Stupid lameness filter.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Traiklin]

don't forget to report yourself to the local branch of the Homeland Security office, it's your sworn duty to turn yourself in.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[soft_guy]

Why would anyone actually swear to turn themself in?

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Dylan and Klebold brought propane-tank bombs into Columbine with them. They planned to kill off hundreds of kids. They recorded their desire for fame and notoriety on video before they died.

I'd say that if their goal was fighting back against a couple of bullies, they didn't do a very good job of it.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[AngryUndead]

duh. they swear before they notice the symptoms. then they're trapped in a trap of their own making.

Foiled again!

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[mqduck]

With that said, I've bought several of Rockstar's games which have been considered 'violent'

Oh, I'd love to hear the arguments against this.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Mir322]

but, but.. what about abortion and gay marriage? !!!!!!!!!! ;)

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[nametaken]

"I played some brutal games and watched some horribly graphic movies while I was a kid"

You're in your late 20s?

I'd say, Double Dragon, Ninja Gaiden, Kung Fu and Punch-Out weren't exactly like the stuff we're looking at now. Banging a hooker in a stolen car, then jumping out of the car, beating them to death with a baseball bat and taking your money back? Maybe that OTHER Konami code let you do that stuff, but I think I would have cried myself to sleep if I saw that coming from my NES. :)

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Shaper_pmp]

How about ripping out people's spines, freeze-and-shattering them, pulling out hearts or immolating them alive at the tender age of 13?

And I, also, am a fine upstanding member of society who almost never actually tears someone's head off and poops down their neck-hole.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Kamineko]

Plus they take drinks on to planes.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubtful. If you'd ever played GTA you'd know that the cartoon art style and flaky animations decreases the impact of the violence. It's not a hooker, it's a sketch of one.
I'm not saying that's some kind of market-to-kids ploy on Rockstar's part, it's just the limitations of computer graphics tech, particularly the fairly old consoles it was released on.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[discord5]

They understood that although I might be ripping someone's spine out in Mortal Kombat, I was still writing A+ history reports and still knew my sines from my cosines.

Oh I can imagine what the history reports would look like if you got an F :-)

And then Napoleon crushed his mortal enemy scorpion with his cannonball fatality : back back forward up highkick block. This combo has remained historically important up until the 20th century, during the second world war. It was required tactics at the german war academies, until Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchil formed the alliance known today as the "Allies" and found a way to succesfully block this combo which Hitler had renamed "Blitzkrieg". Some people are convinced that the Blitzkrieg combo was in many ways superiour to Napoleons combo, but in fact it is just a matter of updated graphics due to the increase in CPU power.

Yet I'm still a well-adjusted member of society, an upstanding citizen, have never committed a crime, vote, am involved in charitable works, have a good sense of morality

People often forget that videogames are just some fun. If some kid gets the idea to shoot (not so) random people, they used to blame music. "If you play this album backwards, you can hear the artist clearly saying we should all worship Stan." Now it's videogames, and tomorrow it'll be sunshine (because nuclear fusion emits radiation, and everyone knows that radiation is the work of the devil, and not physics).

The adolescent kids that are inspired by a game like GTA to go out and shoot people, didn't need a ban on videogames, they needed some professional help because they most likely had issues beforehand. I'd agree that small children shouldn't be playing GTA (nor should they have access to guns), but in all honesty I played games that involved shooting stuff when I was 8 too.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Antique Geekmeister]

Or governor of Massachusetts. There doesn't seem to be much differenc between that and running the losing campaign for president over the last few campaigns.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[LaughingCoder]

You were doing great until these two points, which are decidedly leftwing rants. You seem to mixing up your stereotypes.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

And remember Life is precious and god and the bible

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Dylan and Klebold brought propane-tank bombs into Columbine with them. They planned to kill off hundreds of kids. [...] I'd say that if their goal was fighting back against a couple of bullies, they didn't do a very good job of it.

Sure. They intended to fight back against a classful of bullies, and against all the kids and teachers who looked away or passed by on the other side of the hallway as they were bullied. They intended to get their revenge against all the people who shared joint responsibility in making their lives hell.

What they did was evil and wrong. But it was a natural response to the intolerable situation they were in. Hurt someone, and he wants to hurt you back. Hurt someone enough, and he wants to kill you. It's human nature.

Let's be honest here. The way we let popular kids get away with behaving towards unpopular kids is nothing short of a national disgrace. Bullying that is considered normal and everyday in a school would, in any other context, result in criminal conviction and long jail terms. Jocks regularly engage in physical assault, racial and sexual abuse, robbery, and a host of other crimes, while the adults who are supposed to be supervising our children's development stand idly by and do nothing (except occasionally punishing the victims if they dare to speak out or defend themselves).

Small wonder that some kids decide to take the law into their own hands. And, since they're just kids, small wonder that they go way past the bounds of what's acceptable, and end up as mass murderers. It's the flipside of the same coin. The bullies think they're just having a little laugh, when what they're doing is damaging other people's bodies and lives. The killers think they're just getting their fair revenge, when what they're doing is committing murder.

Want to stop the murders? Stop the bullies. No cause, no effect. No fire, no smoke. It's hardly rocket science.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

who almost never actually tears someone's head off and poops down their neck-hole.

And I'm sure the one exception to that had it coming

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Jaysyn]

Mortal Kombat? Splatterhouse? Phantasmagoria? Chiller? Abadox was pretty gory too.

Jaysyn

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Das Modell]

Have people forgotten about Harvester? That game was seriously fucked up, and caused great controversy. I played it when I was 13 or something.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[payback451]

Regardless, he's (darkitecture) right. I've said it before on slashdot.. it was one of my few postings but i'll say it again. I'm still quite young (dare I say.. 17?) and am still growing up around all this violent media. As a kid, barely able to walk, I sat on my dads lap watching him play Wolfenstein and Doom 95, and since then i've been hooked with the blood and gore. We get all the latest shooter games.. BF2, FEAR, SWAT, GTA, you name it. We even play them together via LAN or online. Infact, he doesn't even monitor my usage anymore.. I watch whatever movies I want, play whatever I want, ect. The reason he doesn't monitor me anymore though is because at an early age, he did his job as a parent and taught me that games are just that.. games; and movies aren't real either. You see, it doesn't matter how much the media changes.. how much more violent it gets. It's still the parents responsibility to teach their kids about the media they're consuming and why it shouldn't be acted out. When parents start doing their job, this issue completely flies out the window.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[jackbird]

I seem to recall a primitive polygon-rendered driving game set in San Fransisco where you could run over nuns, and if a cop pulled you over he'd write you a ticket for "vehicular homicide" and send you on your way.

Frankly, I think the GTA series makes a sincere attempt at showing that actions have consequences, unlike almost every other videogame out there. Sure, the scale of mayhem it takes to provoke a police response is off, but in how many other games do you have the option whether or not to break the law? Furthermore, when a mission compels you to break the law, your first thought is usually "how can I do this with as little collateral damage/police response as possible"?

Compare that your average "shoot anything that moves" action game.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Jaysyn]

I didn't forget about it, I just didn't think it was quite as old as the rest.

Jaysyn

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't that bad but for the record I think you don't understand the game: You play as the bully. You have to build up your rep and dominate the school.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

"You see, kids who fight back against bullies are just like Harris and Klebold! They wear black and listen to scary music and have guns, lots of guns! And they kill people with them! Lots and lots of people!

In fact, any kid who fights back against a bully might just be ..."

Ummmm... ok.... Well maybe in your twisted little world, but the only way to get a bully to leave you alone is to beat the ever living Sh*t out of them. I have done this a few times back when I was in school, and it does work.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[grumbel]

Frankly, I think the GTA series makes a sincere attempt at showing that actions have consequences

A day in jail is not what I call "consquences" for running over 20 civilians with a car, shooting half a dozen police man and whatever (that is, if the police catches you at all), its a joke nothing more. GTA has absolutly no long term consequenzes for criminal actions, no Game Over, no nothing, your star count gets reset and everything is back to normal.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

There are plenty of games with bizarre, violent, drug related content from long ago. Only new thing is graphics have improved. I used to be a Dope Wars junkie, loved trading coke. And I can't remember the game, but I think it was actually on Atari or maybe commodore 64 where you were a cowboy and you raped a native american woman - even Rockstar haven't dipped that low.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[jackbird]

Can you point to a game that does that?

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Tweekster]

Those two columbine kids were not countering the bully's. They were the bullys. If you were walking down the hallway and they were coming towards you, you moved for them, doesnt matter who you were, football player to math team geek, you moved the hell out of the way.

They werent a couple of kids that snapped at people that were making fun of them etc, they were assholes well before columbine and they never had to deal with any form of restrictions.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[pedalman]

How bad can a game about a kid countering a bully possibly be?

I can't wait for the mod that lets Jimmy use his Gauss gun.

Or is that already slated for the sequel?

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[mmkkbb]

Mitt Romney is the first Mass governor to run for President since Dukakis in 1988.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[TheMotedOne]

you just won the presidential vote for Utah in 2008 Funny for you, scary for me.... I am a Utah resident.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Super Mario 3?

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Antique Geekmeister]

Oh, you're right. John Kerry was a senator from Massachusetts, not a governor.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir have a fantastic sense of humour. That was the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

  - stephan

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[spyrochaete]

Respect to you for mentioning Phantasmagoria. That was indeed a spooky and slow-paced game, so in the ending sequence when the protagonist can get her head split open in graphic fashion it REALLY comes as a shock. Sure it's just a rubber prosthetic, but a mix of high production values and low resolution graphics make it rather convincing. Plus there's that toggleable rape scene about halfway through, and nudity in the opening sequence.

I played that game at about 16 and lived to tell the tale. I think well-parented kids like I was can take a game about bullies.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[FusionDragon2099]

I believe that would be Custer's Revenge for the Atari 2600.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[motherrussia]

No, it sounds like you are a major geek.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[vinividivici]

Thank you Jack Thompson!

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Zakabog]

Well I'm only 24 but there were plenty of violent games around when I was a kid. Obviously you don't remember Time Killers, Lethal Enforcers, Night Trap or Mortal Kombat. Sure none of these let you have sex with a prostitute then kill her with a baseball bat to get your money back, but I don't see how that would fit into any of these stories anyway.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[fm6]

Well, I'm certainly disappointed. I value GTA mainly because it allows me to express my inner sociopath. (Oh, the look on pedestrian's faces when they hit your windshield!) I was looking forward to this game as a chance to reverse the role I played in grade school. Oh well!

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[grumbel]

Can you point to a game that does that?

Plenty of RPGs, for example Gothic2 to name one, you can kill whoever you like in that game, but if somebody notices you while doing it, a horde of bystanders will hunt you down and not leave you much of a chance to survive, game over, you have to restart from your last save. Metal Gear to name another one, while the punishment is little (lower rank in the end screen), it encourages non-lethal actions against the enemy. In America's Army you land in jail when shooting people at the training and there are probally some more, however, the main reason why many games don't punish you, is simply because they often don't even allow such actions in the first place, bystanders will run away in time, you race on a racetrack not in the mid of the city, you fight a war against another army on a battlefield, not gang battle in mid of the city, you are only up against zombies who are already dead, civilians are unvulnurable, etc.

GTA on the other side encouraged plenty of illegal behaviour, yes, the cops you might fight in some missions might be evil and actions against them might be justified by the story, however there is no justification as far as I know in terms of story for running over dozens or hundreds of civilians, stealing their cars, killing them for money and stuff like that, it simply happens as natural cause of the gameplay and their is no way to escape that unless by refusing to play the game. Yeah, I know you can steal a Taxi or Police car, but that gives you a single boring 2min long mission, not a full 30h game, beside that, even as police you have to kill the person you are hunting.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

whats sad is thats essentialy accurate.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, he had terrifying movies like A Clockwork Orange to fill in the gaps. Violence, depravity, the spectacle of horror are not new things. Look up the descriptions of some Victorian era magic shows. Hell, back in the day (and I mean B.C.) real people watched other real people kill each other for fun. These things are not new, they're just new to the genre. The only way to keep them out of it would be to destroy every computer under the sun.

I say let's hurry up and accept it so we can get a head start on the next generation's evil media: interactive holograms.

Re:Doesn't seem too bad

[Scipher]

Your sig spells tianamen wrong:

http://images.google.cn/images?q=tianamen

same results as US

Gee, think they changed the storyline?

[cryptochrome]

I reckon after the first wave of indignation they did.

Wah?

[Kid Zero]

That made less sense than most teaser trailers I've seen. I saw nothing to support Rockstars claims of "Wait! This isn't the game they say it is!" mantra.

Re:Wah?

[tsa]

I didn't see what type of game it is at all. That was the most crappy trailer I've ever seen.

Re:Wah?

[Jaysyn]

That was a game? Looked like an episode of the OC.

Jaysyn

To the anti-game critics:

[Jerk City Troll]

How about we put the burden of raising children on the parents who chose to had them. How about instead of futilely trying to childproof the world we let people decide for themselves and their own children what's appropriate.

If a kid has $50 bucks to blow on the new hotness their either have their parents permission (ill considered as it may be), too much for an allowance, gainful employment, or an entry level position in a criminal enterprise. None of these is the problem of developers or retailers.

Besides, none of the GTA games come close to the sex and violence of the bible. Babykilling and incest? Check. I want to see Rockstar do a Bible game like GTA, where you can wander around brutally killing and raping anything.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[diablomonic]

hehe nicely put (but wait, the bible is the word of god. He's allowed to say that stuff, just not us.....)

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Anonymous Coward]

Rockstar presents....

"GTA: The Way of The LORD" [endorsed by the US Government and Scientology Inc., For ages 10 and above.]
Sleep with the hooker! Sleep with her sister! Hell, sleep with YOUR sister!

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Anonymous Coward]

"I want to see Rockstar do a Bible game like GTA, where you can wander around brutally killing and raping anything."

sounds like the most historically accurate bible game concept yet

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a good point you have there. The Bible really glorifies babykilling and incest (hey! Mary is a member of God's family! Remember???).

If Rockstar made a videogame based on the teachings of The Bible, it would TOTALLY be that game where you wander around 'brutally killing and raping anything.'

High five man - feel the jive!!!

Forgive me if I am getting a little sidetracked here, but let me ask you a question: have you ever read The Bible?

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[plover]

I want to see Rockstar do a Bible game like GTA, where you can wander around brutally killing and raping anything.

Rockstar North proudly presents: "Holy Man - Old Testament Style!"

• Steal another player's sword and cut off his head with it!
• Throw your virgin daughters to the gay rapists to save your own ass!
• Wade ankle deep through the blood of thousands of your enemies!
• Rape a woman and kill her man, then become king of your people!
• Don't like no sass? Cut out your opponents tongues!
• Want your own slaves? Build up the biggest posse! Whip 'em into shape - literally!
• Three words: Stoning! Stoning! Stoning!
• Ritual human sacrifice!

"E" -- Content rated by ESRB -- Everyone

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[andrewman327]

I understand what you are saying. After all, the word of God is full of tales of sex and violence. The key difference is that the Bible does not glorify them.

I actually ran an anti-bullying program in high school (went and taught elementary students about not killing each other) but I fail to see how this game will make things worse. Bullying is a huge problem in this country and parents seem too busy to blame anybody outside of the community. People need to realize that video games are not going to make people into bullys; families, schools, and other close influences do.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[chris_eineke]

How can it be the word of God if it was written down by Men?

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[AuMatar]

It doesn't? Try rereading it. Lot gave his daughters to be raped by a mob, and is called a just man. The hebrews are glorified for slaughtering philistines, among several other ethnic groups. THe bible does nothing *but* glorify rape and violence.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[soft_guy]

You are over thinking. Head down to the nearest church and have them beat your brains out with a rock. That way, you won't question religion anymore.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[plover]

I almost forgot the best feature: you can also play as the bad guys!

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[andrewman327]

THe bible does nothing *but* glorify rape and violence.

You have to admit that the content of Rockstar games is entirely different from that of The Holy Bible, both in content and presentation.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[rpillala]

People think that if we put the burden on parents they will fulfill it. That's naive.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[AuMatar]

Yes. Rockstar doesn't pretend to be anything other than it is. I'd give my kids GTA long before I'd hand them a bible.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[arivanov]

Well...

It is half the way there: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/23/evangelica l_spyware/

All you need to do is add some raping and incest.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[nfarrell]

Do you seriously think a child's upbringing is solely in the hands of the parents? Even a parent with the best of intentions is not capable of ensuring their children are in a stimulating, challenging yet nurturing environment. Every time you walk out the door, turn on the TV or open a newspaper you're exposed to advertising, trying to make you change your behaviour. Sure, we all think WE have the will-power to see through the smoke and mirrors, but it's that level of ego which helps the ads be so pervasive and effective.

Games are not made to make us better people, or even to make us happy (MMORPGs anyone?). They're made to sell copies, and perhaps ideologies (america's army, etc.) The designers do not care at all what effect the game will have on you, your children, or anyone else. If they can make a game contentious and generate more publicity (=sales), they'll jump at the chance.

Some people forget that we're supposed to live in a SOCIETY, which means interacting with others. I don't like the idea of a nanny state, but I don't like the idea of having games which include "wandering around brutally killing and raping anything".

The more we're exposed to something, the more familiar it becomes. It doesn't mean we'll all become serial rapists overnight, but it does we see rape as less barbaric than it is.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Random_Goblin]

you forgot my favourite...

have children ripped apart by bears for laughing at your bald head

remember nobody is to stone anyone until I say so - even if someone does say Jehova!

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Kwesadilo]

Besides, none of the GTA games come close to the sex and violence of the bible.

Even now, lobbyists for groups of concerned parents are pressuring Congress to prohibit minors from buying Bibles and impose severe fines on retailers who sell Bibles rated NKJV or higher.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Das Modell]

No, you're thinking of Islam, not Christianity. If Rockstar made a game about Islam, they'd be in real deep trouble... some employees might be assassinated, at worst.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[jb.hl.com]

Why would gay rapists want virgin daughters?

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[ettlz]

"So that they may know them." Maybe they were provided masks.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[ultranova]

The more we're exposed to something, the more familiar it becomes. It doesn't mean we'll all become serial rapists overnight, but it does we see rape as less barbaric than it is.

Being illiterate, eating with your fingers and wearing animal hides - or nothing at all - is barbaric. The word refers to a lack of civilization. Rape, on the other hand, is evil.

There's already a word for deliberately hurting and harming others, so there's no need to co-opt the word meaning uncivilized for this purpose.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[bestiarosa]

Maybe they were female gay rapists. Or maybe transvestites.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to admit that the content of Rockstar games is entirely different from that of The Holy Bible, both in content and presentation.

You must mean that Rockstar would never be so utterly tasteless to present somebody who allows his own daughters to be raped as a just man?

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't. It was worth a try nevertheless.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[nfarrell]

Judgement of good and evil is based on morals. You can say some things are good or evil, but that's just your view, based on your beliefs.

When you say "X is evil", it's a very black and white statement, which almost never fits reality. In the case of rape, there are lots of actions which could be defined as rape:
- haxing sex with someone without their explicit consent
- having sex with someone who isn't in a responsible state (e.g. drunk)
- having sex with someone who you've caused to not be in a responsible state (e.g. slip GHB in their drink)
- emotionally manipulate someone into allowing you to have sex with them even though they don't want to
- pay someone for sex when it isn't legal
- etc. etc.

this is just off the top of my head, and I'm no lawyer. We all do things occassionally which hurt other people, some of us more often than others, and some of us more consciously than others. You can also help others to hurt people, either explicitly, through inaction, or providing an environment conducive to hurtful behaviour. (e.g. sell GHB).

What I'm getting at is this: rape is bad, and we should do what we can to stop it happening. To just call it 'evil' ignores the shades of grey.

Having said that, I agree that calling it barbaric might not be the best word. Rape is an example of our primal nature overcoming our social/civil tendencies, though of course it's a lot more complex than that.

Moreover, a lot of people tend to throw around the terms 'good' and 'evil' quite lightly.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Antique Geekmeister]

And to level up your character, get him crucified on a national holiday.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[hopopee]

Maybe they are just very happy rapists? After all, you are throwing voluntarily your daughters at them :-)

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[sholden]

Ask Lot. Mind you the "men" the people wanted to "have relations" with were in fact angels - whom you would expect would be able to defend themselves with firey swords or something. Lot probably just didn't like his whiny daughters much and saw an opportunity..

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[pkphilip]

No body says that the Bible is for entertainment. Bible is a mix of history, sayings / teachings of men considered great in their time, songs/poetry etc. Bible is a religious texts, if you must compare it, compare it to other religious texts.

Comparing GTA to the Bible is like comparing apples to carts.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[pkphilip]

I don't know why people keep bringing up these comparisons:

a) "???? Movie" and the Bible
b) "???? Music lyric" and the Bible
c) "???? Game" and the Bible

Bible is not a work meant for entertainment. Bible is a collection of books - a mix of history/biography, song, teachings, sayings, words of wisdom etc. When history is written down, the ugly parts will also get written. The Bible is not advocating that Lot's actions be considered appropriate. Your assertion that the Bible glorifies rape and violence doesn't quite hold up.

Comparing a Bible to a game/any work of entertainment makes no sense. Its as absurd as comparing the Bible to a building.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with that attitude is that a poorly adjusted kid is not isolated from the rest of us. While I agree I should be responsible for my kid, I don't trust other parents to be responsible for theirs.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[everphilski]

Lot was experiancing contant punishment after selfishly picking the "good land" from Abraham.

That's why he had a mob of rapists, and had to think of some way to get out of it (and made the wrong choice of throwing his daughers out - and where does it say in the bible that he was justified in doing this? My bible sure doesn't say that...). That's why his hometown was destroyed by brimstone, because it was such an abomination before God. That's (partially) why his wife died, and why he lost all his posessions... and got captured by an opposing faction of kings.

But Abraham comes along and saves his ass, cause he's a good guy, and an archetype of Christ.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[elrous0]

the "men" the people wanted to "have relations" with were in fact angels

Lol, then the joke would have been on them! I have it on good authority that angels don't have anuses.

-Eric

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Pointdexter]

You have to admit that the content of Rockstar games is entirely different from that of The Holy Bible, both in content and presentation.

Yeah, the graphics are much better for a start.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Guppy06]

"How about we put the burden of raising children on the parents who chose to had them."

You mean the same parents that remain willfully ignorant of bullying to begin with?

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[andrewman327]

Mario does 2D graphics and people love it. The Almight God tries it and people complain. You just can't win!

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Jaysyn]

I'd buy two.

Jaysyn

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[cduffy]

It's not so absurd.

The folks who oppose many forms of popular media do so on account of the morals and behaviors those forms of media allegedly teach and reinforce.

The Bible is quite explicitly used by a substantial portion of the population as a guide to one's morals and behaviors -- a population segment with a substantial overlap with the group discussed above.

As a historical document, the Bible doesn't make much sense in comparison with popular media. As a guide to moral behavior, on the other hand, it is allegedly the gold standard. Why should it not be evaluated as such?

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[kalirion]

Mind you the "men" the people wanted to "have relations" with were in fact angels - whom you would expect would be able to defend themselves with firey swords or something.

The problem with fiery swords is that they are so damn easy to misplace.

25 And the Lord spake unto the Angel that guarded the eastern gate, saying "Where is the flaming sword which was given unto thee?"
26 And the Angel said, "I had it here only a moment ago, I must have put it down some where, forget my own head next."
27 And the Lord did not ask him again."

- lines which didn't quite make it into the "official" Bible according to Good Omens

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Captain Sarcastic]

Don't forget the trick of unleashing wild bears on kids who make fun of your bald head!

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Eli Gottlieb]

If I may kill the joke for a moment, the point of giving his daughters to the men was twofold:

1.To uphold the ancient value of hospitality to guests. This was considered one of the most important values in ancient Israelite culture (and hospitality, while nonviolent, is still very important in the modern Middle East).
2.To prevent homosexual sex. Rational modern folks like us disagree with this one, but there it is.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[andrewman327]

A strange outlook for sure. Why exactly is that the case? What harm could be done to your children by sharing with them the word of the Lord? How old are they?

Your statement utterly baffles me. If you check my user profile, you will see that I am a serious /.er (though I only have about 1/4 as many comments as you, #183847) but I feel that I have to speak up in the face of such idiocy. If you read my original post on this subject, I asserted that videogames are not the cause of youth violence. The Bible is by far a better influence, however.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[andrewman327]

The Bible is a large book and you are looking at just 1 page. That is not fair. Taking such an extremely narrow view of religion is a horrible thing to do for many reasons. Look at it as a whole. Look at the power of Christ and the messages he brought. Look at everything, not just one story.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[TheRaven64]

Throw your virgin daughters to the gay rapists to save your own ass!

As I recall, it was to save his guests, not himself.

Rape a woman and kill her man, then become king of your people!

Presumably this is a reference to David. As I recall, he became king first, then killed the husband and took the wife (I don't believe it was rape). If you are talking about Joseph, he was only accused of rape and didn't kill the husband.

Want your own slaves? Build up the biggest posse! Whip 'em into shape - literally!

Don't forget; slaves may only come from other tribes.

Oh, and don't forget the special power-up; turn an entire city to salt because some of the people there were bad. One use only.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[DaggertipX]

Entertainment or not, it is forcefed to children all over this great nation, and all over the world. The violence and horrors it contains are NEVER called into question, all the while the children are told to take it seriously. We tell them not to take games seriously, but people worry about their content.
The bible is a much more frightening thing to be raised by, in my mind.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Anonymous Coward]

remember: 9/11 and the Atlanta Olympics bombings were faith based initiatives!

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[arodland]

If you read my original post on this subject, I asserted that videogames are not the cause of youth violence. The Bible is by far a better influence, however.

Well, the most important thing that the Bible teaches children is that it's not necessary to make moral decisions by thinking about the consequences of their actions; logical thought should be replaced with the supposed will of an invisible, imaginary being in the sky, as interpreted by some incredibly wacked-out people.

Instead of teaching that when you see a contradiction, you should reexamine your premises because one of them is wrong, it teaches (by example) that contradictions are everywhere, and can be resolved by a "search for a higher meaning" (divinely inspired, of course, which means making things up and stopping when it sounds good).

Instead of teaching responsibility by showing that who you are in the world is defined by your actions, it teaches that "works" are worthless, and the only thing that matters in the end is an intangible "faith" -- believe and ye shall be saved. Except when it doesn't, but see the previous point about contradiction.

When Christianity is really working its mojo, it's just as good as any other well-known cult at creating "empty" human beings, who are completely unable to function outside of its confines. But more often, it simply causes a really wicked case of "cognitive dissonance" as its adherents do their best to reconcile their "beliefs" with the reality of the world. This makes itself known as a profound sense of anguish, and the most common response is for people to submerge themselves even deeper into the religion as a response, moving further away from the real world. But a really good Crusade now and then will help, too.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Mister Whirly]

"Besides, none of the GTA games come close to the sex and violence of the bible. Babykilling and incest? Check. I want to see Rockstar do a Bible game like GTA, where you can wander around brutally killing and raping anything."

And it's title would be "Killin' and Rapin' for Jesus!"

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Anonymous Coward]

No one ever said the Bible was logical. God works in mysterious ways, and all that.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[andrewman327]

I am a Christian and I believe that actions are very important. Christ focused on people's actions. Why were so many of his followers willing to be tortured and executed for Him is actions don't matter? The Bible is full of people of action and faith. Also, God's law requires logical analysis between right and wrong. I fail to see how my deciding to wait until I am wed to have sex reduces my ability to evaluate a complex boolean expression acording to De Morgan's Laws.

I am a licensed EMT (and a college student). I evaluate everything on a patient and treat what I can in the field. My faith in God does not tell me only to kneel over the patient and pray that he get better. If a patient is bleeding and has a rising blood pressure and slow pulse, I don't attribute it solely to God ("making things up and stopping when it sounds good"), I assume that I must have missed something and reassess my assumptions based on the observed contradictions. I do have faith in the Lord that He will watch over those whom I will not be able to save, but I do not see how that makes me "empty" as you claim. I lead a rich and happy life with the Lord as my guide, and I am not ashamed to admit that.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Dread_ed]

Everyone has an ass.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[ultranova]

Judgement of good and evil is based on morals. You can say some things are good or evil, but that's just your view, based on your beliefs.

Calling something "barbaric" is based on your idea of what civilized behavior entails. It is just as much a value judgement as calling it evil. It is in fact more so, because most people tend to agree that a given behavior is evil or not when they're the victim of said behavior, while two people will quite likely disagree as to whether some treatment is "barbaric" or not.

Besides, we humans are moral creatures, in the sense that we assign moral values to actions. Can you show a single good reason why I should not make such judgements ?

When you say "X is evil", it's a very black and white statement, which almost never fits reality. In the case of rape, there are lots of actions which could be defined as rape:

I'm sure there are. And I'm equally sure that playing around with semantics and the inherent vagueness of language is a quite usefull way to avoid having to actually give a clear answer.

Widening the definition of "rape" to the point where it includes all possible and several impossible sexual acts and then using this definition to claim that the statement "rape is evil" is incorrect is a good example of both strawman- and sliding definition logical fallacies.

this is just off the top of my head, and I'm no lawyer. We all do things occassionally which hurt other people, some of us more often than others, and some of us more consciously than others. You can also help others to hurt people, either explicitly, through inaction, or providing an environment conducive to hurtful behaviour. (e.g. sell GHB).

Yes. We do. What has that got to do with how such activity is properly called ? Or are you trying to say that something can't be evil if you are doing it ?

What I'm getting at is this: rape is bad, and we should do what we can to stop it happening. To just call it 'evil' ignores the shades of grey.

Please explain how calling something "bad" avoids making moral judgements that calling it "evil" makes; or is this some misguided attempt to be politically correct to keep rapists feelings from being hurt ? And why, ignoring morality since we can't do moral judgements and can't therefore decide what is moral and what is not, should we stop it from happening - I'm a big strong man, so I'm not in any personal danger, so why should I care ?

And this "shades of grey" thing... It does not mean that black and white do not exist. It only means that a particular action can be less than perfectly good but still better than absolute evil. Like, say, walking on the grass: it is bad since if a lot of people do it then the grass will wear down, but it's certainly less bad than murder. However, it does not make murder any less bad.

Having said that, I agree that calling it barbaric might not be the best word. Rape is an example of our primal nature overcoming our social/civil tendencies, though of course it's a lot more complex than that.

I'd say it's more a matter of someone learning to suppress his empathy and conscience at will, and then doing so. It isn't a matter of being overcome by your primal instincts; it's a matter of letting them loose.

None of which has anything to do with the evilness of the act, unless you're willing to accept that no one can ever be held responsible for any of their actions, since they can all be explained by their personal psychology and mental makeup.

Moreover, a lot of people tend to throw around the terms 'good' and 'evil' quite lightly.

Star Trek tends to throw around scientific terms and concepts in absurd contexts, but that doesn't invalidate the terms, just the speaker.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[loopback_127001]

Are you completely cracked? The bible may not call out Lot's decision as being justified, but he is rewarded very clearly as being the only 'Just' man in all of Sodom. The Angels and/or God reward him by blinding the crowd allowing him and his daughters to escape. And then this just man went on to knock up both of his daughters because he was apparently 'too drunk to know what he was doing'.

And the crowd of rapists weren't there because he picked the 'good land'. Where are you getting this from? It's fairly clear from all the fables around this that part of why Sodom was destroyed was because of the alleged wickedness of the citizens, who treated strangers poorly. Like, say, the strangers in lot's house. Now you can make the argument that if Lot hadn't chosen to live in the midst of wickedness because of the good land nearby, this wouldn't have happened. But that's not at all what you said.

Lot's wife did not die because of anything _he_ did. She was turned to a pillar of salt due to her own actions of disobeying the Authority (Angels/God) that said to make haste and not look back upon the burning city.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[WilliamSChips]

You do know that all the violent elements of Islam are mostly just copies of the same things being done by Christians, right?

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Anonymous Coward]

Cute. Thank you for avoiding the generalisation trap by not plastering all Christians with the same brush. [/end sarcasm/] My (Christian) beliefs are completely compatible with all the science I've ever encountered. I'm cool with evolution, for instance. Christianity is all about taking responsibility for your life, and being aware of consequences (both for your own life and for society in general).

You seem to be inferring that because we believe our sins can be forgiven through Christ as our saviour, saving us on Judgement day (a belief that you reject), we are incapable of making any rational choices elsewhere in our lives.

Lately, America seems to be full of fundamentalist Christians who are getting it (very) wrong in places, but to (drastically) simplify things down, that belief of salvation-through-Christ is the only doctrine a true Christian must buy. It's really not against science. At all.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I would have listed the teachings of Christ first, and his power second or not at all. The transformative power of Christ is a red herring - you transform yourself. It seems like the protestant movement in the U.S. is all about this Ouija Board illusion - about believing that you are acted upon when you are really the source of the action.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Captain Sarcastic]

Actually, the bit about David and Bathsheba was that David saw her bathing, found out her husband Uriah was one of his top generals, and then sent Uriah off on campaign. When Uriah was --gasp!-- killed in combat, David proceeded to comfort the grieving widow.

Another of those Bible stories they don't often tell the kids, I guess.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[CountZero117]

Nice. That just about sums up everything i've thought about religion, but not been able to put into words. I wish i could put my thoughts into words like you.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[pkphilip]

As a guide to moral behavior, on the other hand, it is allegedly the gold standard. Why should it not be evaluated as such?

Let me repeat what I said:

The Bible is not a single book - it is a collection of books. To illustrate this better - lets say a few hundred years from now, someone decides to put together various books, writings and sayings (the constitution of the US, a few of the major poetry of the time, a few writings by the major personalities of the time, words of wisdom utterred by many of these same people, and then a compilation of historical documents of our current age), and then decides to call it a "Bible2", would you then look at the historical account of Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky and state that this Bible2 advocates that as the standard of behaviour?

The Bible is comprised of history, poems, words of wisdom, moral instructions, prophesy etc. So when you do evaluate the Bible against, say another book which lists moral instructions, you must look at the part of the Bible which lays down moral instructions and use that for the comparison. You wouldn't compare it with portions of the Bible which refers to prophesy for instance, or history, or poetry.

Consider the book of Revelation - it is a prophetic book, not an account of history. One the other hand, the book of Exodus, Numbers, Kings etc are historical texts for the most part. The Book of Proverbs, the Book of James etc are more into moral instructions. The Song of Songs is a romantic, erotic book written by a man about/and to his lover.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[pkphilip]

Is history "forcefed" too? Any reading of history will indicate that man has had a very violent past.
Would you not teach your children the bloody history of man? and is that the same as advocating violence? I hope you understand what I am getting at.

The Bible does include an account of history (you can dispute that if you want, but that claim is not entirely without substance) and history includes the good and the bad parts. Also, history unlike games, are not read for entertainment but for awareness. So from that point of view, it makes very little sense and it may even cause harm to hide those aspects of history which are not very palatable. But that is again not to mean that violence is advocated or encouraged.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[cduffy]

According to a substantial subset of the Bible's followers, the entire collection was divinely inspired. Consequently, their entire contents should by that standard be taken for truth. Certainly, historical documents in and of themselves are value-neutral -- but when they pass judgment on that which they report, and their entire contents (including value judgments on the events reported) are read as unassailably true, that neutrality is lost.

A historical document with divinely inspired contents which makes value judgments on that which it reports, then, is not only a historical document but also a guide to behavior inasmuch as it reports by example behaviors of which God did or did not support or approve.

If you don't accept that the whole of the Bible is divinely inspired (and presumably also that divine inspiration was involved in selecting only divinely inspired texts be included), then this argument obviously doesn't hold water for you -- and that's fine; it's not meant for you in that case. If you do accept that, on the other hand... well, I'd like to see a further rebuttal.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[jackbird]

Much of the violence and horrors it contains are there precisely to be questioned. The story of the binding of Isaac, for instance, is an absolute repuditation of the concept of human sacrifice, and David was prevented from building the temple by god as punishment for what he did to Bathsheba and her husband.

You knee-jerk atheists are as bad as the fundies when it comes to misunderstanding the bible.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[jackbird]

You're forgetting the end of the story - God getting totally pissed off by David's behavior, declaring it unethical in no uncertain terms, and punishing him severely.

People make a lot of noise about some games being only for grownups - consider for a moment that some parts of the bible might be the same way.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[Captain Sarcastic]

Point.

Perhaps even religious texts should have a disclaimer somewhere - "Use only as directed."

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[pkphilip]

Ok, I understand the point you are making here. I think the confusion stems from the fact that many understand 'divinely-inspired' to mean sweet moral instructions. Well, that is just an assumption. isn't it? The way I understand it, 'divinely inspired' could also mean truth in the context of history and this history could be very, very unpleasant.

For instance, consider the case of King David - here is a man who slept with someone else's wife and then when it seemed like the woman had gotten pregnant, he tried to get that man to sleep with her inorder to get himself on the clear. However, that didn't happen. So David sent the man (who was obviously very loyal to David) to his death. That is the truth about David. The Bible documents that..and goes on to talk about how God chastizes David for this.. and then punishes David. The Bible also talks about how David was a man after God's own heart - well, does that go to mean that God approved of everything David did. No. David paid a very heavy price for what he did - if you are interested in hearing, you could either read the Bible or perhaps I could summarize it for you.

From my understanding, the 'divinely inspired' part comes from the fact that something as ugly as this about one of the primary protagonists is even documented in the Bible.

The Bible makes many unflattering statements about many of the primary characters. It does not even spare Jesus. The Bible makes a outrageous claim when it places non-jews and prostitutes in the lineage of Jesus. Actually, there is a person in Jesus's bloodline who was a product of incest - when a man slept with a prostitute who was his daughter-in-law.

We sometimes underestimate how outrageous this claim really is because Jews had a completely different expectation of the anscestry of the Messiah. It is far easier for us to accept the lineage of Jesus than it would have been for the Jews during the time of Jesus because then the law was to stone people for things like adultery - and to accept that their Messiah is a product of an adulterous relationship would have been too much to stomach for most.

It is interesting that the Bible documents this because very rarely will a book state something quite as humiliating about the main character.

Here again, the 'divinely inspired' element is the truth in the statements - the fact that the unflattering facts are stated along with the rest.

Sadly, the church and the christians as a whole attribute a wimpy character to God - making Him seem sacharine sweet, while the Bible indicates that this God has no problem facing the truth because He indeed is the Truth. It is many of the christians who have problems facing the truth of the Bible.

So to summarize - I do believe the Bible is divinely inspired; there is truth in it which is very difficult to digest, but yet it is there because it is the truth and that I believe is the work of God and this is the 'divine' element in the Bible. It is not just the instructions which are divinely inspired, but also the truthful depiction of weak, and far-from-impeccable characters.

Through all the unsavoury, unflattering depictions of the characters in the Bible, we get an insight into their weaknesses, their characters, their folly; and we also learn something about how God dealt with them. None of this would have been possible if only the acts of valour, and benevolence were documented.

Ironically, to me atleast, the outrageous claims of the Bible lends it greater credibility.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[cduffy]

Thank you for that -- you express your position well, and I largely appreciate what you're saying. I do think, however, that there's at least one point where I haven't made my position quite clear enough.

I agree that historical documents themselves are value-neutral, even when their creation (ie. the decision to document a given event, or the decision to take actions to persist said documentation over centuries) is divinely inspired, if such documents do not include value judgements. Such value judgements do exist in the Bible, however -- both implicit in the actions taken by God in response to the actions of men, and explicit in judgements in the form of "[foo] was a just man".

So -- I agree that reading in implicit approval to acts of men documented in the Bible is faulty. I disagree, however, that the historical documents included in the Bible do not purport to provide moral guidance.

Re:To the anti-game critics:

[pkphilip]

Thank you for your response.

I disagree, however, that the historical documents included in the Bible do not purport to provide moral guidance.

The historical documents and moral guidance are not always separate sections in the Bible. That is, many times moral instructions and historical notes are mentioned together. So, I don't think we are in disagreeement on this point.

However, the Bible does not advocate that the actions of many historical characters be considered as models of behaviour. That is, it does not advocate that we adopt the same behaviour - fact is, in many cases the Bible is recommending the exact opposite; that is that we do not go down the same road. Ofcourse, there are instances in the Bible when the behaviour of these characters is spoken off highly, but those recommendations are rare.

For instance, in the section were the Bible talks about David killing Uriah to take over his wife, it also talks about what God did about it; when you read it, it becomes quite clear that God (and the Bible) didn't consider David's actions to be right.

However, in other parts of the Bible, the Bible commends the behaviour of some people - these commendations can be seen as suggestions for role models. An example is when Jesus commends a Roman Centurion highly for his faith.

I hope I cleared this up.

By the way, thank you for reading my answers patiently and for responding to them. Most appreciated.

Anti-game critics will not be happy

[Anonymous Coward]

It does appear that Bully is indeed a game and not a spreadsheet so I suspect the anti-game people will be mad.

Re:Anti-game critics will not be happy

[Russ Steffen]

Microsoft Excel is nothing but a fraud simulator! It teaches impressionable kids how to orchestrate massive financial con games! Parents, do you want your child to be the next Ken Lay or Bernie Ebbers? Then do the right thing, and lets get Excel out of our schools.

Won't someone please think of the children?

Re:Anti-game critics will not be happy

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't someone please think of the children?

Unless you're a Catholic priest or a Boy Scout troop leader, then please stop thinking about the children

Re:Anti-game critics will not be happy

[pimpimpim]

Come to think about it, powerpoint might be responsible for several deaths already.

Does that not make sense? Was it powerpoint, or the people that dealt with it that were to blame? Nice question that the Jack Thompsons of the world should ask themselves.

Re:Anti-game critics will not be happy

[jez9999]

Actually, spreadsheets can be games too.

This was too easy. I think your comment was begging for this response, surely... :-)

Never about Being the bully

[Nazmun]

I'm not sure about what changed but the first time i read the "article" on this game many months ago it said you wereon't going to be the bully. I thought you were gonna be the guy being picked on or something, in any case it was never about being the bully.

Re:Never about Being the bully

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"I'm not sure about what changed but the first time i read the "article" on this game many months ago it said you wereon't going to be the bully."

Tonight I watched a vid from a show on G4 that featured Jack Thompson debating with a man who's name I cannot remember. (I think he was frame GamesDaily.com or something like that...) He claimed that Bully was as you described it until he got enough bitching together to have the game changed. I found this amusing. I remember reading about Bully's debut ... sometime before October 05, if I recall. I got the point back then that you weren't actually playing as a bully.

Not that facts matter much, anyway. All this hooplah over the GTA series and I've yet to hear one of these loudmouthed yahoos get on their soap box and actually demonstrate that they know anything about the games. "I can run around and club people, EVIL!!" I fully expect when Bully is relased, the "you play as a bully" myth will go on strong. Maybe this will be a blessing in disguise. Maybe Jack Thompson will shout misgivings about the game and everybody will just say "But you don't play as the bully!", thus sucking away his credibility. I can dream, right?

Re:Never about Being the bully

[WilliamSChips]

Dude. It's Jack Thompson.

Great Trailer

[kmhebert]

It's hard to tell what exactly you will do in the game but if it has any of the immersive appeal of GTA it will be a smash hit. ANd the target of a ban by ignorant lawmakers everywhere!

I have to ask...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this young vigilante like to drink hot coffee at recess?

Rockstar

[MM_LONEWOLF]

Yeah, the bible does have a lot of that, but come on. What do you think is going to capture a teenagers attention more. Reading the bible, or going out wit your homies and capping some ballas? Rockstar knows that their games capture the attention of teenagers, I should know, i'm 14, and thats how they sell their games. Should they be allowed to make these games? sure. If the parents don't want their kids playing them, then don't buy it for them. The big M on the box doesn't stand for mild.

Re:Rockstar

[Nintendork]

You're 14, huh? I'm assuming your parents let you get this game? When you grow up and become a parent yourself, you'll find that it's not so easy to maintain a decent relationship with your son when he's the ONLY kid in his school with parents that restrict what he can be entertained by. That relationship is the most important thing because without it, your child won't listen and may even do things damaging to themselves out of spite.

That big M on the box is a liability safetynet and a way for politicians to win some votes. Even though the rating accomplishes little more than classification, responsible parents see it as some sort of action and pressure on the entertainment industry instead of none.

It's true that parents have responsibility for their children, but if you think about how much time children spend in society, outside of their parents watch, it's obvious that society has an even greater responsibility.

Re:Rockstar

[MM_LONEWOLF]

I can see how a parent might see the classification as pressure, however, you are mistaken when you thought that my parents let me get this game. I wish. They won't let me get any M games, be it GTA, Bully,(not that i would anyways, it doesn't really look that good) or halo. The thing is, when i look at my classmates who's parents let them get these games, i see either kids who are idiots, stupid parents, or both. Yes, i will get grand theft auto San Andreas when i can, as my older brother did, but my parents won't let me, so unless i somehow sneak it in the house, which would not be worth the trouble, i will have to wait untill i'm 18. By the way, one of the things keeping me from buying the game off ebay or something is fear of my parents if they found out, not difficulty in getting the game itself. As for saying society should care for children, it's true, but the parents should at least know where their children are. Otherwise videogames might not be a problem, the 11th grader selling drugs would be.

Porn vs. Violence

[yeoua]

Ok so in the United States, porn is basically not legal to buy by a minor. The store can't sell it to you, and you can't rent it.

And hell, NC-17 movies exist, as do R movies (which require a parent).

So why do games not have similar levels of preventative measures?

I guess the question I have is... why should games NOT have such similar measures (I'm in favor of NO limitations to who can buy actually) while porn and movies do? And if you believe that games should be freely buyable, would you consider allowing porn and any rated movie to also be freely buyable? What about cigerettes and alcohol?

It seems that we keep on having specific rules/laws per each individual "substance", and many are inconsistent with each other in terms of necessity.

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[Anonymous Coward]

I think all of those items you mentioned are enforced on a voluntary basis, the same as video games are.

As far as I know, there aren't any laws that prohibit the sale of such things to a minor.

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[linguae]

Non-pornographic movie ratings are not government mandated; they are enforced privately. That same logic is used for games, as long as they are not pornographic.

Pornography falls under a set of laws that are similar to the laws for buying tobacco products and alcohol.

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[Tony Lechner]

"So why do games not have similar levels of preventative measures?" Gamers do have the same measures as movies. People seem to get it stuck in their head that the MPAA's movie rating system is an actual law... it's not. The way I understand it is that if a theater doesn't recognize the MPAA's rating system, the MPAA doesn't recognize the theater, and thus no movie. The ESRB rating system works off the same thing.

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[kace]

An old teacher of mine related in class once that back in the 50's -- or 60's or something like that -- when the movie rating system was new, some theaters would print in advertisements that: "This movie is rated 'R' for violence, so it's OK to bring the kids!"

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[Wescotte]

It's off topic but i ran across this today and found it too funny not to share. It's a old PSA about pornography that is pretty funny

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-171528494 7204132090

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[thesandtiger]

There's a difference between a violent video game and cigarettes/alcohol - tobacco and alcohol have been proven to have detrimental effects on a person's health, especially a growing person, while there is no such proven link between violent video games/movies/porn and poor behavior. Kids are also generally less capable than adults of making wise choices when it comes to that stuff, and are more susceptable to pressure in many cases - so keeping PROVEN harmful substances out of their hands makes sense.

As for the other materials:

Do I think children should be able to buy porn? Sure - why not? Kids are gonna get their hands on it anyway - whether from the net or other friends - and I think that it being freely available will make exploring sexuality less stimatizing. Keeping it locked away from curious eyes doesn't keep kids from finding it, doesn't keep them from having sex if they want, and seems to just be a pointless burden for retailers.

Violent movies and so on? Sure - again, why not? They're going to see them anyway. Parents CANNOT watch their kids 24/7 (and even if they could, that would be remarkably unhealthy). It's better that a kid have the kind of relationship with there parents where they can say "Hey, mom - I wanna see Hyper-violent Ninja Movie X" and the parent either goes with them, or is able to discuss it with them so they process it as needed.

Putting restrictions on things like this doesn't really help anyone, and seems to be a waste of resources.

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[ffejie]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-171528494 7204132090

I really recommend watching the above video. The parallels between the 60s PSA and today are absolutely striking. While today legislators will argue about how "the internet has changed the paradigm" and try to enforce blocking on the internet in libraries in and schools, the 60s PSA says that "never before in the history of man have the [pornographers] had access to Mass Transit, Rapid Printing Press, Mass Distribution." Very very intriguing. In 30 years is someone going to be going off on how holographic 3d smell-o-vision (?!) sensory porn has changed the paradigm again? If so, can I get some now? And, when (if) that stuff happens, does this post count as a patent? Or at least prior art?

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[Mr2001]

I guess the question I have is... why should games NOT have such similar measures (I'm in favor of NO limitations to who can buy actually) while porn and movies do? And if you believe that games should be freely buyable, would you consider allowing porn and any rated movie to also be freely buyable? What about cigerettes and alcohol?

I do think games should be freely buyable - or at least, maintain the system of voluntary ratings that we have now. Movie ratings are also voluntary, by the way; there's no law in the US that says a theater can't let children into Terminator 3 or The Passion of the Christ.

Porn? Yes, I think the restrictions on selling porn should also be voluntary. Remember, pornography has never been shown to have a harmful effect on minors, even though people who are opposed love to call it "harmful" or "dangerous" or "inappropriate". The laws against it are based on nothing but gut feelings. Also, laws or no laws, horny teenagers will get their hands on porn.

Cigarettes and alcohol? Well, the fact that those substances are addictive complicates it a little, but I still have to say yes. The variety of drinking ages around the world shows that there is no One True Age when you're suddenly Ready To Drink, and the system we have today is ridiculous: kids are expected not to drink until they turn 21, when suddenly the floodgates open and they're free to buy whatever they want, even though they don't know a thing about alcohol's effects or their own tolerance (assuming they haven't been drinking illegally all that time). Wouldn't it be nice if they could learn to drink responsibly?

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[BorgCopyeditor]

Do I think children should be able to buy porn? Sure - why not? Kids are gonna get their hands on it anyway - whether from the net or other friends - and I think that it being freely available will make exploring sexuality less stimatizing.

You seem to be assuming that porn teaches something about sex. I (sort of) agree, but what it's teaching is not very ... realistic, and what it's leaving out is important. If the goal is to make discovering sexuality less traumatizing, why not insist on good sex education? Keeping it locked away from curious eyes doesn't keep kids from finding it, doesn't keep them from having sex if they want, and seems to just be a pointless burden for retailers.

Sure, they'll almost certainly find it; but with good education (and maybe a more sexually healthy culture?), it would not be as compelling and I expect the demand might well fall. As for the last point, I could care less what is a burden for retailers who want to sell porn to minors. Seriously, have you been in some of these shops? I don't plan to have kids, but I wouldn't send them into one.

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[TheoMurpse]

NC-17 movies exist, as do R movies (which require a parent).

I will dispute this, inasmuch as movie ratings are more contractual. The chain is basically:
The MPAA has de facto control over most movie theatres in the US (Cinemark, etc.) through contracts (i.e. a movie theatre which shows first-run MPAA films may not show non-MPAA-certified films, or something to that effect). Thus, films must (if they want strong revenues) pretty much have to get MPAA certification (including receiving a rating) to appear in most movie theatres in the US. Additionally, movie theatres showing these films are contractually obligated, for the most part, to enforce the film ratings by MPAA requirements. There is no legality involved (pornography is a different story, of course). Thus, when you were carded by a theatre before seeing an R-rated film, it was purely based on contracts and societal pressures, not by any legal requirement to do so.

What about cigerettes and alcohol?

These have age requirements because it is almost incontrovertible that these substances have either a deleterious effect on one's health or influence minors negatively (and minors in particular have less maturity to deal with these effects, or make the decisions themselves).

I don't have a great argument about pornography restrictions aside from the fact that the US is a particularly prudish country in regards to sex and nudity.

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[Mr. Flibble]

Ok so in the United States, porn is basically not legal to buy by a minor. The store can't sell it to you, and you can't rent it.

And hell, NC-17 movies exist, as do R movies (which require a parent).

So why do games not have similar levels of preventative measures?


A better question to ask might be, why is PORN not legal for minors to buy? After all, I am willing to bet most people here have had sex more than they have gone on shooting rampages (Ok, well this *IS* slashdot... but I digress). Yet, it is ok to show violence on TV, it is OK to show Violence in the news and Movies - But Games? They get people killed! And don't even start about hot coffee mods...

The fact that porn is not legal for minors to buy is stupid - as sexual education is a good thing, ignorance, is a bad thing. The irony is that the internet will have certanly changed that. After all, porn may still be illegal for minors to purchase, but it is free on the internet.

Personally, I would love to see government get the hell out of my way and allow me to make my own choices, which is funny, because I technically live in a less free society than the U.S. I live in Canada, but we can have boobies and swearing on tv... So, the question is, is there a nanny state? Why is it up to the state to decide what we consider our rights?

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[Kwesadilo]

And hell, NC-17 movies exist, as do R movies (which require a parent).

These ratings are part of a voluntary rating system, administered by the MPAA. There is no law that a minor cannot get into an R-rated movie by himself or herself. The reason that they can't get in/make a purchase is that suppliers voluntarily comply with the rating system. There is probably some pressure/incentive from the MPAA motivating them to do this, but it is not required by law, and there are some suppliers that do not enforce it.

So why do games not have similar levels of preventative measures?

They do. The ESRB administers a similar voluntary rating system. Not all suppliers adhere to it.

What about cigerettes and alcohol?

Cigarettes and alcohol are restricted by law because there is a demonstratable danger from consuming them. Some people would say that movies, games, or porn also have demonstratable danger, and they may be right to some extent. But cigarettes and alcohol are much more dangerous and it is much more demonstratable.

It seems that we keep on having specific rules/laws per each individual "substance", and many are inconsistent with each other in terms of necessity.

Preach on, brother! The drug laws are crazy like that.

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"And if you believe that games should be freely buyable, would you consider allowing porn and any rated movie to also be freely buyable? What about cigerettes and alcohol?"

Porn? Welp, I haven't been faced with this decision, so I can only theorize. When I was high school, I knew several girls that ended up pregnant. I know NOBODY that went on a murdering spree. For that reason, I'd be far more concerned about porn than I would be about video games. Whether or not that translates into allowing or disallowing porn, well I'd rather answer that when I'm actually faced with the decision. I personally do not see the silliness in being more concerned about sex-related media than violenct video games. Teenagers, by nature, want to have sex. A lot of teenagers cannot bear the responsibility if they screw it up. I imagine it's hard for a parent to know when the right time is to have that talk. Bombardment of sex related topics on a youngin can really mess up that schedule. Whether it is damaging or not, well it's hard to say. If you ask me, that's a case by case thing. But I can certainly understand it driving parents to become uncomfortable.

Alcohol? Cigarettes? Both are addictive and dangerous. I'm not sure I need to go into too much detail, here. Alcohol, in particular, can lead to some very disturbing late-night calls. I have a friend who, while drunk, jumped out of a moving car. Spent a good chunk of his senior year nursing a bad case of road rash. I'd rather not imagine what his father went through during that little episode. Fortunately, it ended up ok. I bet he's still thankful for that.

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[ultranova]

Ok so in the United States, porn is basically not legal to buy by a minor. The store can't sell it to you, and you can't rent it.

What kind of idiot would buy porn anyway when you can download it from the Net for free ? Completely legally too, I might add; the Internet is full of free (ad-funded) porn sites, and the newsgroups are full of it too. A Google picture search for $FETISH is likely to get you more that you'll need in your lifetime...

So how comes that the porn mags are still in business ? Is this an argument against the copyright - after all, the producers stay in business despite the free-for-all ?

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[keyne9]

Obscenity limitations are currently limited to sexual content in nature. Violence is perfectly acceptable. As for the ratings and being "basically illegal", that system is voluntarily enforced (like the ESRB ratings), excepting pornographic material as noted prior.

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[Jimmy King]

Ok so in the United States, porn is basically not legal to buy by a minor. The store can't sell it to you, and you can't rent it.

And hell, NC-17 movies exist, as do R movies (which require a parent).

So why do games not have similar levels of preventative measures?

I guess the question I have is... why should games NOT have such similar measures (I'm in favor of NO limitations to who can buy actually) while porn and movies do? And if you believe that games should be freely buyable, would you consider allowing porn and any rated movie to also be freely buyable? What about cigerettes and alcohol?

It seems that we keep on having specific rules/laws per each individual "substance", and many are inconsistent with each other in terms of necessity.

A pornographic game, I do believe, still falls under the same legislation as any other porn. I could be wrong on that, though as I haven't checked.

As to R (and I believe NC-17) movies? Those aren't restricted by law. A movie theater is legally allowed to let you into any movie they want, same goes for wal-mart selling them to you. They check ID's because they have chosen to at both movie theaters and stores. I imagine a movie theater might get into trouble with the MPAA if they were found to be letting underaged kids into R (without an adult) and NC-17 movies, but they won't with the law.

Read about the MPAA movie rating system here

The only difference between this and video games is that movies have an industry regulated outlet, the theaters, whereas games don't. Once you go to retail stores, games and movies are sold/not sold to minors pretty evenly in my experience.

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[thesandtiger]

I definitely agree with you that porn is not a "complete" picture of sexuality by any stretch. There are many vectors to approach sex ed. from. I was just addressing this one specific aspect since the question was "Would I let kids buy porn, and if so, why?"

About the burden on retailers:

Why should a retailer have to shoulder the burden because some people don't want their kids exposed to porn? Should a convenience store be required to call a kid's parents and ask if it's okay for Little Johnny to buy a chocolate bar if the parents might not want the kid eating candy? Should McDonald's demand proof that a kid isn't being raised vegan before serving up a (barf!) McRib?

One might say that those things are different than porn, and one would be right: it has been *proven* that unhealthy eating habits can cause harm to kids, while there is no such proof that viewing pornography has any negative effect what-so-ever.

So, if the goal is "make kids feel that sex is something dirty and naughty" then restricting the stuff like it's radioactive makes sense. But if the goal is "protecting kids from things that are harmful" then it makes no sense at all - in fact might be a negative to that goal - and efforts should be focused on things that have been proven to actually hurt kids, no?

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So why do games not have similar levels of preventative measures?

In the US, games, movies, and magazines all are treated the same way. The industry rates itself and retailers usually voluntarily place restrictions based upon those ratings. Pornography laws apply equally to all these mediums.

And if you believe that games should be freely buyable, would you consider allowing porn and any rated movie to also be freely buyable?

The same laws apply now. There is no law stopping a ten year old from going to the store and buying a horribly violent, rated-r movie and the government is specifically forbidden from restricting this. If the industry itself or retailers want to restrict it (as they do) well good for them.

What about cigerettes and alcohol?

Cigarettes and alcohol are scientifically proven to cause damage to the health and development of minors. They are not a free speech issue. Thus, the government restricts them legally until a person is deemed able to make decisions for themselves. The scientific community has not yet shown that violence or pornography is "damaging" to children and certainly not to their physical health.

It seems that we keep on having specific rules/laws per each individual "substance"

We have one set of laws for free speech and expression which the government is forbidden from interfering with. We have one set of laws for substances. You are misinformed.

The real issue is much simpler than everyone here is used to. It is the same issue parents in the US face when they run into japanese animation. Parents assume all games and animated video is appropriate for young children because all the games and animated video they saw when they were younger was aimed at children. Their parents did not let them play "leisure suit larry" if their parents knew what it was and they didn't let them watch dirty, porno cartoons everyone laughed at, at grandpa's masonic temple. When parents realize they are wrong, or they may have made a mistake in this assumption they do the currently American thing and try to figure out how it can be someone else's fault and responsibility. What, not all games are little pixelated blobs anymore, well why didn't someone else step in and make sure my kids aren't doing anything I don't want them to? What that cartoon is full of tentacle porn rape? I didn't know that, even though it is unrated or rated-x I just assumed it did not. Why didn't the government tell me this rated-x movie might not be appropriate for my kids?

Parents need to grow up and take responsibility for raising their own kids. The industry is already voluntarily rating these games as possibly inappropriate and almost every store will refuse to sell them to minors without a parent's approval. Parents who did not pay attention and other people who want to make decisions on behalf of people who are parents don't care. Half are looking for a way to shift blame for their inattention and stupidity on someone else. The other half just want to make sure parents who do decide a violent game is appropriate for their kid are somehow prevented from making that decision by force of law. It makes me sad to see what the US has come to.

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[Johnny5000]

Porn? Welp, I haven't been faced with this decision, so I can only theorize. When I was high school, I knew several girls that ended up pregnant.

Maybe if they spent more time watching porn and less time actually having sex, they wouldn't have gotten pregnant.

Or (I don't know if this was a problem in your school, but it certainly is in some schools) if they got decent sex-ed including the importance of contraception, they wouldn't have gotten pregnant.

Re:Porn vs. Violence

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The fact that porn is not legal for minors to buy is stupid - as sexual education is a good thing, ignorance, is a bad thing.

I agree that the government has no place in restricting pornography. They certainly have no place writing laws with such dubious and interpretable clauses as current US pornography laws that judge whether something is restricted based upon the public opinion of some undefined "community" which has even less meaning on the internet.

That said, I think it is a fallacy to equate pornography with sex education. Most pornography is sex education in the same way that "Rambo" is survival and firearm safety training. In some European countries where pornography is commonly available, real educators are having to deal with the results of this. Boys have to have it explained to them that they aren't incredibly small and they are not physically damaged if they can't last for 3 hours straight. Women have to have it explained to them that a lot of women actually don't like anal sex or find it enjoyable and that they don't have to pretend to in order to seem normal. Also, that most women don't have a dozen orgasms.

I just thought it was important to clear up that point.

god forbid

[nofadz]

Bullies in schools? I've never heard of such a thing.

The last time I checked...

[Rachel Lucid]

My Mom got carded for buying me BLACK & WHITE! ... so I don't see where you're under the impression that there's a problem here.

Re:The last time I checked...

[kjart]

I can think of a number of places where Black and White might be considered the most obscene game ever. Heck, the game lets you pretend to be god - what's shooting someone in the head compared to that?

Re:The last time I checked...

[Dachannien]

Your creature can also poop all over buildings and people, ripping massive farts the whole time. If that's not obscene, I don't know what is.

Re:The last time I checked...

[Anonymous Coward]

People have been pretending to be gods since the invention of drama. Still I see noone calling the old greek tragedies obscene because of that.

Re:The last time I checked...

[ultranova]

I can think of a number of places where Black and White might be considered the most obscene game ever. Heck, the game lets you pretend to be god - what's shooting someone in the head compared to that?

Actually, no it doesn't. For that experience, I'd recommend SimLife.

You can't make a (good) game about godhood, for the same reason why you can't make a good game about sex: trying to apply rules and goals to either divinity or sex completely misses the point and turns the subject into a parody of itself.

Just look at all the "dating sim" games or the "Prince of Lies" AD&D book. The whole book's basically a farce, despite being apparently intended to be a "serious" adventure. Or read the "War of Souls" trilogy, and compare the limited gods there to the earlier versions (Dragonlance Legends and Chronicles).

Simlife works because it is a program toy with no limits whatsoever placed on the player; Black & White has a disembodied hand that can pick up stuff, and even that only inside a certain area. Oh, and a bunch of whiners who complain that they have no wood while camping in the middle of a forest. Then again, that last point is propably closer to the authentic experience of godhood than I care to admit, judging by my own past conduct...

a true Rockstar game would involve...

[Anonymous Coward]

fighting bullies with chainsaw, running over evil teachers with stolen vehicle, etc etc...

The graphics suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this 1999? Those graphics suck!

Re:The graphics suck

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bite.

The PS2 was released in 2000. The graphics in the trailer may not be the best, but the level of detail is quite good, actually. Watch the trailer again and pay attention to the lip synching.

Re:The graphics suck

[fabs64]

ugh, just to counter, the PS2 is capable of MUCH better graphics than THAT. This is simply rockstar re-using that horrid gta3 engine again.

Re:The graphics suck

[slim]

the PS2 is capable of MUCH better graphics than THAT. This is simply rockstar re-using that horrid gta3 engine again.

While the PS2 /is/ capable of producing prettier moving pictures, it's all about compromise. If you restrict yourself to a small environment, you can have more detail and use more fancy graphics techniques.

The GTA3 engine sacrifices detail in order that it can stream massive environments from DVD with no negligible pauses for loading.

Personally I think the artists have made good use of the engine, working within its restrictions to give the games a distinctive and attractive look. What I saw of Vice City was quite ugly, mind you.

Re:The graphics suck

[Dr. Max E. Ville]

yo momma is horrid! Graphics always took a bullet for the sake of gameplay in GTA series, but they all looked at very least decent.

Well I heard...

[vloktboky]

Word on the street says former President Theodore Roosevelt strongly recommends this game! I'm not at liberty to disclose my sources. Sorry!

Re:Well I heard...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funniest. Post. Ever!

Bully for you!

Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Their target demographic is nerds, so why do they create a game about our oldest enemy?

Mod parent up. please. He didn't know better, and still, I applaud his immediate courage to stand up and defend our ranks.

In the meantime, I can answer your question: because they're working on a crossover sequel, Bully 2/Postal 3: Siege over Columbine.

Uh... right

Anyway, from the website's overview:

"The Rockstar tradition of groundbreaking, original gameplay and humorous tongue-in-cheek storytelling invades an entirely new setting: the schoolyard.

As a mischievous schoolboy, you'll stand up to bullies, get picked on by teachers, play pranks, win or lose the girl, and ultimately learn to navigate the obstacles of the worst school around, Bullworth Academy - a corrupt and crumbling prep school with an uptight facade.

The story follows Jimmy Hopkins, a teenager who's been expelled from every school he's ever attended. Left to fend for himself after his mother abandons him at Bullworth to go on her fifth honeymoon, Jimmy has a whole year at Bullworth ahead of him, working his way up the social ladder of this demented institution of supposed learning, standing up for what he thinks is right and taking on the liars, cheats and snobs who are the most popular members of the student body and faculty. If Jimmy can survive the school year and outsmart his rivals, he could rule the school.

Ready yourself for a hilarious return to campus living with Bully, the outrageously funny debut title from Rockstar Vancouver, available exclusively for PlayStation®2 computer entertainment system this October."

This actually looks like a fun game. I'd play it.

Mr. Trolley,
Trolls, Inc

Re:Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's the James Dean everyone wanted to be in a updated form.

Re:Mod parent up!

[packeteer]

Add George W. Bush to that list. GWB was born in Connecticut and his family is from Maine. His family has lived in Maine for over 100 years. In fact George Bush Sr. still has a summer home half a mile away from the church his parents were married at.

Basically the bush family is and old money family from new england just like many of the other powerful people in politics.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bush family moved to Texas when GWB was two. That's little enough time in New England for me to count him as a Texan, regardless of where he was born.

The Bush family may be old money from New England, but GWB grew up in Texas. Which is probably why GWB doesn't talk quite as much like a pompous windbag as his father did.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the problem, we'd rather have a pompous windbag who at least pretends to take his office seriously than an intellectually diminished leprotic terd.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Fahrenheit 450]

The Bush family may be old money from New England, but GWB grew up in Texas."

Except for the fact that he went to prep school in Massachusetts, and college in Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what you're saying is that growing up in New England makes you unfit to be a leader, and generally incompetant? I think we may have something we agree on!

Re:Mod parent up!

[packeteer]

All im trying to say is that he is not much of a taxan. He is the same as any other politician for good or bad. People need to stop voting for him becuase "hes an everyday guy". He absolutly is not an everyday guy. As someone said above. He was born in New England, spent some of his childhood in texas and spent the rest in New England again.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except coming from Taxachusetts would make him a Taxan, wouldn't it?

(But still, you seem to agree with the base point that people in New England are completely out of touch with the rest of the world, as evidenced by people like Howard Dean and Richard Stallman.)

Re:Mod parent up!

[packeteer]

Your arguement is a textbook example of a fallacy of logic.

on a side note...

[Travoltus]

The lesson one should learn from the Bible is... have daughters, not sons.

Daughters never paid the price of their parents' misdeeds...

Re:on a side note...

[wobblie]

Daughters never paid the price of their parents' misdeeds...

Well, if you think that being mere chattel has no price, yes. It could only occur to a male to say something like this :).

1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Un-Thesis]

I am a 5' 4" male nerd who wears corrective lenses. I was habitually psychophysically tortured by bullies throughout my life; today women shun me because I am still to this day psychologically scarred by their antics in my youth (although I'm getting better).

I used to be ridiculed, beat up, harrassed, and generally driven to depression *daily* by a *wide*range* of youth at my school; not just traditional bullies. Columbine happened when I was a Junior (or virtually finished with my primary education).

All of a sudden, my harrassment stopped! Literally that very same day! I was called into the Principle's office a full three times. The reason? I met a lot of the characteristics of the massacrists; sans a close friend (at that time I had none). All of a sudden, people would actually come up to me and spontaneously *apologize* for how they treated me; even 8 years later people are still *apologizing* to me as I sporadically meet them in town :O

I used to go to the Principle's office to report being punched in the face, jumped in the parking lot or being spat on by groups of girls (seriously :(, just to be told to "fight back" or "suck it up" or something. Now, my 15 yr-old nephew got guys *expelled* or transferred to other schools merely because they made fun of him and the school now has a zero harrassment policy!

After nearly 2 decades of near persistent parent-teacher meetings, moving to different schools, etc, to try to assuage the torture my peers inflicted upon the obvious physical grunt of the pack (but i have an IQ of 150), schools are finally taking things seriously.

So excuse me if it took a horrible massacre to make ordinary people realize how horribly detrimental their actions are. God turning something bad good, I guess. I will always remember the day of Columbine as the day my life started becoming enjoyable for the first time ever.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

I would have guessed that someone with an IQ of 150 would know the difference between grunt and runt.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[MayorDefacto]

If that was a troll, then sir, I salute you.
If it was legit, then you have my deepest sympathies.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[DesireCampbell]

corrective lenses

What? Oh, man. Even *I* would beat you up for that.

psychophysically tortured

Oh man. "Psychophysically"? They were physically torturing you with their minds? They were *teasing you*. Grow a fuckin' spine.

All of a sudden, my harassment stopped! Literally that very same day! I was called into the Principle's office a full three times. The reason? I met a lot of the characteristics of the massacrists; sans a close friend (at that time I had none). All of a sudden, people would actually come up to me and spontaneously *apologize* for how they treated me; even 8 years later people are still *apologizing* to me as I sporadically meet them in town :O

Yeah, your school's full of pussies. They see a couple of psychos go ape-shit and they're scared it'll happen there too.

I used to go to the Principle's office to report being punched in the face, jumped in the parking lot or being spat on by groups of girls (seriously :(, just to be told to "fight back" or "suck it up" or something.

Didn't *I* just tell you to do that?

Now, my 15 yr-old nephew got guys *expelled* or transferred to other schools merely because they made fun of him and the school now has a zero harassment policy!

I really hope you're not happy about that...

After nearly 2 decades of near persistent parent-teacher meetings, moving to different schools, etc, to try to assuage the torture my peers inflicted upon the obvious physical grunt of the pack (but i have an IQ of 150), schools are finally taking things seriously

Oh, you ARE happy about it. Great. Do you know how bad a 'zero tolerance policy' is? These are children. Children. They don't have adult brains, they can't be held to adult consequences.

Kids fight with each other - it's normal. Parents (and in their absence: teachers, sport coaches, and other guardians) should be teaching their children that violence is wrong - but straying from that ideal is something an adolescent brain will do. Thus we do not punish children to the same extent we would punish adults. Kicking a kid out of school just because he said he'd beat up some other kid is absurd.

These policies are put in place, not to help kids, but to protect them. There's a difference there. You should be teaching kids not to fight with each other at all - not restraining all aggression to non-supervised areas. Teachers should be acting as 'teachers', not 'police'.

Truly, children need guidance, not punishment. I repeat: children need guidance, not punishment.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[tsa]

Well I'm sorry to tell you that most children above the age of four years know the difference between good and bad, and know that harassing other children by kicking them, spitting on them or whatever is very wrong and intolerable. When they do it anyway they NEED punishment to show them that they are being watched and people care about what they do.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Stween]

Flamebait? Sigh.

This is one of the most insightful posts I've ever read on Slashdot.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[DesireCampbell]

See, that's the problem - children don't understand anything fully. This is key now: they are not fully developed. Their brains cannot process high level abstract though. I'm not saying children shouldn't be reprimanded when they do something wrong - I'm saying that a zero-tolerance policy on ANYTHING is stupid, and will only harm more than it helps.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[tsa]

OK, I think we understand each other. Thanks for the comment. I agree with you.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Shaper_pmp]

Wow. You have my sympathy.

Kind of reminds me of the onion article... ;-)

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Alaria Phrozen]

When I first found out about Columbine.. my first thought was: I wonder how those poor kids were treated to drive them to such ends.

Sure, with all the recent media releases with how darkly into hatred the Columbine kids were, perhaps there should be no sympathy for them. But I've always wondered... did they choose their victims, or was it really just random shooting with all that planning behind it? If the victims were chosen, for what reasons ... how were they treated?

I remember very clearly in seventh grade, many years ago, a fellow student was picked on mercilessly everyday until he would cry and have a total fit. Every single day. The bullies were very, very good at doing it covertly. The victims fits were off course a total fight/flight reaction, and I'm sure it could have even been seen as comical-hence why they did it. This kid was usually the one who got in trouble too, as teachers would ignore the smalltalk from the bullies and would only notice when he would burst into tears or slap/punch somebody. He was an incredibly nice kid and of course smart.

What is popular is not always right. What is right is not always popular.

It makes me want to do something about it now. Seventh graders suck at communicating their feelings. It really would have been nice if they gave us surveys so we could express in a directed manner how we and our peers were being treated. Of course there would be jokesters, but I'm sure it is possible to build control mechanisms within surveys?

I know this is impractical but... there has to be something.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[EvilIdler]

Yay for massacres! I'm also expecting there to be positive effects of Bully. OR at least lots of entertaining
statements from American know-it-alls.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Eivind Eklund]

I take it you have never been at the receiving end of harrassment, nor have you tried to help the people that have. Kids naturally do this - or, in other words, people are naturally cruel. They need socializing to learn how to function. Punishing those that bully (following their natural instincts) is one of the few tools we have to change this. (Threats, in the form of bullied kids killing their tormentors, is another.)

Of course, you may choose to personally shoot the bullied instead. That's kinder than leaving the situation "natural" (which it isn't - our society is very far from natural.)

Eivind.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Eivind Eklund]

You're saying women still shun you; if you want me to give you pointers towards how to deal with that (learn how to get women), just follow up here. There's a bunch of material out there, and some of it works well.

Eivind.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[carpe_noctem]

...to try to assuage the torture my peers inflicted upon the obvious physical grunt of the pack (but i have an IQ of 150)

Sheesh, and you wonder why you got beat up so much in school. I knew plenty of ugly, short, and smart kids that did just fine in high school by being pleasant to be around instead of always trying to assert their intelligence over other people.

Remind me to give you a virtual wedgie when this game comes out.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

I was coming to comment on that too, I say we form a virtual mob to virtually beat him every day.
Joking, but I was still wondering why he felt he needed to mention his IQ in that sentence.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Antique Geekmeister]

Better yet, why not just post the names, addresses, phone numbers, and personal information of all these women on Slashdot? That'll show them how wonderful you are to hang around. (And it'll give those of us who bathe and brush our teeth a chance to meet them: it's a win-win situation!)

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Lord Faust]

Damn, I guess I had it easy... I dealt with all of that stuff until I grew 9 inches insanely fast, and became well versed in the subtle arts of "smashing the motherfuckers in the face". Sorry to hear not everyone's got a happy ending like me. :(

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[a_nonamiss]

Wow.... One Slashdot nerd giving another Slashdot nerd advice about women. What's the world coming to? I'd better finish digging that bunker in my basement...

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[twistedsymphony]

You just have to level the playing field. I was picked on quite a bit for being a nerd when I was young. Picked last in gym class, called names, had people steal my books, notes, backpack, etc run down the hall and throw them the nasty cafeteria garbage. Interesting enough it was a New England Prep School.

One day my father suggested I start going to the gym with him to work out, it was a powerlifters gym, if you wanted aerobics you ran outside, everything inside was freeweights. I started lifting and advanced FAST, applying my studying habbits to learn proper techniques and eating habbits. I gained about 40lb of muscle over the course of my sophomore year. I had to get a new custom made school uniform because my sholders were so wide.

I was still a nerd, I still played card games with the other 2 or 3 nerdy kids in the cafe during our study halls, I was still a member of the chess club and the math team but after school I would go and lift weights. I even entered a few powerlifting competitions and took 1st place a couple of times. It really turned my life at school around. My junior year I remember early on one of the football players started picking on me and my friends so I stood up and he got in my face... soon realizing that while shorter I was much wider in the shoulders then he was. I told him I'd arm wrestle him and if I won he would have to appologize to my friends and leave us alone for the rest of the year. I put him down so fast he brused his knuckles when they hit the table. Needless to say none of us ever had any problems with the bullies in the school ever again. Despite the fact that I still enojyed doing all of my nerdy things I had earned a lot of respect from a whole lot of the people who used to pick on me.

Nerds are smart enough, get them on a training program, martial arts, weight lifting etc. Bullies pick on your weak spots and typically the week spot of a nerd is their lack of physical prowess... you fix that and the bullies will pick on someone else... or find something better to do.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[slim]

Wow.... One Slashdot nerd giving another Slashdot nerd advice about women. What's the world coming to? I'd better finish digging that bunker in my basement...

You won't be needing a bunker. It's a sign that the Rapture is nigh.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[fudgefactor7]

Dude, I feel your pain. I really do. I was picked on in school as well--and I'm shorter than you, so there you go. What did I learn? Simple. To get bullies to stop you have to--now pay close attention--KICK THEIR ASS! One kid in school dumped ketchup on me at lunch--he thought that was pretty freaking funny...until I choked him and threw him across the lunchroom. Another kid got bodyslammed by me for being a general dick to anyone smaller than him (and I, naturally, fit the bill.) (Fat kids who bully are easy targets for bodyslamming, they don't tend to be nimble enough to get out of the way of a fast moving short person.) In essence, if somone bullys you, beat the crap out of them at that very moment they start. Don't kill them, just beat them down and let them know that the next time it happens you won't be so lenient. Bullies fear being bullied themselves, and they also understand the concept of "respect."
 
When I have kids, I'm enrolling them in a martial arts class at the earliest opportunity, and I'm going to tell them straight up--and I'll let the school know too--that my kid *will* defend themself and it won't be pretty. And what do I do if my kid is doing the bullying? Same thing--beat him like a redheaded stepchild. I didn't break the cycle to have it started by us.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[steveo777]

I was there with you, man. Got in daily fights up until high school. The reigns were a little tighter there and there was ALWAYS someone watching, but I still remember people trying to start stuff with me. Didn't have many friends, just sat in my black hole until my sophomore year. Would I have done something crazy like those two? Yeah, I was well on my way down that path. I played video games to pass the time, was overweight (not anymore), and so shelled up by ridicule, I could have easiy snapped... but, never being presented with the opportunity or the means, it never occured to me.

In all honesty, I was saved at the end of my sophomore year and it made every bit of difference. Things weren't just all of a sudden better. It took years, but the change started. The harassment never ended. I graduated in 99, so I didn't have to deal with the post-columbine changes that were happening in my school. I feel for you and everyone who can tell a story like this with all of my heart. And I'm glad that some good can come from these tragedies.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Das Modell]

Or, you can just go batshit insane and start gouging their eyes and biting their throat. That should send a strong message.

But seriously, physical force of some sort is the best response to bullying. If you're not strong then you'll just have to be ruthless.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[funfail]

Welcome to Slashdot, Andrew Wiggins.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Das Modell]

Let's try that in a different way:

Sheesh, and you wonder why you got raped so much in school. I knew plenty of ugly, short, and smart girls that did just fine in high school by wearing a burqa, instead of always wearing a miniskirt and talking to boys.

It's always the victim's fault! I was bullied in high school by people I never had any contact with, and they were from a different class. I never did anything to give them any cause to bully me. They just do it because they like it, and they'll choose anyone who seems defenceless. It's as simple as that. They're no different from other types of criminals.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Das Modell]

This is one of the most insightful posts I've ever read on Slashdot.

You're a fucking idiot. Go hang yourself.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[ArmyOfFun]

But I've always wondered... did they choose their victims, or was it really just random shooting with all that planning behind it?

It was a massacre, pure and simple. Some of the victims were jocks and may have picked on the two. There were others however that were just as nerdy and unpopular as Harris and Klebold.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[argStyopa]

Interesting, but more interesting the number of people that can't seem to get past it.

People have been 'psychophysically tortured' for, well, ever. That doesn't excuse it, and doesn't mean that it shouldn't be dealt with aggressively where possible. But it's like complaining about the rain or gravity. It seems to me an almost-essential characteristic of the early socialization of the human animal: very basic concepts of dominance, social order, and the coping of the various individuals to their places therein. Social ontogeny recapitulating social phylogeny?

I too (this is an empty truism, just about EVERYONE can say it) was a victim of such abuse. From beatings, to humiliation, to psychological 'abuse' throughout my elementary and junior high school years, including yes, frequent principal visits and school changes.

But you know what?

I'm *convinced* that a great deal of it has to do with a 'victim' mentality. Around 10th grade: 5th school in 5 years, I determined that I was NOT going to meekly take it anymore, regardless of the consequences (to my physical well-being, to my performance in school, etc). And the abuse stopped. And before you say it: there's a GIGANTIC step from 'resolving to no longer be a victim' to 'cheerfully murdering fellow students'.

Part of the socialization process is understanding and learning social norms. It's *just* possible that you're not being picked on because you're "too smart" (a frequent excuse...if you're that smart, why haven't you figured out how to avoid the abuse?). Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes you're being picked on simply becase you're a wierdo and adolescents haven't always learned that we tolerate benign wierdos - like chimps or apes, they act to drive oddballs from the group. I don't condone that, but again, it's a fact.

I recommend instead that you carefully consider how much your 'individualism' is worth - at a certain point it's just narcissism anyway.

Too many people use this sort of life experience as a crutch to blame everything else on. Exaggerating the experience suggests to me that this is mentally where you're at - inflating and dwelling on it as an emotional airbag for all the shitty stuff life hands us. (You said it stopped when you were a Junior. Unless you repeated a lot of grades, you were what, 15? 16? Even assuming the 'torture' started day 1 of kindergarten, that's 10-11 years...not the "better part of 2 decades".) I'm not going to blame my lack of success with women on being bullied (is anyone as successful with them as they want to be?). I'm certainly not going to tell you my IQ as some sort of ego-assuaging self-justification for my misery.

You can blame bullies, you can blame your parents, you can blame society; whatever. YOU are the one that has to cope with your life for all 70-some years you get on this Earth, and no amount of chemical assistance or directed blame is going to change that YOU (alone) need to get along every damn day.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Guppy06]

"Don't kill them, just beat them down and let them know that the next time it happens you won't be so lenient."

Except when I was in high school, I wasn't confident I could follow the "don't kill them" rule. I dind't want to start anything because I was pissed off enough I was araid I wouldn't be able to stop.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[SatanicPuppy]

You laugh, but that will work. Fight quick, fight dirty, don't stay down until you can't get up. People stop picking on you pretty quick; it's just not worth it.

I took a lot of crap in school from various people, and I worked my way through it eventually, but it was hard as hell.

Columbine didn't horrify me. I could see it, you know? I had recourse when I was in school. I'm not a little guy, and physically I was in pretty good shape. I could fight back. But what about people who couldn't? What do you do with all that hate and rage?

A bunch of people at that school dumped a lot of crap on those guys, because they knew that there was nothing they could do about it. What were they going to do? Come in and gun down random classmates?

It's a good lesson. Everything we do has consequences. Make sure, when you shit on someone, that they have something to lose. Because, if they have nothing to lose, they may decide to take you down with 'em.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[kalirion]

And when your kid tries to jump the quarterback, will you post the video on youtube?

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[cduffy]

What is "tolerance", then?

If tolerance is letting behavior consistant with active and intentional harm to others go with nothing more than a reprimand, that's a Bad Thing. A reprimand, after all, is just a conveyance of the kind of abstract concept you're arguing that children aren't capable of handling.

If "zero tolerance" is use of disproportionate punishment against even a first offense, that's a bad thing as well -- but an argument against zero tolerance shouldn't also be an argument against real and substantive punishment (though without long-term consequences) even on a first offense, should the severity of the offense merit such.

So -- being expelled has long-term consequences. That's excessive for a first offense -- but entirely appropriate for a 3rd one. For a first offense of the severity being discussed, a week of study hall after school might be appropriate in addition to whatever punishment the childrens' parents may choose to levy.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Amouth]

i had the issue with bullies.. until i hit back.. i ran a kids face down a chain link fence.. cut him up really good.. (they called the EMS) no one pointed to me and he surly didn't want to say he got messed up buy the geek so i was off scott free.. and he/they never messed with me again..

if you never stand up for your self then you will get walked over.. that is how life is.. even if you remove the bully part once you get out in the real world if you can't stand up for your self.. you might as well give up.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[harryk]

You got screwed with as a Troll, personally I agree with both of you. I wasn't the geek, but I wasn't the bully either. I grew up in a fairly rough neighborhood, and we routinely settled our differences with our fists, or our skateboards against someone's head. In the end, I was recognized as just another kid. I don't recall having any kids in my schools (junior/senior) that were singled out. Maybe lucky.

I'll agree that sending a kid away for being a bully is not necessarily the right thing, but its not necessarily the wrong thing either. I do recall one kid in elementary school, a bigger kid, larger and meaner than any of us (in elementary what can you possibly be that pissed off about?!) and he would routinely and randomly beat up on just about any kid, I remember one day he was walking by and I was like 'Hey man, whatsup...' just an informal greeting, he punched me right in the face, and walked away... fucking bastard... he eventually got expelled... and wasn't welcome back... that fit.

On the other hand, this bullshit we have now with the Zero-Tolerance policy doesn't allow any room for growing, its a simple matter of their word against yours, and the school district (because they cannot afford not to) acts in their best interest, not in either of the kids interest. I can't necessarily blame the schools, frivouls (spelling is horrible, sorry) lawsuits drive costs fucking skyhigh, and it doesn't stop with schools. Remember watching the move "187" with Samuel Jackson as a teacher, and the punk ass kid says something about go ahead and do whatever, he'll just sue ... thats a great fucking lesson our kids have learned. A movie? Yes, it was... art isn't always fiction.

Anyway, enough rambling ... just didn't want your voice to go unheard, a troll modifier on your post is fucking bogus, and shows just how much of a panzy society we have become.

harryk

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Guppy06]

"It seems to me an almost-essential characteristic of the early socialization of the human animal: very basic concepts of dominance, social order, and the coping of the various individuals to their places therein. Social ontogeny recapitulating social phylogeny?"

But that doesn't make it right or, more importantly, just. In fact, it seems rather antethetical to the just society we're supposed to be creating; if kids aren't allowed to see what justice looks like, why would they pursue it as adults?

"I determined that I was NOT going to meekly take it anymore, regardless of the consequences (to my physical well-being, to my performance in school, etc). And the abuse stopped."

I take it this was before today's "zero tolerence" rules.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes you're being picked on simply becase you're a wierdo and adolescents haven't always learned that we tolerate benign wierdos - like chimps or apes, they act to drive oddballs from the group. I don't condone that, but again, it's a fact."

No, your "it's just a fact" stance passivley condones it. Regardless of whether or not you feel the victims should just suck it up and deal with it, unprovoked attacks should not be happening in schools my tax dollars pay for.

"I recommend instead that you carefully consider how much your 'individualism' is worth - at a certain point it's just narcissism anyway."

What's the point of a republican form of government if deviation from social norms cannot be tolerated? "All individuals have rights unless they look different?"

"Too many people use this sort of life experience as a crutch to blame everything else on."

"Too many?" Got numbers?

"I'm not going to blame my lack of success with women on being bullied (is anyone as successful with them as they want to be?)."

Perhaps, but does everybody who wishes more success with women have the trust issues that a bullying victim is left with? Do you yourself push women away the more they seem interested in you, while trying to figure out what her "real" motives are, what kind of trick she's planning?

"no amount of chemical assistance or directed blame is going to change that YOU (alone) need to get along every damn day."

I see contradictions. If being too much of an individual (your view) is what causes a person to be bullied to begin with, why is showing more of this hated individual initiative the solution? And then you you pay a lot of lip service to building social structures and "belonging," but what's the point of social structures if these problems must be solved by the individual?

Really, if anybody here is having trouble dealing with past bullying, it's you: you're trying to apply irrational standards in an effort to justify the injust. Stockholm Syndrome, anyone? After all, if everybody must be responsible for what happens in their own lives, why must the victim be responsible for the actions of their assailants?

I, too, often tell myself to "suck it up and deal with it," but the results of doing so is something I would not wish on another human being, and I'm not as prepared as you are to treat it as a "one size fits all" solution to individual victims of social ills. With your admonishments of "it can't be helped," it seems that you, and not the parent, are the one taking the defeatist, "I'm the victim" attitude.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[SatanicPuppy]

No doubt about it.

But why did they do it? It wasn't sociopathy...They were out for revenge, and by that point it didn't matter to them whose blood was spilled.

The whole idea isn't that uncommon. It's been books, it's been movies (The Basketball Diaries, Heathers). And it's not the books and movies that are causing it, it's the sheer misery of high school. I definitely fantasized about getting even when I was in high school. Heh. I was on the school rifle team for years, and I'd think to myself, after some asswipes had picked on me, "I could take their heads off from a quarter mile away, and no one would ever catch me."

It was a comforting daydream, a way to vent some of that hatred, instead of stewing in it. That's pretty much why I play GTA...When I feel the need to kill someone, I have a nice outlet. I'll almost certainly pick up Bully. Sounds like a game I would have LOVED back in High School.

I'm sure however, that someone who plays that game obsessively because of his real life situation, will decide to beat one of his tormenters to death with a baseball bat. Not because of the game, or even to make Jack Thompson blow a load in his pants, but just because, when things get bad enough, you can't take refuge in fantasy.

That's all these damn cross-correlational studies mean. Promiscuous people have more sexually suggestive music on their iPods. Angry people listen to angry music, and play violent games. Nerds and geeks read Slashdot. It's because we're that kind of person, that we do that kind of thing. How the hell do you think the person got the thing in the first place? Did someone secretly put sexually suggestive music into the iPod to turn the listener into a slut?

The lengths people will go to to put the blame on anything but people.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had a hard time at school as well.

Because I still in the area where I grew up I sometimes see the people who did things to me. None of them ever apologised. I understand they seem to think that it "wasn't that bad". To be clear: almost every day in school meant pain. Metal abuse and violence to no end.

Even when I addressed the problem directly - talking with the teachers - they never really paid the attention I needed when I needed it the most. They were probably thinking "grow up and be a man, take it and don't bother me" or something along those lines. At least that's what I remember by the looks on their faces.

Very early in school a teacher even participated to some degree in this desaster, and my parents wouldn't believe me, thinking I was making things up. I could never prove it happened. Somehow when you're known to be an easy target, no matter to what school you go, your reputation follows you. Only once for a few months I felt like I could take a fresh start. But with my luck some "old friends" made sure to educate everyone around about how easy it was to kick the sh*t out of me.

I got extremely bad grades as a result, and even though this all happened about 20 years ago I'm still a marked man in many ways. Just getting over this is just not possible for me.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. So beating up people is good, but being proud that you're smart is bad? Fuck you.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

heh, I didnt get tall, I just got smart and a bit tougher about it after the first few times it really came up (didnt get bullied much, not the right kinda school for it). There are no rules when you're in a fight, remember that the first time and there wont be a second. I was still 5 4, but I didnt get bullied in HS, and I was able to help those who did

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Lord Ender]

If you really have an IQ of 150, you should have been smart enough to figure out how to manipulate the dumb kids who picked on you.

It also strikes me as odd that a super-intelligent person would need to try to understand the world through a supernatural perspective.

I'm curious as to which test gave you that score and who administered it.

An intelligent person would think things like: "People pick on me when I dress like this. I don't want people to pick on me. Therefore, I will not dress like this."

Substitute "dress like this" for "act like that," "talk about that subject," etc. Now you know how to handle life with twits. Save your real personality for those who are not twits.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

Martial arts are no magic bullet, and they might actually be more likely to turn your kids into bullies themselves.
When I was in middle school, there was a kid who would continously harass me, mock me and try to sexually molest me (later it turned out that he was gay). He also took karate lessons, which made him all the more confident physically.
Eventually, I had enough of his bullshit and attacked him. He managed to kick me in the balls, but I kept going. I punched him in the face until it was as red as a tomato, then I let him scram and cry to the teachers. Yes, my testicles hurt once the adrenaline rush was over, but overall his karate crap didn't do him a whole lot of good.
Later in life we got along much better.

Anyway, if you have your kids learn martial arts and let them use it on other kids, there's a bigger chance that they might cause serious damage such as breaking an arm or a leg. Then you're going to be liable for it, and regardless, it's not worth breaking somebody's bones over such trifles.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Knuckles]

Kids naturally do this - or, in other words, people are naturally cruel

I wouldn't know, I don't know kids or adults in a "natural" state. I don't even know what this is supposed to mean - humans are cultural beings, and social behavior certainly is a cultural thing. You might want to say "kids that are brought up in the US* simply do this".

* Or "in western democracies", or whatever. Really, any qualifier will do.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

Children are unable to what? Clearly! I mean, its not like as a young child I didn't explain different levels of reading cognition to my father and other adults. Because, lacking a brain capable processing high level abstract thought that would have been impossible.

Idiots like you... never mind.

Children lack experience. That is it. If you want to talk infants then there is some development left, but a child of 8 is fully as "intelligent" (whatever that means) as an adult. I was reading "adult literature" (meaning, supposedly far behind the comprehension of a child) at a young age. Rereading some of it ("Sorcerer's Ship comes to mind) as an adult I see that some things went flying over my head (primarily dealing with sexuality and sexual innuendo) but I had no difficulty with abstract thought.

And let's not mention my brother who was reading (and understanding) college texts on calculus and nuclear physics while in grade school. No abstract thought processing there.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[NeutronCowboy]

Ah yes - the parenting through beatdowns method. May I suggest something? Attend a parenting class. Pronto. Or at least at any point before you have kids. I have heard (and seen) enough of the consequences of beatdowns to know that if you're very, very, very lucky, your kid will only have to go through a couple months of therapy to get over the psychological trauma inflicted by your beatdowns. If your luck is merely good, you'll be left either with a psychological midget or a sociopath.

This doesn't mean that you should never touch your kids. But your mention of beating your kid like a red-headed step-child brought up all kinds of warning flags and 2nd hand stories. To me, it's actually quite obvious you have not gotten over being bullied. I do think it's great that you managed to fight back (and that's true - bullies hate hard targets; they're lazy and cowardly), but beating your child as a general rule will perpetuate the cycle, not break it. I seriously do hope you look into parenting classes.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[argStyopa]

Thanks for your reply, it's thoughtful and well-argued.

"It seems to me an almost-essential characteristic of the early socialization of the human animal: very basic concepts of dominance, social order, and the coping of the various individuals to their places therein. Social ontogeny recapitulating social phylogeny?"
But that doesn't make it right or, more importantly, just. In fact, it seems rather antethetical to the just society we're supposed to be creating; if kids aren't allowed to see what justice looks like, why would they pursue it as adults?

I'd disagree with your basic premise. I believe we already live in an essentially just society. Bullies, when they're caught, are punished. I'm not in any way saying that we shouldn't. I'm pointing specifically to the difference between expectations and reality - some kids are BAD KIDS. Some people are just BAD PEOPLE. We cannot build a society based on the assumption that there is going to be a teacher/hall monitor/cop/surveillance camera on every corner at every minute of the day to witness and prosecute the perpetrator of your victimization. I think our dispute lies in the fact that I do not presume that there is a Nanny-State authority that is (or should be) hovering to protect us.
To use a perhaps flawed analogy: if "Bill" walks down a dark alley in a bad part of town with big bags of cash, and gets mugged - what then? I fully believe the criminals are the ones who committed the crime - robbing Bill. They should be severely punished. But it's naive to believe that Bill's choice had NO impact in the result, and that he (due to his victim hood) is somehow entirely absolved of the results of HIS choice. I expect you probably disagree.

"I determined that I was NOT going to meekly take it anymore, regardless of the consequences (to my physical well-being, to my performance in school, etc). And the abuse stopped."
I take it this was before today's "zero tolerence" rules.

It didn't mean anything that would have anything to do with today's rules. It had everything to do with internal fortitude (born frankly of despair) reflected in external attitude. When walking down the hall of my newest school, when two male students walking down the hall gave me the intimidating eye contact, I didn't look away (as I would have before). When they deliberately walked into my path, I didn't veer but looking them straight in the eye, bulled between them. When another time another bully threatened to 'beat me up' afterschool, I showed up. When I saw that he had an angle iron in his hand, I didn't give him an excuse to use it, but showed (I believe) absolutely no fear despite gut-watering terror inside.
I can only use my experience as a lesson; when I refused to allow myself to be emotionally and psychologically dominated - and was TRULY ready to accept the physical consequences, the bullying ceased.
Again, that's MY experience. (Interestingly, in re-reading my preview, it occurred to me that this was not terribly long after I'd seen the movie Ghandi in the theater. That last sentence I can practically hear Ben Kingsley saying it. There was certainly no conscious emulation going on - in fact, I dismiss non-violence as extremely limited as a tactic in real-world issues. Perhaps I've learned something....a little personal revelation.)

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes you're being picked on simply becase you're a wierdo and adolescents haven't always learned that we tolerate benign wierdos - like chimps or apes, they act to drive oddballs from the group. I don't condone that, but again, it's a fact."
No, your "it's just a fact" stance passivley condones it. Regardless of whether or not you feel the victims should just suck it up and deal with it, unprovoked attacks should not be happening in schools my tax dollars pay for.

Personally, I'd rather the schools my tax dollars pay for use the money to educate kids. Too much time is wasted on analyzing thuggery, mainly IMO because the s

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

Pussy.

It's because of people like you that the liberal left in this country have destroyed the nature of "masculinity".

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Rowanyote]

I was that kid, or at least one of them. A little nerdy kid in glasses who didn't know enough not to show he was smart.

Every day of grade school I would get tormented until I would break down crying and I had nothing that I could do (I tried fighting back once or twice but it just made things worse). The abuse and the complete powerlessness to do anything about it (no adults would help either) led my to a pretty severe mental breakdown in 4rth grade (crying for half a day stuffed back in a corner between an immovably large map cabinet and the wall with teachers trying to coax me out). So I got put in a different school, but then when I got to middle school where both grade schools fed to, I found all the old tormenters who remebered me and started up again.

I found a way out, I just stopped caring. For the most part I stopped talking to people and retreated into books and video games. This socially crippled me and pretty much destroyed my life until I started rebuilding it in college. (Yes, I learned how to socialize from the role playing gamers, sad but true).

I think the only thing that saved me from being one of the rash of school shooters is that I had never heard of it. This truly frightens me, that I can see a place in my early life where I would rather have some sort of revenge and die than go on living in torment. Watching the videos that the columbine shooters made, I can empathise with what they are feeling and why they are acting because I had been there too. (I certainly don't agree with their actions, or approve.)

I am glad that I was not 5 years younger. I am glad that I found another way out (even as crippling as it was) that wasn't suicide, alchohol, drugs, or revenge killing.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[vertinox]

Columbine didn't horrify me. I could see it, you know? I had recourse when I was in school.

The funny thing was I could relate to Columbine guys. I had thought of the same thing when I was a Freshman... Get a gun... Shoot people til they shot me because of all the stresss and teen angst I guess.

Of course I never carried through with other than sitting there fantasizing in my head. Heck... I never wrote it down or even got more serious than daydreaming in class how I would like to show them all.

When I saw Columbine several years after graduating, I thought to myself "Damn. Somone finally snapped and did it."

I didn't think it was the right thing to do, but I could empathize with where they were coming from. I'm sure everyone has thought about going postal sometime in their life, but most of us would never carry it out.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[ArmyOfFun]

But why did they do it?

That's the billion dollar question.

I think for most people, "negative" media can act as a healthy valve for daily stress or at least as a diversion from it. In most cases, individuals are the best judge of what a healthy amount of escape is for themselves.

I think where you start to see a problem is when someone immerses themselves in a particular culture and avoids or supresses contact with anything outside of that culture. So, the angry person immerses themselves in violent media, the promiscuous person in pornographic media. Their reference point will shift from a more balanced one, to the culture they're drawn to. Instead of viewing a violent rampage in GTA as a breather, they start to view violent acts as acceptable solutions to bouts of anger. Instead of watching some hardcore porn to get a little stimulation, promiscuous and frequent sex starts to be seen as an acceptable answer to sexual urges.

For most people, we have daily routines and support structures that would probably conflict with any extreme world view. The angry person encounters situations in which violence would only make a problem worse. The promiscuous person encounters situations where sexual displays are prohibited or will lower their social standing. Young people in particular should have a family support structure which reinforces what is acceptable behavior and what is dangerous or unaccpetable behavior.

For people like Harris and Klebold, their support structure was not enough to pull them out of the culture they immersed themselves in. If they witnessed or were victims of violence in school most days, and then went home where their parents permitted them to consume an unlimited amount of violent content. Then they were drowning in violence for most of their waking hours and their world view shifted to accept violence as a reasonable solution to most problems, including life itself.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[spun]

Bullshit. We never would have made it as a species if people were "naturally" cruel to each other. Look at tribal societies that have not been massively impacted by violent western culture. The kids don't even play competative games, let alone taunt or harass each other. Try reading Jean Liedloff's The Continuum Concept .

The reason this sort of "humans are naturally cruel" thinking disturbs me is that it justifies any sort of repressive behavior, in the name of "fixing" the cruelty of humans. In fact, the repressive behavior is what generates the cruelty, leading to a self perpetuating cycle.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[SatanicPuppy]

Self esteem is a weird thing. People focus on the thing about themselves that they see as valuable. I focused on my brain, and on the fact that, even when I lost a fight, I made sure the other guy didn't enjoy winning.

In retrospect, being an intellectual snob and a tightly wound ball of unfocused aggression didn't do much for my social life in high school. I got over it though. I learned to lie about how I felt (I always felt bad, but when someone asks you how you feel, you can't say "My life is pain" and ever expect them to ask again), and I learned to pretend to be interested in things I felt to be beneath me, and I learned to project an emotional vibe other than hostility.

It sounds stupid and fake, I admit. The thing is, when I became more bearable to other people, other people stopped actively shunning me, which made it more natural not to be a bastard all the time. This appealed to people, and some of them (against all possible previous experience) started actively seeking me out, and including me in social things.

The great social secrets for the socially inept are as follows:

1) Listen, don't talk. If you're really inept, it'll show the instant you open your mouth. Watch how other people do it. Everyone loves to talk about themselves, so ask a couple of stupid social questions, but don't just barge up and ask 'em...You need an opening. THIS IS REALLY HARD TO RECOGNIZE WHEN YOU'RE SOCIALLY INEPT. Ask for directions, or for helpful information. "Hey baby, what's your sign?/You come here often?/Etc" are all far inferior to "Hey, I've got a peanut allergy, you think this stuff is safe?/Do you know how late (insert place) stays open?" People love to be helpful, and that sort of thing is socially non-threatening.

2) Be socially non-threatening. Keep up a minimum of personal grooming, try to achieve a socially acceptable wardrobe...I know it shouldn't matter, but it does...You don't have to be super well dressed, but be above the minimum, and stay away from aggressive themes and overly-starched stuff. Casual casual casual. Don't try to lock people in a conversation; let them move off if they want to...It's much more likely that they'll talk to you again if you don't latch on to them. Remember the listen thing. Don't get too personal to quick...You may think you're connecting with a person, but don't burden them with your whole life story within an hour of meeting them. It's too intense, and they'll avoid you after.

3) Don't be afraid to screw up. It's really hard not to get keyed up when you really are desperate to talk to anyone. If you find yourself shaky and babbling, move on, and come back when you've cooled off a bit. It gets easier, and, unless you do something freakish, they won't hold it against you (or if they do, fuck 'em). Check the fringes. There are plenty of people who are also inept, and if you're not scary/overbearing/stinky they'll be glad for someone to talk to. Understand that the average person isn't any more socially adept than you are...They just lucked out and ended up being bland. Bland fits in everywhere.

4) Try not to take yourself seriously. This is hard.

5) Empathy. Try to figure what the other person is feeling. This tends to be nearly impossible for hardcore left brainers; just not wired correctly for reading other peoples emotions. This is okay. But you still need to recognize (if only on a conscious level), basic body language. The only way to do this is to watch...Reading a guide on body language is like reading a guide on art.

Social skills are 100% conformity to a standard. They're a semi-open communication protocol. Once you figure it out, you can talk to most people. Understand that you need to talk about things that interest the people you're talking to...This is hard for geeks, especially because other people seldom talk about things we're interested in. DON'T EXPECT EVERYONE TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. You can't be the alpha geek if you're talking to non-geeks...You're just going to piss them off

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[SatanicPuppy]

I'm right there with ya; I agree completely.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[SatanicPuppy]

I think it was more about two guys feeding each others disaffection. When it's you against the world, it's hard to really gear up that sort of plan. It all seems hopeless and impossible.

But with a like-minded companion? Someone who is equally disaffected, and equally thirsty for action? Then you get a nice feedback loop, which, in this case, coincided with ability to carry the thing through. All those things together are pretty rare.

I don't agree the re-enforcement of emotional signals through games/music/movies. For me those things were always release valves, and I listened to absolutely the most violent and angry music I could find. I took to violent video games like fish to water. Violent movies bothered me a bit, on occasion...more because sometimes they "over-satisfied" my taste for violent media, than any sort of "making me more violent" thing.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the idea of your zero tolerance policy on zero tolerance policies.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Synn]

I hear that if you end up in prison you should be lifting weights there as well. But it's sort of sad that our public school systems are no better than a prison, no?

Personally I was always a small kid so I just countered it by being more violent. One time a kid was picking on me, pulling the hood of my sweat shirt, so I stabbed him with a pencil. I still have that level of violence in me today(heavily supressed) and I find it very sad that I live in a world that required me to develop it.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[FunkSoulBrother]

Shea? is that you?

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Pancake Bandit]

For me, things became a lot worse. I endured a lot of bullying as well, which didn't stop after Columbine. What happened for me was that somehow a rumor got started that I had a "hit list". I hate fighting, I hate violence, and I see taking the life of another as the worst kind of crime, but my classmates forgot that. I suddenly had large numbers of classmates who were afraid to talk to me, and a few trips to the principal's after worried classmates went to him and explained that I was planning on "shooting up the school". Yeah, I was always a loner, but this only made it worse.

Oh, and the bullying didn't stop either. Figures.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

I hope someone mods you up because that is extremely insightful information. I mean, some of it might seem like common sense to us but to the "socially inept" it isn't. That's probably why they are like that in the first place.
Curious though, a friend of mine absolutely doesn't understand #1, he'll talk and sound like a complete retard not even listening to himself, but he does alright (better than normal) with girls.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Mex]

"I gained about 40lb of muscle over the course of my sophomore year. "

See, this is physically impossible, and to me, it invalidates your whole post.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[ArmyOfFun]

I think it was more about two guys feeding each others disaffection.

Absoultely, they had a greater effect on each other than any song, show, movie or game did. Part of being immersed in a particular culture is being around others in that culture. For example, a person will be much more immersed in violent culture if their parents are regularly physically abusive to others than if they merely consume a lot of violent content.

I don't agree the re-enforcement of emotional signals through games/music/movies.

I wasn't arguing that violent media reinforces emotional signals I was arguing their role in normalizing otherwise perverse morals. I don't think violent media will make a person feel more violent, rather it might make violent activity seem more normal or accepted than it actually is. This is basically the common desensitized argument.

I listened to absolutely the most violent and angry music I could find. I took to violent video games like fish to water.

But was that it? Did you only listen to violent music? Did you only play violent video games? I played a lot of violent video games and watched a lot of violent TV and movies too (and still do). But I also played non-violent games, watched non-violent TV and movies and so on. Violence was also shunned by the people I've been close to. In other words, violence was not all encompasing, it was only something I experienced in a simulated envrionment in a subset of my free time. It wasn't something that ever became normal or acceptable.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[R2.0]

I second that emotion...entering high school, I was about as nerdy as possible - real smart, physically inept, and a poor dresser. I joined the wrestling team taht year because I wanted to learn a quasi-combat sport (I was a soccer player prior to that).

The transformation was amazing. I stopped slouching, walked straighter, and carried myself with authority. I went from being inable to complete the Physical Fitness Test (not one pullup, 2-3 push ups) to being recruited by the gym coach for interscholastic competition. I never realized it, though - when a friend referred to me as "the second biggest guy in the sophmore class", I thought he was joking (the first biggest was my best friend).

The wrestling team still wasn't cool (we had an awful record), but NOBODY fucked with us. Anyone got uppity, we politely invited them to a practice. No one ever came back, and we didn't even do anything special - typically they didn't make it through the PT portion of the practice, much less actually wrestling. I was still a geek, and socially inept, but I was spared the bullying part.

Geeks tend to disdain physical conditioning as somehow "unworthy" of their efforts, but being in shape can make you *feel* different about yourself.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Antique Geekmeister]

Only if either of them actually get a date.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[mgabrys_sf]

But guns are more efficient. And they're legal! Heck you can still get them for "hunting" under 18 in many states. You could waste time bulking up - but why bother when bullets are so much easier? If you really want to take people down - take them all the way.

The funny thing is this will make for fine TV for decades now. Perhaps the next Columbine will be posted on YouTube! Just imagine.

Or perhaps we could admit that bullying isn't really acceptable behavior for kids as it isn't for adults.

Nah - let them bullets fly! FLY! Get that bleeding head on the news NOW!

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Dysson]

He said that he "grew 9 inches really fast" and "not everyone got a happy ending" like he did. Still, none of you snickered at this. I commend you for being adults, but I am shocked that this wasn't commented on.

Dysson

>Damn, I guess I had it easy... I dealt with all of that stuff until I grew 9 inches insanely fast, and >became well versed in the subtle arts of "smashing the motherfuckers in the face". Sorry to hear not >everyone's got a happy ending like me. :(

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

You laugh, but that will work. Fight quick, fight dirty, don't stay down until you can't get up. People stop picking on you pretty quick; it's just not worth it.

and then

Everything we do has consequences. Make sure, when you shit on someone, that they have something to lose. Because, if they have nothing to lose, they may decide to take you down with 'em.

Jeezus this should be engraved on a plaque for introverts.

It took me until the tenth grade to learn this; one day I was being fucked with and something just snapped. I was so tired of it that it became a "bedamned the consequences" situation. I wasn't an outcast, a loner, or small in stature (tho I am only about 5'9" @175lbs so definitely not big) but was a computer geek introvert who was more interested in display lists and 6502 assembler than anything else. I went grade-A fucking apeshit. I caught three guys off-guard who had been fucking with me and managed to floor two of them before it became an all out brawl with the third (the first two were definitely the element of surprise, not my badassedness). Knees to the groin, headbutts, elbows to the jaw.. just pure instinct.

That day changed my life and I'm glad it happened before I went into the military because in basic training there are assholes who are even worse than your average bully (we had some DC area gangbangers).

I think the main problem now is that years later I'm back from the army and the kids now are not afraid to escalate to extreme measures.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Em Adespoton]

It's funny... when I was in school, by the time I got to highschool I had figured out that violence wasn't the answer (usually) to bullies. I put my 150 IQ to work and thought about their motivations: "Why am I being bullied?" I decided that people like to feel superior, like they have power over others. They also like entertainment. Following this, I started on a campaign to make a minor public spectacle out of anyone who tried to bully me... pointing out that they were picking on the most defenceless guy in the room to try and look strong, that kind of thing -- and making sure I always did it in front of the girls. I never pushed it too far (I realized that if I made them look TOO bad [not just bad for treating me badly], they'd take it out on me after school), but I always hinted to them that I was being restrained and could completely ruin their school reputation if they tried anything more. This method, along with physically pushing a bully who happened to be about my size back into his seat one time, to show that I couldn't just be pushed around, turned out to be the magic formula to living a (mostly) bully-free life through hischool.

Every once in a while, some new kid would decide to move up the pecking order by picking on me -- when people laughed at him for it, he'd stop, and that was that.

Plus, I tended to help out the really big guys in the school when they had some thinking related issue (advice, math problems, computer games, etc). Being seen in their company frequently probably didn't hurt either.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[nappingcracker]

Ender? Is that you?

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

One day my father suggested I start going to the gym with him to work out, it was a powerlifters gym, if you wanted aerobics you ran outside, everything inside was freeweights. I started lifting and advanced FAST, applying my studying habbits to learn proper techniques and eating habbits. I gained about 40lb of muscle over the course of my sophomore year. I had to get a new custom made school uniform because my sholders were so wide.

When I was in high school, I busted my ass working out 90 minutes a day on free weights for over seven months, I did not see one ounce of muscle gain. Nothing. I remained as skinny and gangly as ever. Understandably I gave it up and spent my time on more enjoyable things. I was not really willing to take steroids but seriously considered it for a time.

My one bully experience in high school I resolved by other means. The local police one day, in thier infinite wisdom chose to release the schools meth dealer on the sidewalk by the main doors. This fellow was not even a student at our school but his girlfeind was. As I stood on the steps in complete disbelief, watching the squad car drive off, this fellow walked up to me and punched me square in the jaw, hard, for being white. I refused to fight back and took another punch. He got bored and left.

My response: I left a note on his girfriends locker that read - "One more slip on the ice and the snowman will melt". Having the right connections, (not the police) I went several steps over his head in the illicts supply foodchain and had him cut off. I declined the offer to have him capped. Just cutting him off would be enough.

We never saw him at our school again. Score one for the good guys.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Thuktun]

These "no tolerance" policies are typically only geared toward threatening behavior and ignore other kinds of teasing and taunting.

My middle-school-aged son has Asperger's syndrome. He can be teased into irrational anger by something as simple as repeating a rediculous falsehood continually. Because of the disorder, he doesn't know how to tune out things like this, realize that he could ask the teacher to step in to stop it, or know how to moderate his outbursts when he's upset. As such, some kids really enjoy pushing his buttons to see him react, and do it to extremes.

The school is aware of this, but their efforts to stop it have been fairly mild since they don't have "no tolerance" for it. However, when my son gets frustrated enough to burst, and tells the taunters what he thinks of them and what he'd like to do to them, he gets slapped with consequences, since they have "no tolerance" for anything threatening.

Having some experience with the more traditional kind of bullying myself, this really doesn't seem fundamentally different.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

I got to agree. I'm pretty anti-violence and i'm pretty geeky and when young was into punk rock. let me tell you being a geeky punk rocker who liked chess club didn't get you friends in the gym. lots of shit happened to me, my final breaking point was having a bunch of jocks leave me unconscious in a snow bank after a particulary savage beating. after that i learned karate and learned to react very quickly to even mild threats - a few guys threatened to kill me with a knife, they were pretty convincing that i wasn't going to live if i moved out of the public view, so i grabbed a meat cleaver, got up real close and said "chop,chop" while making some suggestive motions with the cleaver - that was absolutely the last i ever heard from them and i saw them around all the time, they just looked away like they didn't know me (they did, it was a super small town and i had tried to be friends with them at various parties). bullys just look for those who aren't going to put up a fuss when they get beaten.
 
i don't agree with your statement of respect though, they respect no one, what they have is a fear of being beaten up themselves.
 
and yeah, when i have kids they are going into martial arts before they go into school. i won't have my growing up experience happen to anyone if it's preventable.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[twistedsymphony]

It might be impossible for a full grown adult yes, but for someone who is in the process of growing it's definitly do-able in a years time... a full grown adult can put on 10 to 15lbs of muscle in a matter of months so why not a growing boy put on 35-40 lbs in the course of a year? Maybe not all muscle but certainly dramatic change.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you see the key here - like in the case of the guy who bulked up - is not in the action employed but in the fact that you took the responsibility to take action. You stopped being afraid. You found a viable plan that worked for you and you carried it through.

He who dares wins.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[SatanicPuppy]

I talk way too much as well. Do as I say, not as I do, eh? Some people find my babbling endearing.

The truth of it is, unless you are a truly foul human being, there are plenty of people out there who share your interests, personality quirks, etc. Even if you're really vile, there are others, equally vile, who you may get along with.

The big trick is getting your foot in the door. That is 100% appearance, and first impression. It's like hearing a song on the radio...If it's really annoying, you'll switch the channel instantly, but if it builds nicely you'll listen. By the same token, the next time you hear it, it'll seem better because it's familiar to you.

So your goal, socially, is to soothe peoples preconceptions enough that they're willing to get to know you. This is pretty much the reason for everyone's rabid conformity in high school. The big social dance is kicking into gear, and nobody knows the damn rules, so everyone is trying to be as much like 'cool' as they can imagine. This ends up with people conforming toward the socially accepted crowd, but then you're judged by how far you fall short of that standard.

As you get older your actual preferences solidify, and you start seeking out people based on how cool you think they are, instead of just following the groupthink. People start valuing you for your inherent qualities.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Trifthen]

It's not really disdain in a lot of cases. I have a hyperactive metabolism, so while I ate my family out of house and home while growing up, and walking to school in most cases, I didn't get any bigger. I've tried lifting weights multiple times, gaining nothing except sore muscles for months on end. I guess having a heart condition doesn't help, either.

What helped me was simply standing up to anyone who tried to bully me, or I just happend to share a friend of theirs, and so on. Now that I think about it, nobody ever really bothered me in High School, I was almost invisible in the grand scheme of things. Weird.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anubis350]

Amen, I was picked on a bit (though my highschool was not exactly bullying atmosphere anyway, we were all geeks, I got picked on a bit at camp and outside school sometimes when I was in 6th, 7ht grade etc). That stopped when I hit 8th grade/highschool and started really fencing. I fenced several hours a day, 6 days a week and I swam too. Amazing how much muscle you can put on that way (and reflexes). I also fought back. Kicked the crap out of a couple bullies, never had to again (literally threw a guy twice my size who tried beating me up across a room at camp one year).

I'm short (actually, like a couple other posters, 5 4), but no-one fucked with me. I'm about twice as broad as most sterotypical jocks (not football players, those guys are massive, but everyone else) and I've found that just intimating that you can kick the crap out of a bully, when you can back it up, makes them leave you alone. Also lets you help out other ppl being bullied.

Seriously, defend yourself, show you cant be bullied and you wont be. If you cant physically, do it by public humiliation as another poster did, etc. It's the fighting back that stops it, even if you lose. Lying down and taking it makes you an easy target for them to pet their egos with.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Dread_ed]

So, by your standards, guidance should only be applied to the children who are victimized? Those who attack others without provocation should, as in the GP poster's case, be allowed to continue their actions regardless of the damage and torture they inflict? But those who are attacked need to be told to resort to violent action to defend themselves, without regard for the regularity of the attacks, and without any concern for those who are attacking them and their motivations?

I can't honestly think you mean what your post says. In one part you say that this guy should fight back, and at the same time implying that the actions of the instigators are innocent, even proper...condoning them as something you would do yourself. By this logic it would be better for the GP poster to actually be a bully! Maybe he should cruise the middle schools punching 6th graders in the face so they can learn to "Suck it up"and to "fight back". However, you then say, as if you had a psychotic schism or an attack of "pussy" (your word) conscience, children should be taught not to fight with eachother. Which is it?

Another problem I have: conflict is the result of two people actively disagreeing. Escalation from misunderstanding or animosity can be logically extrapolated from a verbal conflict to a physical fight, though this is seldom justified. What the GP poster discribes is not a "fight" or the result of a "conflict" either. It is an unprovoked attack. In my estimation there is a huge difference in the motivations and thoughts behind a fight arising from some kind of conflict and onging unilaterally initiated unprovoked attacks. That you cannot see the difference is puzzling to me. That you equate the two is mind boggling.

Think of a child that sees another child and then, for no reason other than their own internal motives, decided that the other person is deserving of a physical beating. Realize that for a child to do this they have to feel justified in initiating violence against someone else and also feel reasonably safe from punishment, all the while their conscience must be silent. The sickness of mind inherent in a child who does this is unfathomable to me. Maybe I am one of those "pussies" you talk about and that is why I could never understand this desire to randomly hurt people around me for no other reason then my own self gratification.

Sure, teach them not to fight, I agree. But realize that lashing out at someone, especially when you specifically target those that are not your physical equal or when you attack from the cowardly safety of a group of peers, is a sign of a much deeper and more sinister problem than just being a kid and having bad judgement that needs "guidance."

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[rblum]

Do you *honestly* believe that the only possible answer to violence is violence?

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[DesireCampbell]

"Tolerance" is not "acceptance". There's a very important distinction there. To 'tolerate' something, you don't have to enjoy it, or endorse it - Hell, you can openly oppose it - but you must recognise it as a fact of living, and work around it for the betterment of everyone. We shouldn't "accept" children harassing and beating each other - but we must 'tolerate' it, at least a little bit, so that the children can develop properly.

I'm not saying that harassment and violence should go unpunished, that would indeed be a Bad Thing. But, a "reprimand" can take several forms - which should vary in severity based on the individual case (there should never, ever, be mandatory sentencing for children). A child's reprimand could be as simple as telling him what he did wrong, and explain to him why it was wrong. It's important to explain the 'why', even though the child's brain is unfinished, he needs to be at least told why he shouldn't do it anymore - he probably won't learn now, but if he's never told he'll never learn.

Maybe I should put this in perspective a bit more. I am, to understate it humorously, a nerd. In my junior and senior high schools there were very, very few students who were not athletically inclined, and even fewer that fit the generic 'withdrawn, mopey, introverted' outcast. Now, even *I* wasn't in that group, but I had friends who were (which in many school circles would mean I was in that group). Anyway, there was much *teasing* and *harassment* at my school, but the school's "zero tolerance" policy only extended to violence (and cutting class, oddly enough). So when one, much 'larger' student began to harass me, for three solid weeks, there's was no authoritarian intervention. None. So, I was forced to take matters into my own hands and knock the bitch's teeth in (yeah, I hit a girl - that's another story entirely). We were immediately suspended (a week and a half). Now, I had done everything in my power to avoid such violence - I acted like the lover of authority and honour student I was - and I was treated the same as a bully (yes, a verifiable bully). Without a 'zero tolerance policy' there might've been room to deal with the harassment before it escalated to fisticuffs.

"So just extend the policy to include harassment too" you say. No, kids are undeveloped, not stupid. If a bully wants to torment another child they will do it without falling under the guidelines of the policy. In my case, I was harassed because harassment wasn't included in the policy. Whatever is included in the policy (which would have to be very specific terms), the aggravating students will act just below those terms. Kids aren't stupid, they'll find a way around regulations.

Because there are somethings that are 'absolutely not tolerable' all other actions are considered 'tolerable'. But the way the word 'tolerate' is used now, and the way these policies are enforced, means that unless you commit an act laid out in the policy you don't get punished - that's what these policies do, they take judgement away from the teachers and place it in legislation. If a school doesn't rely on these 'zero tolerance policies' and instead let teachers and parents deal with each incident on a case-0by-case basis, we would see smaller punishments and more effective reprimands more often, instead of these largely ineffective severe punishments.


Oh, and for a great explanation on the difference between tolerance and acceptance just watch South Park episode 14, season 6.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Shajenko42]

Ah, isn't it wonderful that the way to avoid being a victim in public school is the same way you avoid being a victim in prison?

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[DesireCampbell]

*Sigh* I'm not going to argue with you. FACT: children don't have fully developed brains. FACT: those with undeveloped brains cannot be held fully responsible for their actions.

Wow, you read at an adult level before they taught you division? Me too! Wow, that must mean we also could accurately differentiate between right and wrong and all the consequences of our actions, right? Oh, wait, no. Our brains were physically incapable of that.

Perhaps your's still is.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[fudgefactor7]

Public schools are a lot like prison....so naturally the same rules would apply.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[deanoaz]

I think kids who are not there to learn and can't refrain from impeding the learning of others should be removed. Kids who are there to learn should not have to be their victims.

Whether they should be removed to another type of school or just removed from the public school system entirely is another question, that should probably be handled on a case by case basis.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[DesireCampbell]

So, by your standards, guidance should only be applied to the children who are victimized? Those who attack others without provocation should, as in the GP poster's case, be allowed to continue their actions regardless of the damage and torture they inflict? But those who are attacked need to be told to resort to violent action to defend themselves, without regard for the regularity of the attacks, and without any concern for those who are attacking them and their motivations?

Eh? What? No. I said...
"You should be teaching kids not to fight with each other at all"

I can't see how you could misinterpret that as 'punsih the victums and praise the attackers'...

Reading over your post I see that you simply misunderstand the word "tolerance". Heh, I just wrote this out a minute ago...
"Tolerance" is not "acceptance". There's a very important distinction there. To 'tolerate' something, you don't have to enjoy it, or endorse it - Hell, you can openly oppose it - but you must recognise it as a fact of living, and work around it for the betterment of everyone. We shouldn't "accept" children harassing and beating each other - but we must 'tolerate' it, at least a little bit, so that the children can develop properly.
I'm not saying that harassment and violence should go unpunished, that would indeed be a Bad Thing. But, a "reprimand" can take several forms - which should vary in severity based on the individual case (there should never, ever, be mandatory sentencing for children). A child's reprimand could be as simple as telling him what he did wrong, and explain to him why it was wrong. It's important to explain the 'why', even though the child's brain is unfinished, he needs to be at least told why he shouldn't do it anymore - he probably won't learn now, but if he's never told he'll never learn.

The point is, children do not, repeat: do not, fully understand the difference between right and wrong. They don't understand the consequences of their actions. They are unable to make informed decisions on their own. Their brains are undeveloped. And they need as much help as they can get.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[fudgefactor7]

Yes, beacuse sometimes the only answer IS violence. Do you really think the whole "ignore them and they'll go away" suggestion actually works? Let me tell you from a first hand account that it does not work--the bullies know that your ignoring them is your method of choice (because that's what every airhead says should be done) and they just step up their crap to counter until you have no choice. The best defense is a good offence. If you put "the beat down" on them as soon as they start--bloody their nose--this tends to shock them back into reality. Bullies are two things: stubborn and stupid. Both can be cured by the well placed use of force. If you do it right, you only have to do it once.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[grammar fascist]

But why did they do it? It wasn't sociopathy...They were out for revenge, and by that point it didn't matter to them whose blood was spilled.

Not sociopathy, as such. But Harris was very likely a psychopath (in the clinical sense, not the popular), and Klebold was depressed.

By the way, everybody who wants to understand what happend at Columbine needs to read that article I linked to.

Psychopathy, in a rough sense, is the state of being born without empathy or with limited empathy. Some get on fine (most turn out to be your average small-time swindler / heartbreaker), but some, like Klebold, have it on a massive scale. Quoting at length from the article:

He is disgusted with the morons around him. These are not the rantings of an angry young man, picked on by jocks until he's not going to take it anymore. These are the rantings of someone with a messianic-grade superiority complex, out to punish the entire human race for its appalling inferiority. It may look like hate, but "It's more about demeaning other people," says Hare.

Harris' pattern of grandiosity, glibness, contempt, lack of empathy, and superiority read like the bullet points on Hare's Psychopathy Checklist and convinced Fuselier and the other leading psychiatrists close to the case that Harris was a psychopath.

It begins to explain Harris' unbelievably callous behavior: his ability to shoot his classmates, then stop to taunt them while they writhed in pain, then finish them off. Because psychopaths are guided by such a different thought process than non-psychopathic humans, we tend to find their behavior inexplicable. But they're actually much easier to predict than the rest of us once you understand them. Psychopaths follow much stricter behavior patterns than the rest of us because they are unfettered by conscience, living solely for their own aggrandizement.

None of his victims means anything to the psychopath. He recognizes other people only as means to obtain what he desires. Not only does he feel no guilt for destroying their lives, he doesn't grasp what they feel. The truly hard-core psychopath doesn't quite comprehend emotions like love or hate or fear, because he has never experienced them directly.

"Because of their inability to appreciate the feelings of others, some psychopaths are capable of behavior that normal people find not only horrific but baffling," Hare writes. "For example, they can torture and mutilate their victims with about the same sense of concern that we feel when we carve a turkey for Thanksgiving dinner."

Though it fits the facts best, most people don't like this explanation. The idea that some people are born without the ability to feel empathy is very, very unsettling. We'd like to believe that everyone is redeemable somehow. But Eric Harris, Ted Bundy, and Jeffrey Dahmer disagree.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[DesireCampbell]

Again, someone misunderstands English words. I'm not mis-stating myself, people just don't seem to grasp these basic ideas:

• Children do not have fully developed brains. They cannot fully understand their actions, the difference between right and wrong, or the consequences their actions entail.
• If someone doesn't fully understand the difference between right and wrong, it's improper to punish them as if they did. This holds true for adults with undeveloped brains as well.
• 'Tolerating' something doesn't mean 'to endorse' it. You can tolerate something yet actively oppose it.

Remember, children need 'guidance' not 'punishment'.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not a good guy. Maybe a grey guy but definitely not a good guy.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in second grade when I got picked on relentlessly by a bully. I took my Grandizer metal lunch box, filled it full of rocks, then when he came up to me, I wound up and slammed him upside his head with the lunchbox. Gave him a concussion, he was in the hospital for 2 days, and got some stitches. All I got out of the exchange was a dented lunchbox, and hassle free recesses.

It's scary to think that in today's world, I would have probably been arrested, placed in a school for troubled kids and basically given up on. Now, I'd probably be retreading tires instead of solving the world's problems via enterprise software solutions!

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[DesireCampbell]

Why didn't you quote the part about being beaten up? Because, like, once that's all right in the schools, where do we draw the line?

Fuck. I thought I made that clear: the whole problem is "drawing a line". Each incident needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. If you set some actions apart as being 'unacceptable' and all others as 'acceptable' then bullies will only use those 'endorsed' means to torment students.

Bullies shouldn't be coddled, but they shouldn't be demonized either. They're children too - they just need more guidance than most.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Shajenko42]

It's a good lesson. Everything we do has consequences. Make sure, when you shit on someone, that they have something to lose. Because, if they have nothing to lose, they may decide to take you down with 'em.

And if you want some Machiavelli thrown in for good measure, here ya go:

If you must hurt someone, hurt them in such a way that they cannot retaliate, ever.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[DesireCampbell]

I agree sir, your post was obviously much more informative.

Some one's repressing a lot of homosexual urges, aren't they?

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

For me, my only saving grace was that a lot of people got the idea that my knowing substanially more chemistry than them and being able to get access to any/all supply rooms at my junior high might lead to violently oxidizing then reducing them, their homes, and/or the school to its/their component atoms if they went TOO far. Unfortunately, thye didn't set the line for TOO far quite where I would have liked. What caused this was someone seeing me experimenting with incendiaries one day (just a litle napalm, nothing really big), and my willingness to talk about any topic I knew about, if someone asked, including manufacture of a few basic drugs and explosives.

The problem didn't completely go away until I switched schools for high school (because of elective classes offered rather than any social issue, oddly enough). My high school was largely tolerant of damn near everyone, and most fights/violence were of an actual direct confrontation than anything else (catfights over who stole who's boyfriend, fights over girls, typical hormones getting in the way of good sense stuff).

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Shajenko42]

That would be my point - this is not a good thing.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Das Modell]

So you two are actually saying that bullying is good and should be increased? Un-fucking-believable.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[superpulpsicle]

Biologically speaking, kids have far more available brain sells than an older adult. They have not have lived long enough to sink into the culture, but damn they can learn anything faster than an adult can.

If they haven't learned that bullying others is wrong, is because their parents fucked up somewhere and didn't show them right. It has nothing to do with whether the kid can do math.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Pfhorrest]

The reason this sort of "humans are naturally cruel" thinking disturbs me is that it justifies any sort of repressive behavior, in the name of "fixing" the cruelty of humans. In fact, the repressive behavior is what generates the cruelty, leading to a self perpetuating cycle.

Not only does repressive (I think you mean oppressive?) behavior generate cruelty, it does so because it *is* cruelty itself. All oppression is, deep down, is violence, or at least the threat of violence. And violence only breeds more violence. To some extent that reactive violence is OK: I can't rightly condemn fighting back in defense of yourself or others. But only to the extent that you match force for force; just enough fighting back, of the right kind, to stop the attack, and then no more. But the second you go beyond that into punitive or worse yet, preemptive violence, you're only perpetuating if not even escalating the cycle. There is of course need for preemption and punishment of violence, but the means to those ends ought not be more violence.

The whole thing reminds me of that bumper stick that reads "Why do we kill people who kill people to show them that killing people is wrong?"

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[DesireCampbell]

Well, it's true that it has nothing to do with mathematical abilities - distinguishing between right and wrong, long term/short term action consequences - a child's brain doesn't have that part yet. It's still being developed.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Shajenko42]

Meh, the whole fast seduction community is essentially nerds who have applied their intelligence towards getting women, resulting in a highly structured method that actually seems to work a good deal of the time.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude,

You are a fag. Have fun fixing printers for a living. You fucking dork.

Tell your boyfriend hello.

You fucking pussy.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Em Adespoton]

Exactly. Just a piece of advice to any of you out there who are still in school and are currently being bullied/picked on: the bullies don't do it because they're stronger than you; that just makes it easier for them to use physical bullying as opposed to other methods: they do it because they see you as a social weakling lacking a social security net.

My suggestion for the upcoming fall: try to make friends with *individuals* from various social groups in your school. Find something you have in common with someone, and humbly find a way to work on that with them. Offer to teach the captain of the basketball team your Chess moves (yes, captains of B-Ball teams are usually strategic thinkers and love a good chess match). Join the yearbook club (lots of "popular" student leaders do that). Take an acting class. Join some extracurricular club that crosses groupie boundaries -- above all, have some confidence (not arrogance) in yourself. If you do, you'll find others will too.

Of course, this doesn't solve every problem magically, but if people don't view you as a social misfit, they're less likely to torment you. Also, this is not to imply that everyone who is bullied is a social misfit. Just that at least the bullies probably view you that way.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[rblum]

I am aware that this is one way of dealing with the situation. I've done it myself, and I still don't like it. Violence, in the long run, creates more violence.

Intervention by parents/school works too. It's just that they're unwilling to do it, because it would require actually getting involved.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[fudgefactor7]

Umm, no. Intervention by parents/school does, in fact, not work. I've tried that route too, what truly ends up happening is the bully decided to step it up a notch because you (or your "mommie") finked him off. The school can't control the kid outside the building. Confrontation becomes the only option.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Whitemage12380]

If you have a masters in psycology, neurology, etc. I should be saying no more.
If not, you are making your opinions out to be facts. Saying a child can't know the difference between right and wrong... nearly every child's life directly contradicts what you are saying. What you are saying is not fact- it is fantasy. Okay, expelling poor bullies from school may devestate them and be bad for them. Doing nothing and telling a victim to just suck it up? That can go all the way to ruining their entire life. That is as close to fact in all this as you can get, and you are ignoring that. Getting these bullies and helping them quit their destructive actions? TA-DA! There's the best answer right there! But if during the entire time that's going on, you just let those kids bully victims (exactly what you implied), the entire point is moot.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[DesireCampbell]

If you have a masters in psycology, neurology, etc. I should be saying no more.

See, that's disengenuous. You really won't stop arguing with me if I had degrees in such feilds. You say that only to make yourself seem likeable - you're not. Secondly, you lose your argument immediately if you're saying that 'only those with degrees should speak on this matter'. Do you have degrees relivant to this topic? Didn't think so.

If not, you are making your opinions out to be facts. Saying a child can't know the difference between right and wrong

*Sigh* No, it's not my 'opinion' it's a very simple fact. A child's brain is not fully developed. The specific parts of the brain that are underdeveloped are those that deal with interpersonal skills, reasoning, and higher level abstraction.

But if during the entire time that's going on, you just let those kids bully victims (exactly what you implied), the entire point is moot

No, I implied (if by 'imply' you mean 'wrote it out very carefully') that children need to be repremanded on a case-by-case basis. Children need to be taught what's right and wrong - not simply be punished.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally my method was to be batshit crazy.
I lived in a relatively small town in central victoria, Australia. I was good friends with the schools only gay guy, who was also the schools biggest nerd. Needless to say he had the crap beaten out of him on more than one occasion. As with all things there was run off as I would try to defend him (he was a stick of a guy) when people gave him trouble. After a while the bullying of him stopped, turned out later they were just being more vicious to him off school grounds so they wouldn't be expelled, and the in school bullying was turned on me.

Now I'm not the greatest at dealing with adreniline, so when my body gets flooded with it (i.e. while being bullied) I go a little nuts. I can't help laughing slightly crazily. I assume it's kinda creepy to be about to punch a guys face in, only to have him start cackeling at you. The other thing I did was realise that there was no way in hell the bullying would stop on it's own, so when I was threathened, by the leaders of bullies in a packed school corridor between classes, I said yes. I said I would fight him as long as no little shits friends of his decided to interfere.
After that the bullying stopped, and I never heard from him again.

Now, I'm still an introvert with a massive distaste for society, who is constantly in 'fight/flight' mode in the greater community. I can't help it. After having that shit for so long, even if you beat it at school, it just doesn't go away.

Kinda makes me think we should bully some politicians and education department heads and see if we can get them to finally see the shit that is our society.

For those who might think that weapon carrying at school is simply an 'American-thing', it isn't. If you look at a large number of metropolitan schools in Australia these days you will find students who feel the need to carry knives for protection. I'm sure if we hadn't cut down the number of guns in this country (you know execpt for those illegal ones) we might be in a worse situation.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[WilliamSChips]

Wiggin, not Wiggins. But I don't think you're going to see him here for over a hundred years.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[OSXCPA2]

High school flashback...

Who was in a position to see what was happening at Columbine, understand it, and influence the social environment in the school?
a) Parents
b) Teachers
c) other Students
d) a and b

Who wasn't paying enough attention to what was going on in the school, knowing full well that childrens' minds are still developing and that they cannot teach each other socialization skills without close guidance (unless you think 'Lord of the Flies' was a social 'how-to' guide) ?
a) Parents
b) Teachers
c) other Students
d) a and b

Who bears the blame for the climate and culture that disenfranchised students and allowed them to drift into hopelessness and violence?
a) Parents
b) Teachers
c) other Students
d) a and b

Who is to blame for Columbine?
a) the shooters
b) Parents
c) Teachers
d) other Students
e) a, b and c - but mostly a

At the end of the day, it is the individual who is responsible for his/her actions - but that doesn't let any of the rest off the hook. One can argue that Klebold and/or Harris were sociopathic - but most adolescents show signs of behavior remeniscent of sociopathy at some point - but from all the subsequent interviews with kids from the school, etc., there were lots of other issues at play. Sociopathy *might* have blown the thing up, but the environment at that school sounds like it was pretty toxic to start with.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[ToasterofDOOM]

That reminds me exactly of a kid I knew in middle school who even I would harass to tears. I feel really bad about that now and we became semi friends by 9th Grade. You don't Happen to be talking about Richie Shepardson do you?

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for sharing that. It makes me wonder whether the difference was particularly remarkable in your case or if the Columbine events had such profound impact in other schools as well. This aspect is very rarely discussed in mainstream media, probably because of the taboo associated with suggesting that such horrible actions could have had largely beneficial side effects.

I hope your life continues to be enjoyable. It sounds like you deserve it.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really have an IQ of 150, you should have been smart enough to figure out how to manipulate the dumb kids who picked on you.

[...]

An intelligent person would think things like: "People pick on me when I dress like this. I don't want people to pick on me. Therefore, I will not dress like this."

Apart from the fact that an abundance of empirical evidence and case studies shows this conclusion to be in error, the obvious argument against it is the fact that being intelligent does not allow you to change your personality at whim. Being great at math, say, doesn't mean you can somehow "decide" to be less physically clumsy, less cowardly, less socially awkward. There are several types of intelligence (and "intelligence" is a hopelessly vague and ill-defined term anyway). What the parent poster is talking about (the kind of intelligence correlated with IQ) doesn't appear to have much effect on social skills. There is no contradiction between having ugly clothes and being smart at the same time.

Also, an IQ of 150 is a lot, but it's not "super-intelligent". In every high school of normal size there are people with such high quotients, and it's entirely possible that the parent poster is one of them.

It also strikes me as odd that a super-intelligent person would need to try to understand the world through a supernatural perspective.

Maybe so, but people like René Descartes, Max Planck, Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton did it as well. I am an atheist, personally, but if there is a conflict between supernatural beliefs and intelligence, it is evident in far more prominent people than the parent poster.

I'm curious as to which test gave you that score and who administered it.

There is no need to be a jerk. Who are you to doubt him, really? And what difference does it make, anyway? His IQ is mentioned only as a sidenote, and is, as far as I can see, entirely irrelevant to the interesting points he makes.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[dukieduke]

What this all boils down to is self-esteem. If you have the confidence in yourself to succeed (girls, putting down bullies, etc,) you will. I have no cold hard numbers to back this next claim up either, but can only speak from anecdotal experiences: Wallowing in self-pity makes you appear pitiful. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy. The OP is definately confident enough in himself to post his IQ. What he lacks is the ability to use that IQ to become part of the social fabric. "Boo-hoo, I'm so special that people can't accept me." Think and present yourself as a victim and you will be treated as one by (girls, bullies, etc,). The OP is victimizing himself.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[funfail]

You are right. I can't believe how many people confused the name as I did:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=%22ender+wiggin%22&word2=%22ender+wiggins%22

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Das Modell]

Could people actually present arguments instead of anonymously modding something as flamebait?

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is BORN without the ability to feel empathy, they are TAUGHT through continual violence from their parents, not to feel anything other than rage and hatred. Or have you seen a newborn baby who was full of hate?

As usual, generation after generation, the denial of child abuse goes on and on. The cause of 99% of the problems in the world is child abuse - inadequate parenting. Watch a mother cat with her kittens if you want to see what true parenting is. What a shame that most of the human beings on this planet are incapable of showing even a tenth of that affection and love to their own children.

That's why America's schools are full of bullies and psychopaths, why so many of you are evil psychos who hunt innocent animals and kill them for no reason, and why your society is blighted by crime and violence.

These people are not redeemable, no amount of therapy will change them into decent human beings, the only way to stop this hideous cycle is to lock up violent criminals for so long that they can't reproduce.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Whitemage12380]

Eh heh heh, you mistook every single one of my arguments for something else. This is probably just because I was unclear, though, so let me explain.

See, that's disengenuous. You really won't stop arguing with me if I had degrees in such feilds. You say that only to make yourself seem likeable - you're not. Secondly, you lose your argument immediately if you're saying that 'only those with degrees should speak on this matter'. Do you have degrees relivant to this topic? Didn't think so.

I'm sorry I wrote that out like this now. It DOES sound pretentious- sorry. I was being a bit of an ass. I still am. We both are. However, the argument was not about your whole argument at all. It was about one thing you said: that children DO NOT HAVE the part of the brain that discerns right and wrong (which, among other things, you did say, if you check back). Brains are developing, yeah, that's fact. But you need to be pretty experience to be able to tell me the "moral compass" of the brain is completely unusable for children, as it defies many examples in reality.

*Sigh* No, it's not my 'opinion' it's a very simple fact. A child's brain is not fully developed. The specific parts of the brain that are underdeveloped are those that deal with interpersonal skills, reasoning, and higher level abstraction.

I mentioned how you asserted that children do not have the ability to discern write from wrong (when you said they didn't have that part of the brain). You responded with the fact that children's brains are not fully developed, as though that was what I was arguing with. There's a large difference between "not yet fully developed" and "unuseable". Interestingly, you've been implying both. Which is it? If you are saying that there's no way for children to tell the difference between right and wrong, I see examples every day from the youngest of children that prove that wrong. If you are saying that the part IS useable but just needs more formation (and therefore is more susceptible to guidance) then we miscommunicated and have not argument against each other.

No, I implied (if by 'imply' you mean 'wrote it out very carefully') that children need to be repremanded on a case-by-case basis. Children need to be taught what's right and wrong - not simply be punished.

Here is the most critical misinterpretation of all, and it's really my fault for not being more clear. I was not responding to what you carefully wrote. I was responding to what you IMPLIED. You said, in your original email to the original poster, that he should just "suck it up." What's that even supposed to mean? Fight back directly? Bad idea- leads to him getting hurt or him getting into trouble. His image most likely wouldn't change since he already recieved his "nerd" status. Be stoic about it and pretend he's not getting hurt? Please, understand- people like this are different than people like you. They are much, much more sensitive and, while they tend to be nicer people, words can reach them and hurt them. They can't just "train" themselves out of it. No, this is not fact, this is just firsthand experience.
How about I get to the point. You state explicitly that bullies should be repremanded and guided, but your implications in telling a victim to just "grow a spine" would come in conflict from that statement. As you can see, great portions of your argument I agree entirely with. But the things that I had real issue with were the things you said that convoluted your main argument, that turned it from an insightful speech to, well, something a bully might say.

I won't respond after this post. I probably won't even continue reading. This is not because I want to have the last word, please believe me- continue to reply if you wish. I just came to realize that debates like this are harmful to me- they make me feel miserable, yet I still initiate them because I just "have to have a say." Stupid Egan. So consider this my closure. I didn't *want* to patronize you, and I bet you didn't really *want* to patronize me, but it's just so easy to do over the internet.*sigh*. Later.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[DesireCampbell]

There's a large difference between "not yet fully developed" and unusable".

Oh, heh heh. When I said "children don't have that part of the brain yet" I didn't mean "large sections of grey matter have not grown in yet" I meant "the ability to abstractly rationalize and discern between right and wrong, and the ability to understand the connection between one's actions and consequences, are controlled by specific parts of the brain - these parts of the brain have not finished developing yet."

Even that seems confusing, think of it like this: a child "doesn't have" the ability to discern right from wrong is like saying he "doesn't have" a dollar. He might have 70 cents, but he still "doesn't have" a dollar.

Brains are developing, yeah, that's fact. But you need to be pretty experience to be able to tell me the "moral compass" of the brain is completely unusable for children, as it defies many examples in reality.

Most 'right and wrong' thoughts a child has (indeed, many adults rely on this as well) are not 'thoughts' but 'learn behavior'. The child has not 'decided' that "this is right and that is wrong", he has simply been told enough to have remembered it. While it's possible for an individual case to show a child actually deciding what is and isn't immoral it would be an extremely rare case of increased development. Saying children understand 'right and wrong' because they act properly is like saying dogs understand English because they do what you tell them.

You said, in your original email to the original poster, that he should just "suck it up." What's that even supposed to mean?

I assumed that the phrase "grow a spine" was fairly well known. It's a good example of metonymy, where the 'spine' is symbolic of 'courage' or 'self esteem'. I wanted the child to stick up for himself. He had, apparently for years, been simply accepting the harassment dealt to him - feeling more and more depressed. I'm not saying he shouldn't have reported such activities to his teacher or principal, but he should at least learn to defend himself. Even if 'defending himself' means simply ignoring them, it's a step in, well, any direction - previously he'd been doing nothing.

A bit more on-topic, the children that murdered their schoolmates at Columbine High also did nothing for years. They did not stick up for themselves, they made no progress - they became more and more depressed - until one day they snapped and started killing people. You want to stop kids from shooting each other because of schoolyard pranks? Teach them social skills - like how to deal with other children. Trying to shelter kids from any kind of confrontation is bad. Letting 'no tolerance' policies raise children takes away a lot of opportunities to learn and grow as social animals. If kids get into a tiff, use this as a way to teach them about right and wrong, about how their actions effect other people, about how to defend themselves against insults and attacks. Don't simply punish them - you learn nothing from punishment.


My point is, raising children is not easy. What works for one child may not work for another. Every child has to be given personalized instruction and rearing. The worst thing to do is institute legislation to raise children. People should be raising children, not regulations.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Eivind Eklund]

"Dates" is an american chastity device. I meet girls, I hang out with them, I make out with them, and I have sex with them. One such meetup is tomorrow.

Eivind.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Eivind Eklund]

Social behaviour is NOT certainly a cultural thing. That's an american myth. Social behaviour is to a large degree conditioned by evolution. See e.g. Homicide - Foundations of Human Behaviour by Martin Daly (which does much deeper analyses than pure homicide.)

Eivind.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Knuckles]

This is completely ridiculous. So you say a working-class kid from the suburbs of Paris has the same social behavior as a rich kid living in Jakarta? Dream on.

Re:1999: My Life *was* hell; then Columbine

[Eivind Eklund]

This is completely ridiculous. So you say a working-class kid from the suburbs of Paris has the same social behavior as a rich kid living in Jakarta? Dream on.

No. I don't say that at all. I say that he to a large degree has the same social behaviour.

While this may seem ridicilous at first glance, when you look closer it's fairly obvious - it's just that we tend to discount all the common parts, only seeing the differences.

Eivind.

Lighten Up

[MBC1977]

Come on stop taking everything that comes out so seriously. Games are for entertainment.
How many of us (at least I know I did) have that one individual who got on your nerves, lol.
Its a fun and harmless way to blow some steam, that's it. Don't read into it like it deserves
a philosopical, psychological, socialogical (or whatever) analysis. Its entertainment. Simple.

Regards,

MBC1977,
(US Marine, College Student, and Good Guy!)

Re:Lighten Up

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you'd have to know what those words actually mean to know what these games do to kids' minds, idiot.

Re:Lighten Up

[spyrochaete]

How many of us (at least I know I did) have that one individual who got on your nerves

In my opinion this is the wrong attitude. There are plenty of people who annoy me but I don't equate them to people I kill in a game. Video games are not constructive therapy. When I fantasize about scenarios with unpleasant people it's about defusing those situations with words since I'd never use violence in real life. Imagining your boss's face on a crushed GTA pedestrian is just masturbation.

ATTN, Jack Thompson

[DragonTHC]

NOT ALL GAMES ARE FOR KIDS!

I agree with game ratings and enforcement of those ratings.

I don't think 15 year old kids should be playing bully.

but I'm 30 years old, and I want to play it.

Re:ATTN, Jack Thompson

[Anonymous Coward]

I am 27, I strongly believe that this should be the minimum age to play any game.

I Dunno...

[PixelScuba]

I've played Super 3D Noah's Ark.

Jocks! A real world game.

[edwardpickman]

In this game Jocks beat up on nerds and the nerds get sent to the principals office and branded trouble makers. The upside is if you play the game as a nerd you can graduate school and become a highly paid programmer where as the the best the jock can hope for is janitor at the local Dairy Queen.

Re:Jocks! A real world game.

[SinGunner]

While it's somewhat true that small-town jocks rarely leave the town they are from, they often become quite successful in that town. I would pose that programming is a job where you are inevitably more trained than your superiors, yet make less money. Thereby, fuck this "nerd pride" bullshit we've been accumulating. It's just an opiate. There is no awesome programming gig at the end of the road. At the end of the road, your job is sent to India and you know a 5 year old program that nobody uses anymore.

I'd much rather be a jock who has confidence, drive, and a will to succeed, which is what it takes to become successful in life. Someday, we need an honest comparison of the two lifestyles to see where they lead. I'm willing to bet the whole "nerds win in the end" mantra is just there to keep people in line.

On the other hand, there are some of us who have some degree of savoir faire and are able to accomplish feats through subversive methods that would astound both the jocks and nerds. I hear we're rather hard to find though.

Re:Jocks! A real world game.

[Fnkmaster]

I've heard that there are those among us who have moved beyond teenage-level stereotypes of "jocks" and "nerds" and have been more successful for it. :)

Re:Jocks! A real world game.

[Wordplay]

Ah, yes. The mods.

Re:Jocks! A real world game.

[Minshu]

Half the problem for jocks is, to stay a "jock" you have to live the lifestyle. Your kids barely know you, the wife cheats on you because you're fascinated with sports. Who's she cheating on you with? The nerd that's able to program her damn TiVo to record Desperate Housewives....

Re:Jocks! A real world game.

[Minshu]

You think that, until you pull up to a stop light next to some pudgy, pattern-balding man who's driving his mid-life crisis. When was the last time you saw one of them smiling as they pull away from that light? There is a reason for escapism, and Jocks started it. Want proof, look at Al Bundy. Nerds on the other hand, seem to keep to themselves (asside from the occasional Trek Convention or something). But I will say this, ask any woman (NOT YOURS OR A FRIEND OF YOURS) and they will tell you exactly what thier mom told them to look for in a man. Muscle gets you know-where (based on odds), where as a brain and a relatively normal body can get you the world.... Bill Gates, anyone?

Re:Jocks! A real world game.

[Tweekster]

Hahaha, have you ever seen the jocks at age 30, they are not successful, the confidence is gone just like their dreams. It is pathetic.

Re:Jocks! A real world game.

[kmhebert]

Bill Gates inherited a massive fortune from his father. Granted, he leveraged that into the largest fortune in the world. It just goes to show, the best way to get rich is to... be rich.

The Telstra/Gamearena mirror

[AHuxley]

A mirror of the 61.7mb 480x270.mov http://www.gamearena.com.au/ps2/games/title/bully/ index.php

Re:The Telstra/Gamearena mirror

[Aladrin]

Game Arena requires a login, and bugmetnot's accounts have all been disabled, apparently.

How about:

http://www.rockstargames.com/bully/trailer/bully_t railer1_final_480x270.wmv
http://www.rockstargames.com/bully/trailer/bully_t railer1_final_480x270.mov

What will our "Perversions for Profit" PSAs be?

[Kadin2048]

That video is priceless. Thanks.

It just makes me wonder what the producers of that film would have thought about the Internet ... if you think "news-stand perversions" are bad, just wait until you see Fleshbot.com.

Any time I watch something like that, and I'm filled with a certain smugness ("nice job, suckers...now you can get porn everywhere!"), I wonder what sort of stuff that's on TV or the Internet today, people will be watching and laughing at in 40 or 50 years. Will it be the MPAA's "Copying DVDs is Stealing" PSAs? Or the "When You Smoke Weed, You're Helping The Terrorists" ones? Obviously it's impossible to say, but it's an interesting question nonetheless.

Re:What will our "Perversions for Profit" PSAs be?

[rts008]

"When You Smoke Weed, You're Helping The Terrorists"

Already done. Try renting "Reefer Madness" if you want a good chuckle.

(http://www.reefer-madness-movie.com/) or this: (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028346/), or here:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_Madness_(1936 _film))

Funny stuff nowdays, but at the expense of our current "War on Drugs" and associated issues.

Stupid

[Znrch]

Once again everyone gets all happy about a trailer featuring... *GASP* cutscenes. How about a video featuring actual gameplay for once? Cutscenes tell me absolutely nothing.

BTW, the humor was decidedly childish, which may be the point, but it seems to be a pattern oft repeated in most Rockstar games anyways.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Is this a game or a movie?

After watching that I have no idea what the game will be like. Plot doesn't tell you much about the game or how fun it will be.

OT: Daughters in the Bible...

[hiryuu]

Daughters never paid the price of their parents' misdeeds...

It's a debatable point as to whether it's a misdeed or not, but there's always the passage where Lot offered up his daughters (virgin daughters, if I recall correctly) to the rabble to persuade them to leave be the guests. Someone with a concordance or a better memory of those passages correct me or back me up?

Re:OT: Daughters in the Bible...

[Travoltus]

That did happen, IIRC they were spared though.

But you're essentially right; I hereby backpedal... thousands of women were not put to death all at one time for the mistakes of their parents...

Re:OT: Daughters in the Bible...

[ceoyoyo]

That's because they have other... uses.

Sounds more interesting than before.

[DarkNinja75]

With the current outlook on how the gameplay will be, I'm more interested now than I was when I heard you were the acting bully...which, was in fact, just today. They happened to having something on Attack of the Show about it. This sounds like a perfectly reasonable game to me, but considering that it is by Rockstar, I may end up being wrong. We'll have to wait for the game to be released before we can pass a final verdict. On Attack of the Show, they were questioning some guy (I can't recall his name) who was for banning the game. He had some weak arguements for his side. Also, when the issue of "the parents should regulate what their children play" came up, he said it "wasn't the issue". I don't see HOW it isn't the issue. The only conclusion I can draw for him keeping his position on the matter is that he'd prefer to do less parenting. If the game is banned (or any game for that matter), it makes his role of censoring what his children view that much easier. Why take responsibility when the government can do it for you?

Re:Sounds more interesting than before.

[TomHandy]

To be fair, from what I've heard at least, the game does sort of let you choose what kind of person to be............ either protecting the weaker kids by taking on the bullies, or choosing to be a bully yourself. There was a story in USA Today about this that seemed to hint at some of the mechanics of the game (i.e. if you beat up some nerds, you'll be seen positively by the bullies, but the nerds will gang up on you, and will use their nerd science on you).

So it sounds like one could play this game as a bullying jerk, but the game will apparently make you suffer the consequences if you do.

Re:Sounds more interesting than before.

[omeg]

You mean you've never heard of Jack Thompson? He's the guy who was for banning the game during that interview. He's got quite the legal record, if you'll read his Wikipedia article.

Re:Sounds more interesting than before.

[Jaysyn]

I give it two months before someone mods an AK-47 or 12 gauge into the game. Maybe some black trenchcoats too.

Jaysyn

Re:Commas, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

go back to elementary school. except for the last comma, that sentence is fine.

Non-Flash 8 site please

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, what? Everyone commenting on the trailer obviously isn't using the standard Flash player on Linux with Firefox. How do I watch this?

Bad parenting

[therpham]

Well, that's why the kid's screwed up! He's "[l]eft to fend for himself after his mother abandons him at Bullworth to go on her fifth honeymoon"!

I hope this game directly takes on the entire issue that it raises, and that quote seems like a good hint that it could.

Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like the pink slip is the "Word" of your boss. Even if his secretary actually held the pin and wrote it down.

Re:Duh

[LordofEntropy]

Bad analogy, the secretary and your boss are both human, whom with you have physically interacted with. You can verify the secretary's note with your boss face to face.

"God's" word was written by men who say they talked to god(not a human), but noone can verify by talking to god directly, for the whole not a human reason People who talk to god and claim he responds directly are considered heretics or touched--if the Christian church could still get a way with it, said people would be burned at the stake. The church doesn't want other people delivering a message that hasn't been edited through the appropriate channels.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad analogy, the secretary and your boss are both human, whom with you have physically interacted with. You can verify the secretary's note with your boss face to face.

    God was human, communion is a physical interaction with God, and you certainly can talk to God directly, and if you're willing to listen he will respond - this is in fact what the Christian church is all about contrary to your statement. Your discrediting of the parent's analogy assumes a strict separation of the physical and spiritual worlds; a distinction that to many does not exist.
  It's okay to be skeptical, but why be cynical? When was the last time you went to a church? You don't have to be a believer to attend - why not at least cleanse yourself of these misconceptions by checking out a mass? There's nothing wrong with challenging what you might hear, but as with all things isn't it best to at least check your biases at the door?

Re:Duh

[NitsujTPU]

Wow. You know what's amazing? You can criticize Christians for being foolish and closed-minded and for killing people, and in the same breath call for their annihilation.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely.

Killing all you stupid fucks would rid the world of a cancer that is the root of pretty much every conflict on this planet. Then the world could go on with alot less conflict and backward ass country folk believing in Magic Sky Pixies(tm).

I don't proclaim to love everyone and all about peace--I openly declare I want all you stupid fucking 'look to heaven for answers' sheep to DIE! So the rest of us can live without your religous bullshit. This differs from you hypocrites who talk about loving gods and then proceed to kill all others, especially when those others provide empirical facts that happen to contradict some bullshit one of your child-molesting clergy came up with.

Anyway, annihilation is doing you stupid fucktards a favor right, doesn't that give you all a martyr ticket into the glorious freakin' afterlife the religious types are always fucking ranting about; 72 virgins or white robes and harps and all that crap? You all should welcome the opportunity.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, I think someone needs a hug

Re:Duh

[Jaysyn]

Christians have been doing it for centuries, must have rubbed off somewhere.

Jaysyn

Re:Duh

[diablomonic]

hey back off father john, ive got a mum for that :) and she doesnt hug me funny :|

Truth

[treak007]

If you notice, that game is not about bullying anyone, its about standing up to bullies. Rockstar is known for making controversial games because they know people will buy them and Rockstar gets free advertisement (there's no such thing as bad press). Therefore, they name the game Bully and hope that people at first glance think that the game is about bullying people.

Left Behind: The Video Game

[MsGeek]

It's not exactly the Bible but it's based on an interpretation of Revelation:

Left Behind: Eternal Forces.

You are a fighter with the "Tribulation Force" in New York City during the Antichrist's reign. You have a mission: convert heathen Gothamites. If you can't convert 'em, kill 'em all and let Jeebus sort 'em out. Oh yeah, you can play as an agent of the Antichrist if you want to.

This is not a joke. This is real. And it will be out in time for Xmas.

This looks good...

[Lord Kano]

So good in fact that I can't wait to warez it.

LK

Bulli Herbig

[managementboy]

Well did I get excited when I read the title! For you in the world, Bulli is also a very successful german Commedian (the slashdot croud should check his movie out "(T)Raumschiff Surprise - Periode 1", a StarTrec spoof).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Herbig

Unfortunatly...

[Belial6]

Unfortunatly that is a common story. I have to wonder how many of the people who blame you for getting mugged would take responsibility for their mugging if their coworker punched them in the face and stole their wallet every day.

That would likely sell.

[Belial6]

That would likely sell, and the bible belt outrage would make sure that every person in the country knew about it. Of course they should definitly be encouraged to show their outrage by each buying 20 copies and burning them in protest.

another interesting bible angle

[SethJohnson]

Look, I'm no mathematician, but everytime I think about the story of Adam, Eve, etc. I can't help but wonder how we're all descendents of those two people. Did Adam and Eve's children have sex with their mom? How did our population grow from just that one family?

I hope Mel Gibson sobers up enough to turn that story into a movie. It would be cool if he'd change the story around and cast Ashley and Jessica Simpson as the two daughters (instead of the sons). Probably would make more money than his "Jews beat the crap out of Jesus" movie. Oh, and there's an incest-ridden sequel built in with the story of Noah.

Seth

Re:another interesting bible angle

[ars]

Adam and Eve had twins (boy and girl).

Some sources say that was the reason behind the problems with cain and able, they were fighting over a girl.

Remember that the bible does not list every single person born, just the most notable ones (typically men because they usually did the most stuff, but girls are mentioned if they did anything notable). There were lots of other children born to Adam and Eve (boys and girls) after Cain and Able, and Cain and Able were born with girl twins. Those girls were not mentioned because they didn't do anything notable, and most of the other children born after Cain and Able (boys and girls) are not mentioned for the same reason.

I don't know of any sources that state when marriage between close relatives becomes forbidden. But I'm quite certain that Adam and Eve had lots of children, so it could have taken just one generation for siblings to be forbidden (according to the bible cousins are not forbidden to each other, although according to wikipedia the church seems to have expanded the forbidden list).

Re:another interesting bible angle

[AGMW]

I don't know of any sources that state when marriage between close relatives becomes forbidden.

And this on the day when the BBC run this story on inbreeding in Norfolk. Just makes me laugh the socks off my 6-toed feet!

Re:another interesting bible angle

[PeterFranks]

But I'm quite certain that Adam and Eve had lots of children...

Quite certain because of DNA evidence? Because of historical records? Because you were there? Or because your religious belief has a couple holes that require convenient filling?

6 months from now

[Anonymous Coward]

The DOJ hires someone to create a "schoolyard sim" that takes you through a 6 badge "growing pains" obstacle course. Jock status availiable for "500 Microsoft Points".
Free registration is compatible with "America's Army" accounts.

'cause knowing is half the battle.

my country road is no more.

peace.

hm?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that thinks that kid sounds like Tommy Vercetti off GTA:VC?

Gentlemen, it's a freaking game...

[Wiseman1024]

...and as a game, I find it very fun to punish undesirable schoolmates. I would not limit it to school but release a whole series where you have to fsck with/beat up/kill bullies, jerks, crackpots, gangs, etc. all around the world. It is fun, therefore a game that meets its ultimate purpose, therefore a good game, end of the story.

Best anti-bully strategy

[192939495969798999]

Befriend the biggest, strongest kids in school. Generally they don't have a reason to bully anyone because they're so big, so they'll probably be your friend. If you have a bully, use the even bigger kids as intimidation. I didn't have much trouble with physical bullies by implementing this strategy. I did have plenty of kids give me a hard time, though, but I wasn't willing to compromise my few freedoms/priveleges at school (I was pre-columbine all thru high school, can't believe some kids being bullied didn't shoot it up based on how bad it was, in case you're wondering how bad it was back then) in order to beat them up in retaliation.

Re:Best anti-bully strategy

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

This works in prison as well, though there are some compromises ... er, so I've heard.

Re:Best anti-bully strategy

[Tweekster]

Except columbine was a case of the bullies shooting up the school...

Those kids bullied EVERYONE, you saw them coming, you moved for them, or you were slammed into a locker.

Those assholes tried to play the victim of bullying, but they were the bullies, and their rich ass parents protected them. It would have saved a lot of lives if someone would have beaten the fuck out of them once in a while.

Life at boarding school

[fuctape]

I live and teach at a New England boarding school. I imagine this will end up being a pretty popular game in the guys' dorms, not for any comparison to actual life at boarding school, but for the amusing parallels that can be drawn with real people. Two characters were already pitted against each other in a WWE Smackdown game,looking suspiciously like two of our wrestling coaches. Should be fun.

Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a terrible time in high school. I was very skinny back then, so I was often the target of bullying. There were two kids who harassed me every day with verbal and physical attacks. I got maybe 5 days free of this. Those lucky days when one was absent, neither of them would attack me alone. It was humiliating and traumatic to me. The teacher didn't do anything (she was inept). All the other kids just sat there and many laughed at me. Nobody helped me. Anyways Columbine came along—I was 16 at the time—and the bullying.... CONTINUED! I got maybe 3 days of relief after Columbine. In fact, the two bullies used Columbine as a stepping stone for their harassment. They compared me to the columbine murderers. They kept calling me "psycho", like I was a murderer... My god the trauma.. I don't like recalling the details even this day (what is it over 7 years now? I'm 23 now). If only I had done something, talked to someone. If only...

I'm still kind of struggling with it. I saw one of the bullies working at Circuit City about a year ago. I can't believe the feelings that came back out of nowhere. Wisely I stayed away from him. I just didn't want to bring back those terrible memories. I was so angry, I wanted to go mug him.

After seeing the old bully, I tried many things to deal with the angry feelings. I checked myself into therapy and tried SSRIs and even tried religion. None of them worked. Meds worked the best for helping me fix my problems, but the side-effects were brutal. It wasn't until I began studying psychology and evolution that things started making sense to me.

It is obvious to me now that we—Homo sapiens—are a product of evolution. Regardless of what the religious people want to think or push, I won't have any more. Books like The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins really helped me open my eyes. My views on life have changed completely. I won't get into the scientific details of bullying behavior (genetic uses of aggression and submission and dominance hierarchies and mate selection and such, I'm still trying to figure it out...). Anyways, one quote really stuck in my head from Dawkins' book:

Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.

Re:Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a terrible time in high school. I was very skinny back then, so I was often the target of bullying. There were two kids who harassed me every day with verbal and physical attacks. I got maybe 5 days free of this.

baseball bat to a kidney solves this.. if the asshole kids thin kyu are nuts and will kill them later they leave you alone.

I caved in a locker with the head of one of my bullies. when sent ot the office the principal asked " what is going on" I said, he leaves me alone, nothing. he bothers me again and I am not responsible for what will happen.

my adrelenine was pumping so hard it took the wrestling coach and football coach to pull me off the asshole. the last thing I ever had to say to the kid was as I was leaving and he tole me to "watch out" I said without any emotion, "they will never find parts of your body" he never talked to me again or bothered me.

Bullies are the stupidest retarts on the school grounds and they only know fear. so if you give them what they know they go away. but be ready to go very close to that line. I was ready to take out a kids knee with a baseball bat if I needed to.

Re:Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't usually reply to AC posts, but...

I had bully troubles from kindergarten through highschool. Bad ones. Including getting stabbed in the stomach (drawing blood) with a pen. I was a skinny, lanky nerd. I never dated in highschool, and was a social basket case until college. In fact, I didn't kiss a girl until my freshman year. I was profoundly shy, and awkward throughout my youth.

Now, at 37, I'm a very successful professional, married to a wonderful, bright, engaging (and highly attractive) woman, and we have a terrific son for whom I'd move mountains of blazing fire. Physically, I'm a fit 190 pounds, can bench my weight, and last week I finished a 5K in under 28 minutes. We have a nice, largish home and "upscale" cars.

Did the turnaround happen overnight? In part it did, in part it's still happening. Has it been a perfect 180? No. I still battle crippling shyness at times--but at least I fight through it now.

The part that was like a lightswitch was the realization that I was being much more judgemental and hard on myself than anyone else was, including the bullies. That's it. Literally. I decided to give myself a break, and you know what? It worked.

When I lightened up, bingo, everyone else did too. There was an immediate and very noticable change in the way people interacted with me. They were much more comfortable with me, because *I* was comfortable with me. I met my first girlfriend within a week of making this change. And she approached me.

Finally, a counter-anecdote to your near-meeting with your old bully...I ran into the pen-stabber bully years later at a mall when I was about your age. He spotted me first, and approached me very meekly. What happened? He apologized for being such an asshole as a kid! He shook my hand and said sorry. Turns out he'd gotten therapy to deal with his anger and acting out, and finally turned his life around too.

Good luck in your journey and for Darwin's sake, lighten up man!

Re:Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

The lighten up part is true. Until I met my (then future) wife, I couldn't laugh at myself. Every mistake was an embarassment. The difference is astounding.

You're also correct about former bullies...most eventually outgrow it and are embarrassed by their past behavior. I'm still comvinced that most social interaction is learned from parents, though, and the bullying is mostly a product of environment. I see it in the 3 and 4 year olds that my daughter interacts with. In cases where I know the children and parents well, it's disturbingly clear that the parents actions are almost directly leading to the "problems" with the children. Sure, there are some kids who just won't mind, but many are just reacting to stimili the way their parents react to them. What I find so interesting is that the parents never see it in themselves.

I feel lucky that my wife has taught me humor, and I have helped her be more independent. Since we've each learned something core from each other we didn't have before, we tend to see each others parenting faults easier and we wach steer each other as well as our daughter. I'm still certain that her temperment is mostly dumb luck on our part. There are so many ways to screw up a child's psyche; I just wish more parents would pay attention.

But for real gamers..

[The Creator]

Anything that Rockstar puts out is the word of God too!

Bully in the UK...

[Neomancer]

Not sure if anyone knows. But all the bullying groups in the UK are looking to get the game banned.

To be quite honest. Banning a game in the UK will lead to a LOT more piracy. People downloading off the net/buying off someone etc
And its going to make people want to play it a lot more if its banned.. Think banned films. People will always try and get it somehow to find out what all the fuss it about

Possibly an age restriction I guess. As some druggie/slightly strange in the head kids are unable to discern the difference between reality and a game.. E.g. I think it was manhunt and the kid that stabbed some other kid in a park in the UK.. And they blamed the game for that.. Not the fact he was obviously devoid of any common sense..
But for the majority.. Probably much like me.. Violent video games were a part of my childhood. But I would never think of going out and copying anything portrayed in those games. So why victimise everyone.. For the small minority who are slightly screwed in the head
So I think all the bullying websites that are complaining like little girls are helping the games publicity :)

Re:Bully in the UK...

[Rob T Firefly]

Not sure if anyone knows. But all the bullying groups in the UK are looking to get the game banned.

By "bullying groups" are you referring to groups who are anti-bullying, or groups of bullies themselves? My local bullies have an interesting way of organizing into groups, they're called "gangs," and it'd be hilarious to see that lot get all whiney about a video game.

Re:Bully in the UK...

[Neomancer]

whoops. was't too clear on that one.. it's anti bullying groups "ROCKSTAR'S BULLY GAME: Following intense publicity about our opposition to this game http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4135988.stm we've heard that Rockstar may be delaying the launch of Bully. Bullying is not a suitable topic for a game, this charity gets emails from up to four suicidal children a day, and one of the screenshots depicts one teenager assaulting another. We hope other charities will follow our lead in calling for a UK ban on this game. " from bullyingonline.org.uk

Re:Bully in the UK...

[2008]

In the "Manhunt" case it was the victim who played the game.

source

Interestingly, the BBC website has plenty of coverage of the case but doesn't mention this vital fact. I thought they were better than that.

You're quite right about piracy. I would have no reservations whatsoever in warezing a game I couldn't get legally anyway, and would probably make a point of distributing it to any less connected friends just to show them what the government considers worth banning. If I thought it was genuinely unjustified I might even leave some CD-Rs in, say, the local pub :)

Re:Bully in the UK...

[Neomancer]

oh dear. im a victim of media hype. i do take back that specific situation. but i belive games are regulary a scapegoat... and i agree with 2008. tho im not too sure if importing from jersy etc will evade the ban :)

wow

[The Creator]

"I'd give my kids GTA long before I'd hand them a bible."

May i have your real name so that i don't have to put that under Mark Twain in my quotes collection?

Re:wow

[Miniluv]

If you'd use Mark Twain, why object to his made up name?

Or haven't heard of Samuel Clemens?

They released unbelievable screenshots

[Anonymous Coward]

http://s64.emuunlim.com/gameinfos/bully/bully.htm

this game will be great... no wait, it already IS great

Inaccurate

[szembek]

I'm pretty sure this is exactly the game we were expecting. It was written previously that the game would be under this exact premise. I don't understand the title.

Shock Game devs?

[obzidian]

Clearly Rockstar are trying to be the shock game devs of the world or some such thing... What shortsighted violent game will they develop next? Peter has fun with Plutonium? Whatever it takes to Profit! I guess...

We've been here before

[norman619]

Remember the stink the antigame folks made about doom back in the day? These people don't bother playing the games they crit. How bad is a game where you play a marine fighting the forces of hell? All they did was provide loads of free publicity for the game. I suspect we will see the same with this game. WOOT!!!

They exist!

[Lumpy]

link to their site

The new one you get 2 points for saving someone's soul but lose 1 point for killing someone.

so after you build up points you can go on a murder spree and then go back to saving people as you can easily be forgiven for your murder sprees :-)

It's pretty sick and teaches worse things to kids than any video game rock star came out with.

at 18 and 21 something happens....

[nickyj]

And at the age of 18 and 21 something magical happens. Nope... nothing happens. The only difference is when you are 18 you are no longer a minor and are punishable to the full extent of the law. But again really at the age of 18 nothing happens in your mind. In Europe, you can drink alcohol at the age of 16.

The real thing here is that at these ages we expect that most people will be mature enough to be responsible about their usage of these 'items' but in reality some people should never use these things because they will never be mature enough to be responsible with it, be it alcohol, violent images (games or movies), or drugs/tobacco.

Re:at 18 and 21 something happens....

[TheoMurpse]

The real thing here is that at these ages we expect that most people will be mature enough to be responsible about their usage of these 'items' but in reality some people should never use these things because they will never be mature enough to be responsible with it, be it alcohol, violent images (games or movies), or drugs/tobacco.

You are absolutely correct here, but should we make a test to license people to drink and smoke? How would one test for maturity empirically. Furthermore, what percentage of the populace would find this test biased in one way or another (hint: a lot)? How much money would deriving a test like this waste (hint: a lot)?

Also, at any age, one can argue that the line should be lower or higher, because nothing magical happens to your body or mind when you reach the legal age for an activity. Unfortunately we lack the technology to accurately detect if someone is responsible enough to drink alcohol or smoke nicotine.

Note: I really don't like this line of questioning, because it only takes a novice logician and a mildly afraid populace to arrive at the next conclusion: laws governing the playing of video games and viewing of films and reading of books and so on.

Rockstar are a pack of NPD nerds

[wobblie]

While I think all persecuted people (nerds included) are prone to developing a "narcissistic wound" over what has been done to them, it is unhealthy in the extreme to dwell on this in forms of revenge fantasy, as in games such as this clearly is. While it is extrodinarily dishonest to write off a persecuted minority as "narcissistic" (as many do), it is also jeopardous for those who are persecuted to dwell on this. Clear thinking people will realize this about themselves.

This narcissism also throws a total lack of empathy with other minorities into very clear relief. Look at how feminists, gays, blacks, nerds & whatever else very rarely show any solidarity with each other at all - this is truly sad.

Re:Rockstar are a pack of NPD nerds

[spyrochaete]

Revenge fantasy is not the only reason to play this game. I may have been bullied a little in school but I want to play this game so that I can take on the persona of a new character that I will grow to like, empathise with, and defend. Rockstar is a very skillful game company and their games often have great character development, writing, game mechanics, and style. That twinge of discomfort people get from their games is a sign of how well they've done their job at creating a medium that successfully suspends disbelief. The best stories are those that tug at your heart strings, and a game like Bully that hits so close to home is a great example of a solid premise.

And yet, we have Dead Rising...

[Winterblink]

...a game which many gamers feared would get AO or non-ratings, but somehow manages to squeak by with an M. There's probably hundreds of ways to bludgeon, dismember, shoot, slice, dice and shred your enemies, all with a massive bloody spray, entrails flying everywhere, etc. But it's ok, because most of enemies are ALREADY DEAD. The ones that aren't are psychotic, so I suppose you're just defending yourself. I've played the demo. It was ridiculously fun, oddly quite humorous in a dark kind of way. I'll probably pick the game up today. I just can't get over how censors and anti-game critics jump up and down on the balls of developers holding high society's faults and failings for all to see, while largely ignoring others.

Come again?

[sammy baby]

Contrary to the rumours that have spread about the Rockstar game, Bully, and it's storyline, the game's trailer as released by IGN today spins in a completely different direction, anti-game critics will not be happy.

Okay, look, I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but seriously. That sentence is so badly written that after rereading it several times, I'm still not sure what it's trying to say.

Will "anti-game critics" be unhappy with the game's content?

Will they be unhappy because its plot/gameplay is different from what was expected?

Is the storyline different from what the rumors suggested?

Holy Man 2

[Hausenwulf]

Yeah, but I heard they got rid of a bunch of that stuff in Holy Man 2: New Testament... nothing good up until the final level, Revelations. ;)

New Game Idea

[tls502]

Rockstar should just put out a game that involves going to DC and gunning down any kind of activist that has ever made a big "to do" over a videogame.

Re:New Game Idea

[spyrochaete]

Rockstar should just put out a game that involves going to DC and gunning down any kind of activist that has ever made a big "to do" over a videogame.

Postal 2 by Running With Scissors did this. One of the first missions in the game is to collect your paycheque from work (RWS' studio replete with real staff members), but when you go there you are promptly fired. On your way out the building is rushed by a group of picketers decrying violent video games. You can whack their heads off with a shovel, kick them around the room, and pee on them.

In style, humour, and gameplay, this is a GREAT game. I highly recommend it.

Re:New Game Idea

[tls502]

Excellent, I didn't realize Postal had that. I might have to check that one out. Thanks!

How the mighty have fallen

[rancher dan 3]

Holy sheep shit! This appears to be a sorry slow-motion train wreck of a game. Unless there's the mother of all hot coffee mods hiding in that code somewhere, this is going to be Rockstar's swan dive into obscurity. On the other hand a Beowulf cluster of these might bore JT to death, so it might do some good after all.

It Might as Well Be a National Geographic Game

[Forget_Norway!]

The bully is the main enemy of nerds, geeks, dweebs, and other classes of high school 'undesirables'. One would be prone to the belief that this is nothing more than a thoughtless jab at the video game's main demographic - nerds, geeks, ect. but it's apparent to me that this game is merely a commentary on the natural Predator-Prey relationship, Intended for use as a learning tool for pre-high school students to prepare them for their natural enviroment. Help support the wild! Buy!

Re:The Telstra/Gamearena mirror - MOD PARENT UP

[jerkychew]

Wish I had moderator points handy for you, cuz this is the first link I've found that worked.

Wow, How stupid

[Tweekster]

That looks like a really really really crappy video game.

I expect that one to tank hardcore. Why is rockstar ruining their already bad image by producing a stupid looking game. Sure they will catch flak for pretty much any game they produce because of the style they do, but this is just asking for trouble without any real benefit, this game will be a loser for sure.

Similar story...

[Dareth]

Jr High was like being in the Gladiator Pits. Almost daily fights to defend yourself. I was 5'1" at the end of 8th grade. I was 5'9" at the beginning of 9th, and 6' at the end. All of a sudden nobody wanted to fight anymore.

Problem is the authorities taking a hands off approach to bullies, but zero tolerance to self defense.

Re:Similar story...

[can'tthinkofagoodnic]

Problem is the authorities taking a hands off approach to bullies, but zero tolerance to self defense.

I completely agree here. When I got beat up in middle school I was afraid to fight back, because the prospect of getting expelled was much scarier than that of getting punched. Every kid I knew who ever fought back got in as much trouble as the bully. My PE teacher knew I was getting beat up--his solution was to hold back the bully for about 10 sec to give me a head start while I ran as fast as I could from the PE field to an area with teachers. Every day for months. Some days he caught me, some days he didn't.

I had a good home life. Take a kid in my position and make his entire life a living hell, instead of just the hour during PE, and it's not too hard for me to understand why some kids lose it and kill people.

Luckily that particular bully that chased me every day failed 8th grade, so high school wasn't so traumatic for me. I wasn't as lucky as you though--I was 5'4" until I was 16. Didn't hit 5'11" until my senior year.

School survival techniques

[brother_b]

Back when I was in school, I occasionally would have an incident where someone would pop me in the back of the head with a book or something, but it was usually untargeted violence - I just happened to be a convenient target at the time. In general, I didn't have many issues probably because of several reasons:

• I was a top-tier student but was a slacker that didn't flaunt my being a top-tier student and didn't really give a rat's ass about school
• I was friends with some black guys who were also friends of some of the toughs (this is in the South, so there was a good deal of black-white animosity that came out in fights occasionally); as a white kid you wouldn't fit in with them but they at least knew you were on the level and not some hateful redneck
• I hung out with some average students and some that were borderline psychotic (several would fit the D&D classification of neutral evil, and at least one was very clearly chaotic evil - couldn't trust him with a quarter, but people stayed away from him because he was an unstable wacko); this had the advantage of making me a lesser desirable target since if anyone stood out it was one of them and not me
• Didn't do anything to cross the bully types - I was generally friendly with everyone

I still felt like I was in a war zone sometimes, but at least the flak wasn't being targeted specifically at me. Hell, the person who gave me the most beatings was my best friend from 4th grade (not in a "bully" way, more of a "I want to see what he does if I hit him really hard" and it made him look tough since he got picked on more than me), and I still hang out with him whenever I'm back home; I fixed him up good in 5th grade by knocking the snot out of him to get him back and he never tried that again. We still talk about it, and it's actually quite funny to remember back to it. Man, we were some stupid kids back then.

Some school admins were good too, though. One in particular (dead now, sadly) was pretty well respected even by the tough guys since he would be straight with you and not just dole out zero-tolerance BS. He was a really nice guy, but he could be a bulldog if you crossed the line and would scare the crap out of you. Luckily I was never in a position to be on the receiving end of that.

It's really kind of funny in a sad way to see what happened to some of the more evil kids I hung around with for "insurance". Many of them now have rap sheets a mile long and have been in prison. At least one has been in a mental institution.

Re:School survival techniques

[kingjames128]

Oh God... not another bully-related article! Slashdot users are going to clog the tubes of the internet again with their emotional high school flashbacks!

re: Spare us the trolling

[King_TJ]

I, too, knew a few short, nerdy kids who did ok in school because they were nice to everyone. But that doesn't guarantee anything. I also remember several like that who got constantly picked on anyway. Maybe it was something as simple as them being cursed with a "squeaky" sounding voice, or kids discovering some of their hobbies/interests were just too tempting to poke fun at?

Growing up, I was picked on all though gradeschool and much of high-school too. In my case, it was mostly because I sucked at competitive sports and consequently, didn't care much for playing them. When you're constantly attacked by your peers, you have to find coping mechanisms that help you convince yourself you're not "all bad/hopeless/worthless". Having an above-average IQ can be one of them. I don't fault the original poster for bringing up his IQ at all. It's part of the overall picture. (People can get picked on for being too "slow" too. At least we're clear that wasn't this guy's particular problem.)

And actually, you know what bugs me? People who dislike intelligence when they see it, just out of pure jealousy. I once ran into a guy who came up to my face and told me he hated me. I was totally confused. I never recalled saying or doing anyting that would have upset him. He was just one of the guys a bunch of us hung out with on weekends. I knew his girlfriend and she was friendly enough... but I never tried to hit on her or anything. So, totally puzzled, I asked him why? He told me it was because I was "too f*cking smart" and people like me just pissed him off.

Please, no karate

[tacokill]

...When I have kids, I'm enrolling them in a martial arts class...

Pu-leeeze. Where I went to high school, saying you had martial arts training was the surest way to get your ass kicked. It's not that people hate martial arts. It's just that mentioning it sort-of challenges others to "test" you. And we did. I can safely say that 99.9% of the martial-arts people I saw fight, lost. And usually lost badly. Don't forget you are going up against other people who "street fight" and don't fight to choreographed moves. It is my belief that martial arts unfairly makes people believe they are better fighters than they really are**.

From reading the posts, I'd say I was on the other side of things. I never got picked on much but I picked on a few people and I regret doing so. But, the GP was dead-on.....fighting back is really the only way to get out of it. Even if you only get in one good punch (make it count!). Almost always, a mutual respect will be earned and you will at least get them off YOUR back.

But martial arts is not the way to do this. Perhaps consider boxing or wrestling instead.


(**note: I realize there are SOME martial artists that are bad-asses. But the vast vast majority of high-schoolers are not in this category and unless you are, martial-arts won't help you.)

Re:Please, no karate

[Anonymous Coward]

This was in the early 80s, so it has probably changed, but we used to learn dirty moves fairly often. Students could come in and spar, practice forms, work out, or whatever - even when there were no classes. When you hung around that much you wouldn't just learn a staff kata - the sensei would teach you how to recognize improvised weapons in real life (and why trying to fight like people in movies do is a really stupid idea). He'd also show the best way and why, to go after elbows, knees, the throat, the temple, ears, eyes, groin, and so on. He made it very clear that moves like that were meant to *hurt* people, and that you never use something like that while sparing.

So don't assume that just because a guy says he studies martial arts that he isn't also aware that stomping on your instep, kicking your kneecap, and crushing your nose is a better option than trying to use sparing room moves on you.

Re:Please, no karate

[painehope]

I hate to jump in w/ a "me-too" post, but you are so right it's not even funny. I laugh my ass off at all these taekwondo and karate guys. I've had training in 3 types of fighting : martial arts ( taekwondo, haikado(sp?), jujitsu ), street-fighting, and military. My martial arts training was interesting, because the place I studied was a little brick building in nasty neighborhood in New Orleans ( which is probably wiped off the map now... ), and the people going there as well as the instructors all actually used the stuff that they learned, so it was more like 1/2 street-fighting and 1/2 of the fancy-assed martial arts bullshit. We used to get students that came from other schools, and some black-belt would come in and get his ass wiped by a teenager with a yellow belt ( we had full-contact sparring ). My streetfighting experience came from, well, streetfighting. I've grown up in New Orleans and Houston, in everything from neighborhoods where gangs and violence were extremely prevalant to nice suburbs, and I've been in a lot of situations where I had to fight for my life, not just dignity or to be cool ( hell, I was stabbed in the 8th grade, and might have been killed if I hadn't beat the kid unconscious - I was 5'1 and 80 lbs. going to school w/ kids that were 17 ( and still in middle school, if that tells you anything ), 6'+, 200+ lbs. ). My military training I got from being sentenced ( by the courts ) to a boot camp run by ex-marines, where I learned hand-to-hand ( and knife, bayonet, and rifle ) combat from people that were killing people in Korea and Vietnam before I was born. I was on the PT team ( physical training, I could do 200 pushups w/out stopping when I was 14 ) as well as boxing and lifting weights.

Anyways, my point is that through all of this I learned a few things : (a) there's no substitute for a cool head and willingness to hurt someone (b) it ain't about trying to look cool ( I'll bit your fucking ear off or stick my thumb in your eye socket if that's what it takes ) and (c) always get the first blow in. (c) is very important. Don't get in people's faces, but take them down if they get in yours. When 2 people who are willing and able mix it up, most of the time it's the one who gets the first punch in that wins, because they then get in the second and third punch as well, and generally by that time they are stomping on the other guy's head.

And, yes, kicking someone's ass is a great way to get idiotic bullies to leave you alone. Oh, and another thing that got people to leave me the hell alone in high school was the fact that I was the only 16 year old w/ visible tattoos.

My first reaction was "Huh, I expected it sooner."

[Maggott]

Amen, brother. I too was among the favored "victims" of my school. Hell, Columbine may have happened in 1991 if my parents had owned any serious firearms. The way students treated each other went beyond uncivilized and into the realm of barbarism. In fact, part of the reason things were so bad was that the stories the students told were so horrific that the faculty decided they had to be ficticious. It took a few dozen people being shot to death to make the world realize that maybe it was real after all.

I knew that if any other schools in the nation were anything like mine, it was only a matter of time before somebody cracked and blew someone else's brains out. I also predicted, rather cynically (this was back in 1990-92, remember) that the media would place the blame squarely on other parts of the media, rather than on the students' brutality or the wholesale negligence of their caretakers.

If you're going to claim--as some others in this thread do--that the fault doesn't lie with the "innocent children" who were raising their fists (and sometimes worse) against their peers, then you've got to accept that the blame lies with the schools who had taken up the duty of protecting them from each other. And then all you're saying is that the Columbine folks should have shot more faculty and fewer students.

I'm a nonviolent person. I'm all for "Never start a fight, but always finish it." But having gone through what I did, I greeted the news of Columbine with gratitude and relief. I knew the massacre was so impossible to ignore that maybe--just MAYBE--it would get the schools' attention and they'd start listening when a fat kid in black clothes says he's sick of having people hit him in the back of the head every day. Most of you don't understand just how much of a difference the lives of those who died at Columbine might make in the lives of those who come after them. I'd love to be shot to death if it means that other students won't have to go through what I went through.

Klebold and Harris didn't start the fight, but--we can hope--they finished it.

And if that sounds insensitive, well, let's just say I had some really good teachers.

Won't somebody think of the parents!?

[Maggott]

No, seriously. We should make them play this.

It's been my experience that while parents (usually) protect children, institutions of adults don't. So maybe if they play this game they'll get it.

Will there be a...

[neonfrog]

... "Hot Lunch" mod?

Yeah. I was picked on too.

[fluxrad]

FYI - You didn't get picked on because you were "different." You got picked on because you didn't stand up for yourself. How do I know? I was that kid too. At least to some extent. I was fat, nonathletic, and a chronic smart ass. I got my ass beat thoughout high school 'cause the other kids knew I'd take it. I guess the rule here is that in high school you're almost guaranteed to catch a shit if you're at all "different", what counts is how you react to it.

Watch Cool Hand Luke sometime. Pay close attention to the boxing scene between Lou Antonio and Paul Newman.

Columbine Myth

[Morinaga]

The popular belief that bullies are what drove Harris and Klebold to mass murder is a myth that will never die.

FBI after incident report done with the input of psychiatrists and psychologists reached a totally different conclusion http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/.

Harris is the challenge. He was sweet-faced and well-spoken. Adults, and even some other kids, described him as "nice." But Harris was cold, calculating, and homicidal. "Klebold was hurting inside while Harris wanted to hurt people," Fuselier says. Harris was not merely a troubled kid, the psychiatrists say, he was a psychopath.

In popular usage, almost any crazy killer is a "psychopath." But in psychiatry, it's a very specific mental condition that rarely involves killing, or even psychosis. "Psychopaths are not disoriented or out of touch with reality, nor do they experience the delusions, hallucinations, or intense subjective distress that characterize most other mental disorders," writes Dr. Robert Hare, in Without Conscience, the seminal book on the condition. (Hare is also one of the psychologists consulted by the FBI about Columbine and by Slate for this story*.) "Unlike psychotic individuals, psychopaths are rational and aware of what they are doing and why. Their behavior is the result of choice, freely exercised." Diagnosing Harris as a psychopath represents neither a legal defense, nor a moral excuse. But it illuminates a great deal about the thought process that drove him to mass murder.

The article goes on in more detail and is a very good read.

Bullies aren't why Columbine happened. I've suffered bullies as have most people in their lives and we've yet to go on some killing spree. There are millions of examples of people who've played video games and not turned violent, the same is true of those that have been subjected to bullies.

Re:Columbine Myth

[mgabrys_sf]

And all the other school shootings are myths to in their causes? If bullying was just one misattributed facet of Columbine, don't think that the idea hasn't had forebearers and copycats.

They should have named it "Bullied"

[Anonymous Coward]

That would have been more accurate and not have had the negative baggage.

um - anyone want to talk about the GAME?

[mgabrys_sf]

Or are we too busy having our nerd-flashbacks?

Fucking move on people. Or you can stay a victim forever I guess. The therapist market is ready to take your money and operators are standing by.

Hell the thing is a PS2 exclusive and even the Sony haters haven't made comment-one. Bizzare.

Conforming is Losing (and Parent is a Troll)

[paladinwannabe2]

You're right! People at my school made fun of me for using correct english, scoring high on tests, and reading books during class! I'll bet that if I got C's, used more slang, and watched football instead of reading books, I would have been ignored!

Sure, I could have conformed to the groupthink, but then I would have been a loser like the rest of them. Most of the idiots who made fun of me are probably working at Taco Bell now (If they are employed at all). I, meanwhile, never think back and go "oh, if I only was more normal in school, I'd be better off now".

Re:Conforming is Losing (and Parent is a Troll)

[Lord Ender]

It is demonstratably possible to do well academically without being ridiculed. Obviously, you were doing something else that was socially incompatible with your group, but you have failed to identify it.

BRAVO!!

[thenymph]

I couldn't agree with you more. Good post.

Chattel vs Dead?

[Travoltus]

Tough choice there.

If being chattel is worse than being dead why didn't all women kill themselves as soon as they realized how bad they had it? I'm not saying chattelism is okay, but I am telling you straight up - it's better to be chattel than dead because one of the two is irreversible. Guess which.

Of course, in the Middle East, and not just a few homes in America, chattel often also equals dead. I'll grant you that.

Re:Chattel vs Dead?

[wobblie]

Way to miss the point - entirely. Slavery is better than death, so ... what exactly are you trying to say? Nothing? I thought so.

Re:Chattel vs Dead?

[Travoltus]

Your point wasn't missed. It was made fun of, but it wasn't missed.

Of course, you spent most of your time in school hating men and very little mastering reading comprehension, but now I suppose you're out to make that my problem. Hooboy.

Conforming is Losing

[paladinwannabe2]

I was smart enough then to know when I was being 'socially different', and you are correct that you can do well academically without ridicule (in most schools). I'm just saying that if you let "being normal" keep you from playing Magic, joining the chess club, setting the curve, or wearing you favorite pair of shorts, then you're letting the bullies win.

I'm not saying you should be an attention whore, though- If you're doing weird stuff just to stand out you look like an idiot. Goths and emos invite critism.

Don't forget speech impediments

[paladinwannabe2]

Plenty of kids will get picked on because of things beyond their control- speech impediments, accents, deformities, family members, poverty, shortness, new kid in school, etc. Conformity is often impossible for these kids. It's ignorant of you to imply that kids getting picked on bring it on themselves because they don't 'fit in'.

I'm not saying that I had these problems, or that I couldn't have fit in if I wanted to- I'm sure I could have. That was not a priority for me then, though, and I don't see why it should have been.

Re:Don't forget speech impediments

[Lord Ender]

Ignorant? I assume if you had a tail or something, you would have noted so. Based on your post, it is not ignorant to assume as such.

Conform? Bah. All the world's a stage. You have poor acting skills for somone in the top 1% of IQ. If you know group X will pick on you if you do action Y, that doesn't mean you can't do action Y. It means that if you care about being picked on, you fool group X in to thinking you don't do action Y.

You contradict yourself by saying "not being picked on is was not a priority" after complaining about being picked on.

You can call me a troll if you like, but I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I was perhaps the geekiest person at my school. I was fantastically excited to get my 1200bps modem. My close friends and I set up coax LANs on computers running Linux. I wrote my first TCP/IP app at age 16. I also made out with more girls than I can count and was quite popular.

Did I conform? No. I was still a geek. I just identified what I wanted, and acted rationally to get it.

Make that trailer play nice

[Ken_g6]

"Bully Trailer Hits the Web"

Somebody should rein in that trailer before it breaks the tubes!

Free advice

[supercrisp]

Well, this is friendly advice. But it might go down wrong. I was a lot like you. I grew up in the rural South, and I'm not the nerd so much as the poet type. Smart, skinny, sensitive. Don't get me wrong, I was still a little redneck. But my folks beat me a lot, and that marks you in a way. So I got beat up a lot until I got really mean. I don't advise that. I'm lucky I'm not in jail. I chose violence as a path out of being bullied. But I got the violence under control by working my butt off learning to respect myself. That meant, for me, working out and being conscious of how I thought about myself and the world. It's this way: if you're really a smart guy, maybe you know things those other people don't; maybe they're just dumb knuckle-draggers. Whatever. YOU have to find a way to deal with it without feeling like a victim. That's not "suck it up" at all. It's learning to be less scared of the world.

Re:My first reaction was "Huh, I expected it soone

[xtieburn]

Insightful??? Karma be damned (and in a thread where one of the most insightful posts so far has been marked as a troll, it most certainly will be.) this is horrifying! Your glamorizing psychopaths! Treating them like they are some kind of veterans of a war in schools.

I dont give a damn what happened to them. _They crossed the line._ Its the same line terrorists and murderers cross. Seriously, you think you can justify there rampage because it helped you out? Well I guess you can justify 9/11 for helping out the terrorist movements. I guess you can justify the multiple bombs set off by the IRA for furthering there cause. What about ETA as well. All justifiable, after all they were mudering to further their causes. You think thats an extreme or cliched thing to say? Please do explain how this differs from them?

'And then all you're saying is that the Columbine folks should have shot more faculty and fewer students.'
Or that the schools should become more aware of what is happening with there pupils... If you can only see an improvement in schools coming from the execution of its staff you're more twisted than I had originally thought.

'I'd love to be shot to death if it means that other students won't have to go through what I went through.'
Good for you. That doesnt change the fact there are 13 dead who didnt want to be the moronic martyr you seem to want to be. There are ways of improving things that dont involve people getting a bullet in the face. This is something you dont seem to be able to grasp.

'Klebold and Harris didn't start the fight, but--we can hope--they finished it.'
Dont be so ridiculous you cant fix bullying with a single violent event. You cant fix _anything_ with a single violent event. You think bullying is some how going to dissapear, your dellusional. Bullying still goes on, and will probably escalate when in every kid the bullys pick on, they see someone who might gun them down if given the chance. Violence begets violence, always has, always will. The only thing they have done is turn schools in to prisons and removed more of the rights from millions of children in a flawed attempt at crushing something they will almost certainly just make worse.

I have been bullied, ive been through shit and gotten ignored by teachers and parents on multiple occaisions but I feel nothing but contempt for Klebold and Harris. I feel even more contempt for those who are so screwed up they can consider them saviours.

The one thing that always made me superior to the bullies is that id never need the pain of other people to get along in my life. Bullies only win when they turn you in to something as bad as they are. It appears they can chalk up another victory in your case.

'KILL all retards, people with their brain fucked up, drug addicts, people who can't figure out how to use a fucking lighter, GEEEAWD! People spend millions of dollars on saving the lives of retards and why?" "If you recall your history, the Nazis came up with a 'final solution' to the Jewish problem: kill them all. Well, incase you haven't figured it out yet, I say: 'KILL MANKIND''
- From the diary of Harris and Klebold the the people you feel 'grattitude' to.

You're pathetic.

Re:My first reaction was "Huh, I expected it soone

[Maggott]

Insightful??? Karma be damned (and in a thread where one of the most insightful posts so far has been marked as a troll, it most certainly will be.) this is horrifying! Your glamorizing psychopaths! Treating them like they are some kind of veterans of a war in schools.

Both of us are well aware there is no glamor involved in something like this. What I am treating them like is human beings. Might I remind you that these kids took their own lives at the conclusion of their rampage? There was something so deeply wrong with these kids' lives that they were willing to murder dozens of people AND themselves over it, and you would simply wave that away with the word "psychopath."

I dont give a damn what happened to them. _They crossed the line._ Its the same line terrorists and murderers cross. Seriously, you think you can justify there rampage because it helped you out? Well I guess you can justify 9/11 for helping out the terrorist movements. I guess you can justify the multiple bombs set off by the IRA for furthering there cause. What about ETA as well. All justifiable, after all they were mudering to further their causes. You think thats an extreme or cliched thing to say? Please do explain how this differs from them?

I assume that means you are against the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11 then, even though all those killings may have helped out the American cause. Likewise with state-sanctioned executions and perhaps even self-defense.

Perhaps you are against those things, I don't know. What I know is that there was a line crossed, and it happened long before Columbine.

All things reach a point of saturation at which they change forms. Steal a dollar and nobody cares. Steal a million dollars and you're in deep shit. Heat a drop of water in your hand by a degree and you won't care. Heat it by a million degrees...you get the idea.

There are places where the saturation of day to day indignities, oppression and cruelty cross the line from simple bullying; where the forces in people's lives go from unpleasant to torturous.

Place yourself in their shoes for a moment. Just how badly would you have to be mistreated before you'd do what they did? My guess is you figure you never would. Now suppose that's true. Now imagine you're thrust into a world that's so bad that you end up doing it *anyway.*

That world is real, and it's not just in Columbine.

It takes a lot to get someone to that point. A LOT. I've known people who were crazy or impulsive or rash. It takes more than any of those things to do what K and H did.

And then all you're saying is that the Columbine folks should have shot more faculty and fewer students.'
Or that the schools should become more aware of what is happening with there pupils... If you can only see an improvement in schools coming from the execution of its staff you're more twisted than I had originally thought.

Schools becoming aware of what was happening with their pupils would have prevented the problem, had they acted on it.

The problem is they didn't. Either they didn't know, or they knew and did nothing. From my experience, I'm guessing denial had something to do with it as well.

At my school, the denial and apathy by the faculty was so powerful that many of us really did think it would take a shooting to get some of them to act--and even then, we figured all they'd really do is install metal detectors while doing nothing to solve the real problems at the school.

(Isn't it funny that so many schools did just that?)

(Answer: Not really. It makes me a little nauseus, actually.)

'I'd love to be shot to death if it means that other students won't have to go through what I went through.'
Good for you. That doesnt change the fact there are 13 dead who didnt want to be the moronic martyr you seem to want to be.

You do realize the irony of taking the moral high ground while simultaneously calling someone moronic for b

Re:My first reaction was "Huh, I expected it soone

[xtieburn]

'What I am treating them like is human beings. Might I remind you that these kids took their own lives at the conclusion of their rampage?'
and might I remind you that there are many who are a damn site worse off than they ever were. Who have been through far more, who have been bullied and beaten and insulted to a whole different level. Place them on a peddlestool. Not these psychos, and yes they are psychos they gave away there right to sympathy and understanding the moment they put someone to death.

'I assume that means you are against the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11 then, even though all those killings may have helped out the American cause.'
I dont agree that anyone should kill for there own cause. Any war should be faught with the aim of mutually benefitting both sides. The terror attacks on 9/11, the bombs from the IRA, ETA, the shootings at Columbine. These were selfish murderous acts with no justification. Not one of them were thinking about the other side and that is an important distinction. Its the difference between liberator and conqueror. Or in this case heroes and lunatics.

'That world is real, and it's not just in Columbine'
Its not in Columbine at all. They were a couple of kids who got picked on. They werent homeless, starving, physically destroyed. They werent traumatised by the deaths of people they new and loved. They didnt watch there homes get destroyed, etc, etc.

A vast chunk, probably the majority have been through so much worse than the bullying they were subjected too. People in the schools ive been in, people ive talked to, have been subjected to worse bullying. Non of them have put there school mates to death for it. I dont believe any of them ever would. These werent kids pushed too hard by a harsh world they were whining morons with no concept of whats important no perspective on the world, nor decent idea of right and wrong. Itd be pitiable and deserving of some serious help only they crossed a line that millions of others, despite going through far more, would never cross. Now they deserve nothing but disdain.

'The problem is they didn't.'
Then perhaps you should be thinking about how to change that. You know instead of executing innocent people to try get your point across...

'You do realize the irony of taking the moral high ground while simultaneously calling someone moronic for being willing to sacrifice his life for the good of others, right?'
Being condescending when you seem to have missed the very point you pointed out in your last piece of this diatribe... Being shot to death does nothing, did nothing. The schools as you so succinctly put it installed 'metal detectors while doing nothing to solve the real problems at the school.' You wouldnt be sacrificing your life for the good of others. Thats your ridiculous fantasy to justify the deaths of those they killed, and yes the idea of you becoming some kind of martyr and not just another dead kid is moronic indeed.

'Suppose--and this might not fit in your perfect little worldview--that Klebold and Harris tried those other ways of improving things.'
Suppose--and this minght not fit in your war torn psychosville worldview--that Klebold and Harris should have _tried harder_.
Your not talking about taking a bus to a different town because your cornershop hasnt any bottles of your favorite pop available. Your talking about gunning down other human beings in cold blood. This isnt something that they should have _ever_ resorted to.

Heres a scenario, and I am quite certain there are less drastic methods that would have worked, they take hostages instead of murdering people. It would have sent more or less the same message and you can more or less guarentee with media attention the bullying or whatever was bothering them would have ended. There is no excuse for what they did no matter how tough you try paint the picture.

'You can fix most bullying by physically hurting the bully once. He may turn to another victim, but that, also, can be solved w

action trip no register higher-res download link

[abandonment]

http://www.actiontrip.com/files/movies/ps2/bully.p html

Unfortunately, it cuts both ways

[Moraelin]

Unfortunately, it cuts both ways. A lot of people just got _more_ harrassment around that time (except this time by the principal and teachers), just because they were wearing black or were introverted, and they suddenly got labelled as the next guy who'll shoot up the school. A lot found themselves a lot more ostracized than even before. And there are some who had to move out of town sooner or later, because once they had been labelled as the psycho who'll eventually shoot up the school or company, they had trouble getting even a lousy job at the gas station.

Now maybe in your case your hell was deep enough so even that was an improvement. For a lot it wasn't. Some weren't in all-out-war with the whole school to start with. Being labelled as the next mass-murderer just added an extra layer of ostracizing on top of what they already had.

So excuse me if I'm not cheering for the resulting overreaction anyway.

George McFly

[WickedClean]

I wonder if he gets to save the girl at punch out Biff.

I think this sounds like an awesome and (OMG!) original idea for a game.

There's nothing wrong with fighting back. I'd rather see kids fight back against bullies instead of going nuts and shooting up their schools.

Re:My first reaction was "Huh, I expected it soone

[Maggott]

and might I remind you that there are many who are a damn site worse off than they ever were. Who have been through far more, who have been bullied and beaten and insulted to a whole different level. Place them on a peddlestool. Not these psychos, and yes they are psychos they gave away there right to sympathy and understanding the moment they put someone to death.

How does the fact that some people have gone through even worse change anything? And if they are psychos, it is because of the way they were treated.

I dont agree that anyone should kill for there own cause. Any war should be faught with the aim of mutually benefitting both sides. The terror attacks on 9/11, the bombs from the IRA, ETA, the shootings at Columbine. These were selfish murderous acts with no justification. Not one of them were thinking about the other side and that is an important distinction. Its the difference between liberator and conqueror. Or in this case heroes and lunatics.

I can't think of any war that has ever been fought for the benefit of both sides. At best, there have been wars that benefitted more people than they harmed. And if that's the criteria, then you can justify Columbine if it reduced bullying enough...(I'm not saying whether it did or not. It's been a long time since I've been in middle school.)

Its not in Columbine at all. They were a couple of kids who got picked on. They werent homeless, starving, physically destroyed. They werent traumatised by the deaths of people they new and loved. They didnt watch there homes get destroyed, etc, etc.

So? There are plenty of ways to break a person emotionally. Homeless people don't get spat on or kicked nearly as often as they did.

Then perhaps you should be thinking about how to change that. You know instead of executing innocent people to try get your point across...

I don't recall ever having executed anyone. I do, however, recall trying to change the situation in numerous ways.

One of those ways is with simple dialogue, such as this one. I point out to people just how fucked up the lives of many students are, and how dangerous it can be to turn a blind eye when someone says they're having problems with their fellow students, their teachers, or whatever else.

I am actually an idealist at heart. I'm just an idealist who lives in a world that has some very ugly tendencies.

A vast chunk, probably the majority have been through so much worse than the bullying they were subjected too. People in the schools ive been in, people ive talked to, have been subjected to worse bullying. Non of them have put there school mates to death for it. I dont believe any of them ever would. These werent kids pushed too hard by a harsh world they were whining morons with no concept of whats important no perspective on the world, nor decent idea of right and wrong. Itd be pitiable and deserving of some serious help only they crossed a line that millions of others, despite going through far more, would never cross. Now they deserve nothing but disdain.

Then perhaps that's the real problem. So many of us went through things that were even worse, yet did nothing, allowing it to continue to our successors. Even if K&H didn't suffer as badly as some others (I'm guessing at least some people had it worse) that doesn't make what they went through okay. In fact, it makes it even more important that they brought the issue to the nation's attention.

Dont presume to tell me what I have or havent been through.

I didn't. I said that all three of us were different in order to specifically recognize that I don't know what you've been through, and that my knowledge of K&H's experiences were limited.

Especially when you dont appear to have done the slightest research in to just how bad things were for those you support. (Which incidentally wasnt remotely as bad as the situations you bring up.) You sit there throwing out a lot of spiel about how awfully hard it

Re:My first reaction was "Huh, I expected it soone

[xtieburn]

'How does the fact that some people have gone through even worse change anything? And if they are psychos, it is because of the way they were treated.'
'So? There are plenty of ways to break a person emotionally. Homeless people don't get spat on or kicked nearly as often as they did.'
Its called getting some perspective... If someone is slapped on the wrist then proceeds to brutally kill the person who slapped them. Thats a little bit worse than if they killed someone who was trying to torture them to death.

'I can't think of any war that has ever been fought for the benefit of both sides.'
The Iraq war is supposed to benefit both sides. We fight the Iraqis in order to increase the quality of life for the Iraqis. That should be the whole point of the war, and no you cant justify Columbine because at no point were they trying to benefit the opposing side. They werent even benefiting the bullied. They were just killing people.

'I am actually an idealist at heart. I'm just an idealist who lives in a world that has some very ugly tendencies'
You cant be an idealist and believe that a slaughter is beneficial or necessary for the world. That is pessimist and ultimately wrong, not idealist.

'Well...that all comes down to what justifies killing someone, if anything. Which is something that is entirely subjective.'
'Even if K&H didn't suffer as badly as some others (I'm guessing at least some people had it worse) that doesn't make what they went through okay. In fact, it makes it even more important that they brought the issue to the nation's attention.'
Throught the brutal murders of innocent people... What on Earth is wrong you. They didnt go through any where near the amount of pain and suffering that warrented the actions they took. By your standards someone could take a harsh tone with someone else and thats enough for the other person to beat them half to death. You can get abstract about what justifies murder all you want, I mean plenty of people have taken a harsh tone im sure that accumulates in to a near death beating..., the fact still remains that they executed 13 innocent people. I dont know how many times I can say this. Nothing they went through justified taking a human life. _Nothing_

'Your assumptions are growing wearisome, especially in light of the fact that you're accusing me of presumption.'
I said I suspected, not assumed. If you really have been through everything you can think of, and in my life Ive never been to an area that didnt have child helplines. Nor have I ever heard of police who would do nothing even with the evidence of physical damage, then take it further. Run away if you have to. There _are_ people that will help, even if you have to go to another city or state to find them. Itd still be infinitely preferable to murder. You dont seem to be able to get the fact that doing near enough anything else in the world to get your point across is superior to killing someone.

'Understanding or even empathizing with what they did does not mean I believe the same things.'
'After all, they sure as hell did something about it, didn't they? They refused to be victims, and you're demonizing them for it'
They refused to be victims of what? They werent put through anywhere near the tortures you seem to have assumed they were. I dont know if this is some projection of your own issues crap. I dont really care. They didnt refuse to be victims of much at all. They just made other victims based on there twisted view of the world. You know the same twisted view you empathize with yet imply you in no way agree with... How can you possibly identify with or even understand someone with so much hatred towards innocent groups and innocent people, if you dont follow the same lines of thought. Do you understand what empathy means? Or has being bullied skewed your view of the world so much that youd lash at anyone regardless of whether they were a bully or not? Is that why you identify with them?

Its not me twisting what these people were. They murder

Re:My first reaction was "Huh, I expected it soone

[Maggott]

It's just as well if you have nothing more to say (And I don't mean that to be insulting--we're both just restating things or contradicting one another at this point).

I did research Columbine--back when it happened, and within the following year. It is completely possible that my information is outdated. Thus it is possible that everything I've stated is now considered to be horseshit. But it's unfair to assume I did no research at all.

The only up-to-date source I can access right at this moment, Wikipedia, doesn't really address the issue of how they were treated except that they were subject to homophobic remarks (which says to me that no one really knew how they were being treated--but I have yet to see a school that calls people fags, yet does nothing else to antagonize them). The FBI's inquiry does take your position that Harris was simply a psychopath--however, anyone who's read the DSM-IV knows that psychological criteria are often broad enough that you can diagnose just about anyone with anything you want, psychosis included. A retroactive diagnosis of psychosis just seems like a political "feelgood."

And my idealism is in the way I think the world should be, not the way it is. The way I think things should be is a far cry from the way I think things are. I am not "justifying" what they did. I'm saying why it happened. You say yourself that nothing justifies taking life, but it happened anyway. I happen to think a lot of unjustified things happen. Chances are, a lot of unjustified things happened to those two boys. Does that justify what they did in retaliation? Well, I happen to agree with you, such a thing is unthinkable--though when I use the word, I mean it literally. There is no measure by which to "justify" such things outside of our emotions. We may never know the price you can place on a human life. As such, I would not try to claim their actions were justified based on anything other than an emotional rationale.

In so far as my emotional feelings on the subject are concerned, I agree that the damage done to the families was by far the greater harm on a local level. But my nature is to think on a larger scale. Because of my own school memories, I can't help but feel that if it did prompt a greater awareness of genuine problems at schools, then the tragedy could have benefits. Trying to evaluate those benefits against the death of 13 people is beyond what I am willing to do, but that does not mean they don't exist. (But as you said, it doesn't mean they do, either...)

The reason I point out my own experiences and how they may color my perceptions is partially out of respect to you. While you're clearly very emotionally invested, you don't seem stupid. So I'm just attempting to point out that I'm emotionally invested as well--just on the other side. With that out of the way we could hopefully avoid a shouting match. (I'm not sure if we did, but still...)