Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

72% of Xbox 360 Gamers Approve of "More Military Drone Strikes"

Posted by timothy on from the ok-but-what-about-pepsi-drinkers? dept.

An anonymous reader writes "During the latest presidential debate, Xbox 360 owners were being polled live, as the debate was progressing, on a number of different questions, and asked to answer 'Yes,' 'No,' or 'Don't Know' using their gamepad. Out of these questions, one particular question produced a surprising result: Xbox 360 owners were asked 'Do you support more use of drone aircraft to attack suspected terrorists?' 20% answered this question with 'No'. 8% answered 'Don't know.' And a whopping 72% answered the question 'Yes.' This raises an interesting question in and of itself: Is the average Xbox 360 player at all aware that drone strikes in countries like Pakistan cause a serious number of civilian deaths on a regular basis? Or do Xbox 360 gamers live in a parallel, game-inspired universe, where a real world 'Drone Strike' is something seriously cool, just like it is cool to use it in popular games like Call of Duty? In other words, does playing simulated war games like COD on a game console on a daily basis, and enjoying these games, cause gamers to become blinkered to the at times seriously dire real world consequences of using military tactics like drone strikes for real?"

12 of 446 comments (clear)

  1. Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or, perhaps they feel using a drone to make an attack, rather than risking American soldiers, is the better choice?

    1. Re:Or... by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It probably didn't help that that question was more loaded than an Irishman at a wake on St. Patrick's Day. If you ask "Do you support doing X to attack suspected terrorists?" you could pretty much get at least a two-thirds majority no matter WHAT the "X" in question was.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    2. Re:Or... by SMoynihan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or, as so well put in "Yes, Minister":

      I was somewhat naive in those days. I did not understand
      how the voters could be both for it and against it. Dear old
      Humphrey showed me how it's done.

      The secret is that when the Man In The Street is approached
      by a nice attractive young lady with a clipboard, he is
      asked a "series" of questions. Naturally the Man In The
      Street doesn't wants to make a good impression and doesn't
      want to make a fool of himself. So the market researcher
      asks questions designed to elicit "consistent" answers.
      Humphrey demonstrated the system on me. "Mr. Woolley, are
      you worried about the rise in crime among teen-agers?"

      "Yes," I said.

      "Do you think there is a lack of discipline and vigorous
      training in our Comprehensive Schools?"

      "Yes."

      "Do they respond to a challenge?"

      "Yes."

      "Might you be in favor of reintroducing National Service?"

      "Yes."

      Well, naturally I said yes. One could hardly have said
      anything else without looking inconsistent. Then what
      happens is that the Opinion Poll publishes only the last
      question and answer.

      Of course, the reputable polls didn't conduct themselves
      like that. But there weren't too many of those. Humphrey
      suggested that we commission a new survey, not for the Party
      but for the Ministry of Defence. We did so. He invented the
      question there and then:

      "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"

      "Yes," I said quite honestly.

      "Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?"

      "Yes."

      "Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns
      and teaching them how to kill?"

      "Yes."

      "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms
      against their will?"

      "Yes."

      "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
      I'd said "Yes" before I'd even realized it, d'you see?

      Humphrey was crowing with delight. "You see, Bernard," he
      said to me," "you're the perfect Balanced Sample."

    3. Re:Or... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because we weren't in Afghanistan and they attacked us.

      You do realize the highjackers on September 11, 2001 were pretty much all Saudi Arabian, right?

      You do realize Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi, right?

      What did the people of Afghanistan do to us again?

      FYI, the correct answer is, "not a goddamn thing we didn't do to them first."

      They hate us. They hate the culture, freedom, religion, color, and superiority of the US. They hate everything the US stands for.

      Who is this mysterious "They" you keep referring to, and what did "They" ever do to me? Or you, for that matter?

      They hate us. They hate the culture, freedom, religion, color, and superiority of the US. They hate everything the US stands for.

      So does the Westboro Baptist Church, but I don't see many people calling for every man, woman, and child who attends the WBC to be wiped off the face of the planet with a damn airstrike.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because we weren't in Afghanistan and they attacked us.

      Wait, the Taliban attacked us? Wow, it amazes me how misinformed people are. The fact is they just sympathized with the people who did attack us, Al Qaeda. You know, Al Qaeda, the group who formed their anti-US foundation based on the presence of US forces on Saudi soil during the first US Gulf War, which kinda supports the point you were trying to refute. They are, of course, terrible awful people, for more reasons than just expressing sympathy for terrorists, but being terrible and awful doesn't make them the aggressors.

      Because we actually trained and helped the Taliban fight off the USSR, and they attacked us.

      Er, no. As described above, we trained them, then we attacked them. Then they fought back.

      They hate us. They hate the culture, freedom, religion, color, and superiority of the US. They hate everything the US stands for.

      They do hate us, I agree with that. They hate how our troops occupy their countries, how we kill and torture their people/women/children with impunity, how we've propped up petty tyrants for decades in their region. The hate didn't spring up overnight, or even in the past decade--it's been there since we knocked over the democratically-elected leader of Iran and installed a bloody murderous tyrant. They hate what we stand for--and over there, we stand for brutal dictatorships, war crimes, and profiting from their misery. They don't know or don't care that we have an entirely separate set of values for ourselves at home. In fact, if they did know, they'd probably hate us more for our hypocrisy.

      Moral of the story? If a terrorist moves in next door, kill him yourself or move out ASAP.

      Or call the cops, who will arrest him, give him a fair trial and, if convicted, put him in jail where he can't do any more harm. We did that the first time terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, or did you forget? Sure, it didn't stop the phenomenon of terrorism any more than arresting murderers stops the phenomenon of murder. But it stopped those particular terrorists extremely effectively (still behind bars in a normal non-military prison thank you very much, no Blofeld-esque terrorist prison-break attempts), and back then we didn't have to give up the freedoms we were supposedly protecting.

  2. Nice leading question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The more correct question is "Are civilian deaths lower from drone strikes than from conventional military action?"

  3. Perhaps by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The gamers understand it's unrealistic to expect civilians not to get killed, and the best that you can really do in any war is to not go out of your way to kill them like the Nazi's did.

    1. Re:Perhaps by royallthefourth · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's your stupid fucking opinion, but here's the facts:

      "The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%."

      http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html

  4. Re:WTF?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    News? It's intentionally inflammatory linkbait.

  5. Games don't have many civilians by phorm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How many military-esque games have civilians (particularly in multi-player mode)?
    In any of the games I've played where drones etc were an option, it's just "your team" (good guys) and the "other team" (bad guys).
    A drone strike/airstrike/satellite bombardment/etc only hurt military characters. Heck, on many settings you don't even get friendly-fire.

    Is your average gamer going to know what a real drone strike is like? Probably not. Accompany the poll with some documentation + pictures of mangled civilians and see if what approval rate you get.

  6. Re:Need to make a comparison, not absolute judgmen by omfgnosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    4. Determine the conditions that inspire people to become—or, more importantly, support—violent extremists who threaten us and our values, and mitigate or eliminate those conditions.

    Most people have the good sense to support that option, especially in recognizing that those conditions themselves fundamentally threaten our values as well, if it's presented as an option. It's so far from the dominant discourse that we end up facing the false choice you've presented.

  7. If they are not Americans they are not real people by lxs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember an online discussion I had about the Collateral Murder video. This guy took the stance that the civilians killed shouldn't be in a war zone. When I tried to convey the idea that the war zone came to their homes by asking my counterpart to imagine Chinese helicopters circling his neighborhood shooting American civilians (in precisely these terms), he accused me of distorting the argument by bringing emotion into it.

    Apparently empathy for people from a different part of the world is in short supply with some people. Especially online.

    Truth be told, I'm as guilty of this as the next person. When I read about shooting sprees in the US, I don't really care beyond the sensational aspects. I should, but I don't.