Slashdot Mirror
Seven Arrested After Protesting Army Video Game Recruiting Center
GamePolitics writes "Seven anti-war protesters were arrested in Philadelphia on Saturday during a protest rally and march which targeted the Army Experience Center, a high-tech recruitment center which uses PC and Xbox games and simulations to attract potential recruits. GamePolitics was on hand to cover the protest, and took video of the arrests. A local news station also reported on the rally, and the Peace Action Network released a statement saying, "In its desperate approach to meet recruiting numbers, the military is teaching the wrong values to teenagers. Sugarcoating combat experience with virtual war is a dishonor to those with real war experience."
After watching the video, that "Army Experience" store, set up in a mall, strikes me as a little twisted. It seems pretty clear this place was set up to resemble a video game center to "lure" high school kids to it so recruiters would have an opportunity to talk to them about joining the Army. I'm not very comfortable having my government treating its kids this way.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Maybe they figure it's safe to protest again, and won't be waterboarded now that Bush is out of office?
Seriously, this is a non-story. A bunch of people make a protest (good for them, right of free speech) and then block the entrances after being asked to move (preventing expression of other people's rights) and get arrested. So what?
If there is a story here, it's whether or not the games are interesting, actually improve recruitment, and are worth the $.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
This is America. What the hell do you think gives you the right to peacefully assemble and protest? Only terrorists do that. Now bow down before our magnificent leader. You must go and die for his glory.
Anyone who played an online multiplayer shooter will attest that the experience is very close to real life war. The fresh young recruit steps onto the battlefield, expecting a grand battle the likes of the opening of Saving Private Ryan, only to end up in the scope of a spawn point camping sniper who is only farming headshots on the newbies...
On one hand, I have great respect for the military and the sacrifices soldiers are willing to make to protect their fellow citizens, whether fighting somewhere else in the world to preserve democracy (yes, I really believe that's what they are doing, historically and now) or serving at home during disaster relief, helping their fellow citizens directly.
On the other hand war is something to be abhorred and avoided. It's always a last resort. Soldiers are a precious resource that we (as the people ultimately in charge of our political system) are responsible for protecting too. We must not send them into war for questionable reasons, or ask them to do a job that squanders the sacrifice they are willing to make.
Finally, if people are being recruited into the military while being falsely informed about what that really means to do the job, yeah, that is obscene. It deserves some good, old, democratically-principled protest.
The only video game that would be realistic would be one where it's "game over" if you are mortally wounded, and where you have to haul your non-mortally wounded buddies out of the battle zone or they die too. I know America's Army is far better than the usual "near-instant respawn" that is typical (it's no "Team Fortress"), but it still glosses over the unreality in the game. Let kids "13 and up" talk to real vets and serving military officers about the upside and the downside of their job, as recruitment has always done, and leave the virtual reality out of it. Glitzing it up too much is misleading.
But you do have to know where to draw the line between protest and obstructing other people's rights to their own decisions on the matter. The protesters should be as loud as they want on public land, but not block the door.
Okay. Films like FMJ, that (rightfully or not) demonize military culture, are okay. But a video game depicting a limited facet of the military experience is horrible evil propaganda?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It looks like you have a different definition of militarism than khallow was using, or at least are looking at a different meaning.
I'd describe your definition as 'military skills' - If you're going to have a military, best to have it be as effective as possible.
On the other hand, Khallow's 'militarism' is a philosophy of using the military in the most offensive way possible, of looking at the military as first and last solution to any international problem.
They're substantially different things. Even the Marine Core wants their Marines to be violent only when the situation calls for it.
As for Cadences, didn't you figure out that they're supposed to be dirty/politically incorrect?
I don't read AC A human right
This can't be summed up in a 5 second soundbite, so most Republicans can't pay attention long enough to grasp it. Which is sad, really. The Democrats are going to have to be their own opposition party, because the remaining Republicans are all incompetent.
Military recruiting has never been about truth in advertising. When I recruited for the USAF ('93-'97, 368 RCS OL-FD Reno, NV), I hung the front page of the European Stars and Stripes printed on the first day of the first Gulf War on the front wall of my office, the first thing a visitor saw when they came through the front door. It was a night-vision picture of an F-15E Strike Eagle, fully loaded with death and destruction, refueling from a KC-135 aerial tanker with WAR in a 3-inch bold font above the photo. My superiors suggested I should take it down since it might scare off potential applicants. I left it up - I felt it was important that even those folks joining the "Chair Force" should understand that the ultimate purpose of the military was not to provide job training, college money, or a pay check twice a month; the ultimate purpose of the military was to fight the nation's wars - everything else was secondary to that.
I don't think I lost a single applicant because of that picture. Even though I sold the benefits the Air Force provided (Money, Advancement, Training, Travel, Recreation, Education, Service, and Satisfaction), I made sure the applicant understood that they were applying to join an organization whose mission was to fly, fight, and win. If I was asked "will I go to war?" I told the applicant the chances were slim they would ever be engaged in direct combat (again, this was years before Afghanistan and the second invasion of Iraq and the use of Air Force personnel to run convoys, etc.), but the possibility always existed. Ultimately it was the applicant's responsibility to make the decision whether to enlist or not.
Yeah, there are dirtbag recruiters in all the branches who lie. Some get caught and are disciplined, others don't. But I don't have much sympathy for anyone who enlists because his or her recruiter told them they'd never go to war (and anyone who enlists today, after six years of Afghanistan and Iraq in the news every day, who thinks they'll never go to war is simply a self-deluded idiot and should be discharged at the earliest opportunity). There are a lot of misconceptions about military life propagated by the media and the education industry, but not fighting wars is not one of them. Trust me - the first day of basic training it's made very clear to the recruits (this includes the Air Force) the reason they're there - to fight the nation's wars. And its not hard for a recruit to get kicked out of basic training if that's what he really wants - we'd rather do it then and there than spend the money to train, house, and feed him only to have him start crying "I was told I wouldn't have to go war!" down the road.
Sorry, but any kid who enlists in the Army thinking war is just like a video game is just dumber than dumb. The Army isn't being dishonest or even disingenuous using this as a recruiting tool. The folks who are protesting this aren't upset about truth in advertising and they're not offering an alternative to these kids, many of whom either can't afford or aren't ready for college. There isn't a social program out there that can provide the same benefits military service does. And for every story you hear about someone not being able to find a job after spending four years in the military there are dozens of others like me who used their military experience and benefits as a stepping stone to bigger and better things in life.
What?
Who owns the property. Not the gov't. The property owner. If my tax dollars pay for it, it's public. If the property owner doesn't like the protests, he can try to boot his tenant and the protesters out. The gov't can't boot out citizens.
Different rules apply. This is why we don't like to conflate government and private enterprise. Gets messy.
We can't let the military hide behind private business and vice versa. It breeds contempt for the military and the gov't.
Blar.
No, the GP is saying it is possible to believe that A "did not do enough X" and that A "did too little Y" simultaneously. You need to brush up on your reading comprehension and be a little less insulting to people.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
The media in general constantly seems to repeat this phrase incorrectly.
No, they use it correctly.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Your post described what you saw with your own eyes, nothing more, and you conclude their behavior was positive based on no real data.
You may want to learn about what happened beyond your immediate line of sight -- people illegally detained and arrested, undercover officers inciting violence etc, officers telling people what they could do then arresting them when they followed instructions. "They pretty much let people do what they wanted" was not true outside your line of sight.
Um.... what I saw with my own eyes IS real data. For that matter, what I saw with my own eyes is MORE valid that what someone heard from someone else. It's too easy to say, "Someone told me that they were just standing there on the corner minding their own bizness and the Gestapo and took them all in." In other words, first person experience carries credibility than third person rumors.
I do not pretend to know everything that happened and only reported what I saw with my own eyes.
Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen
True, but again, what I SAW carries more weight than what you HEARD. Just because you HEARD it doesn't mean that it happened either. May I also add that this was the most documented protest in history. Not only was every major and local minor media outlet there, but at least one of every three "protesters" had a camera. I have not seen any video of these reported abuses either.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
If that's true, go protest in the Oval Office. It's public property. Let me know how that works out.