Bully Gets In Trouble With School 290
The Miami Dade school district is moving to pressure Rockstar games over its upcoming game Bully. From the Next Generation article: "Last Thursday, a board committee unanimously approved the resolution. A full board vote is expected this Wednesday. Rockstar issued a written statement to the Herald, which said, 'We all have different opinions about art and entertainment, but everyone agrees that real-life school violence is a serious issue which lacks easy answers.'"
First amendment... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:First amendment... (Score:5, Insightful)
So you want to take away the first amendment rights of the school board and members of the community instead? They aren't trying to prevent Rockstar from making titles, they are just exercising their rights as Americans and consumers to deal with something that they don't deem appropriate.
This reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon when Dilbert accuses Dogbert of being insensitive. Dogbert replies "you are obviously insensitive to my insensitivity".
Re:First amendment... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First amendment... (Score:4, Insightful)
People want to call it censorship and such. But what about Rockstar? Are they not being irresponsible to some extent making games like this? Sure it is just a game, but considering the fire they have come under for their GTA games and such, maybe they should think twice about things like this.
Still, we are talking about their games, and I am sure they are happy about this. All the talk will move games off the shelves and Rockstar will make money. What do they care?
RonB
Re:First amendment... (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether or not Rockstar is irresponsible, that's one of those things you're supposed to talk about, and work in the social sphere to shame, and to influence.
But not in the legal sphere.
The argument: "Sure it is just a game, but considering the fire they have come under for their GTA games and such, maybe they should think twice about things like this."
Re:First amendment... (Score:5, Insightful)
But let's have a quick lesson in rights. Rights do not give you permission to do what you wish, and to hell with everyone else! Rights are given equally to everyone and one person's rights do not supercede someone else's rights. We work in balance as a free society. Many of our laws reflect the balancing of rights. Speed limits exist to protect everyone, slowing down those who would claim that it is their right to go as fast as they wish. Many drug laws, while recognizing the harm drugs can do an individual, often pay more emphasis to the effect drugs have on community. Your rights do not mean you can do anything you want without regard for its effect on society. From that basis, I'm among those who would not oppose actual legislation to limit the amount of violence in games, movies, and yes even music. No rational thinker has any doubt that there is a causative link between media violence (those of you who will quickly shout out about correlation and causation can see which category I place you in). A society fixated on fantasy violence will become a society enacting more and more violence. There are many factors at work that are completely sabotaging our society, violence in media is just one aspect. It is not the only problem that should be addressed, but it is a problem and it does need to be addressed.
People might cry out to allow any human action, defending their cries with some appeal to human rights. Their actions accomplish the opposite. Rights are about community, not simply about an individual. It's a perspective that says, "Everyone in our nation has these rights" rather than "each person has these rights". It's a subtle difference, I admit, but the former perspective works to balance rights so that rights actually mean something, and the latter simply creates anarchy when ultimately there will be just one dictator rising above them all, asserting his own right to domination.
Re:First amendment... (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't a legal challenge to the game at all.
It is, in fact a social challenge.
The school board has resolved (hence the "Resolution") to communicate their misgivings about the game. They've resolved to communicate their misgivings to the manufacturer, to their local retailers, and to the citizens of their community.
They are, in fact, doing exactly what you say they should do: mount a social opposition to the game. They're making their case. The community can consider their case (and Rockstar's if it chooses to make one; and the retailers' if they choose to make one), and either reject the school board's arguments or support them.
This is exactly the kind of non-government-censorship process we all want to see take place in our communities. Not only that, but it's entirely appropriate for a government agency such as a school board, charged with the welfare of the community's students, to voice its concerns to the community and attempt to influence the community to address those concerns.
Re:First amendment... (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of addressing the very real problem of actual bullies? Funny, I think that bullying existed before this game, so what would removing the game do? NOTHING!
People want to call it censorship and such.
You have a government body trying to remove content they don't like. Yup, thats censorship.
But what about Rockstar? Are they not being irresponsible to some extent making games like this?
No, they are not.
Re:First amendment... (Score:5, Funny)
Say Rockstar came out with a game in which you're a Nazi, trying to take over Europe.
Godwin. You lose.
No joke. (Score:2)
But let's look at some of these arguments, just in case Godwin is on vacation:
"hyperbole"
You have a government body trying to remove content they don't like.
This isn't hyperbole at all. This is a government body trying to pressure local businesses into removing content from store shelves. I can think of very few ways in which this might be less hyperbolic.
"straw man"
Are car manufacturers irresponsible for selling a product that some people use to kill others? Or is it th
Re:No joke. (Score:2)
Rob
Re:No joke. (Score:2)
Partially. The OP is guilty of false analogy. A better analogy would be if you were to point at the movie industry instead, who regulary puts out movies of questionable taste. I'm not taking a side here - the
Re:First amendment... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. Read your link. Argumentum ad antiuitatem applies if and only if the argument is supporting a proposition based soley on the fact that "it has always been that way". Arguing that a game will not remove the problem, because the problem is an age-old problem does not commit this falacy. Although it does require proof that the proposed solution does not solve the problem. Incidentally, it won't. Bullying will not suddenly cease as a result of banning the publication of this game: the concern is simply that bullying may be considered more acceptable. This is a completely different issue.
hyperbole
Not hyperbole. Read your link. This is not an exageration, although it is not necessarialy the government that is trying to ban things they don't like. This game in general, and Rockstar in particular, has been subjected to immense abuse by a number of players who's agenda is not clear. A family in the UK - for example - goaded by an American lawyer claimed that their son - killed by a friend in a robbery to pay for a drug debt - was killed because the killer was obcessed with Rockstar's game "Manhunt". The fact that it was the dead son that owned the game (it is an offense in the UK for a minor to buy an 18 registered game) entirely escaped the notice of the family, the media and their lawyer.
straw man
Not a straw man. Car manufacturers are not held responsible for irresponsible use of their products. Neither are car manufacturers held responsible for the fact that their products are advertised in a fashion that may encourage irresponsible and unlawful behaviour in a certain segment of community. It is not a straw man because it is a direct correlation.
ad hominem
Not a logical fallacy but a statement of personal opinion not used to further the argument.
Perhaps, before you resort to simply calling out alleged logical fallacies, you should learn the first law of reason: it is not permissible simply to claim that an argument is a fallacy. It is your responsibility to explain the error of reasoning in the person you are arguing with. Stating "Straw Man" to an argument stating "Are car manufacturers irresponsible for selling a product that some people use to kill others?" is not sufficient. It is your duty to state precisely the error of reasoning.
Since you've read wikipedia, you should also have read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies [wikipedia.org]
And I quote:
"The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion."
Doing otherwise is known as the Fallacy Fallacy: the assumption that a conclusion is invalid because one or more of the arguments made to reach that conclusion is invalid:
"All cats are mamals"
"My pet is a mamal"
"ergo, my pet is a cat"
In this case, the logic is wrong, but the conclusion is - in my case anyway - perfectly valid.
Hahah, I could write an essay on logical fallacies entirely based on your post.
I wouldn't recommend it.
Re:First amendment... (Score:2)
Rockstar is being just as irresponsible as Mark Twain, Roy Rogers, Elvis Presley, Gary Gygax, Richard Pryor, Madonna, John Carmack, Jerry Bruckheimer, and everyone else who has wantonly corrupted the minds of innocent children throughout history, according to the lobbyists of the era.
Yawn.
Re:First amendment... (Score:5, Insightful)
They appear to be trying to push Rockstar around. Are they "promoting" bullying? I don't know. And for that matter - unless you're on Rockstar's staff - neither do you. Does GTA "promote" car-jacking? Does Burnout "promote" deliberately causing pile-ups? Does Moto-GP or Gran Turismo "promote" driving at ludicrous speeds on public highways? Well, I guess it depends upon what you mean by "promote".
I think that by drafting this resolution, they are doing their due diligence to aid their students.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But in doing so they're attempting to prevent people who are within the "target audience" - who are not young school chidren - from being able to get a copy of the game. Their reach is too broad.
People want to call it censorship and such. But what about Rockstar? Are they not being irresponsible to some extent making games like this?
No. No, and again: No. Jet Set Willy - if you ever read the instructions - is about a man sneaking into his estranged wife's house to burgal it to retrieve what Willy believed was his property. Was Mathew Smith irresponsible for releasing this on an unspecting public? "Elite" permitted - and encouraged - the player to plunder traders using piracy as a means of effecting material gain. Same question. And again with Adventure: there was no requirement to calculate the tax burden, or to declare one's findings with a tax authority. These games were clearly a tutorial on tax-evasion, robery and burgulary for future generations. Except, of course, that they weren't.
Sure it is just a game, but considering the fire they have come under for their GTA games and such, maybe they should think twice about things like this.
Why?
GTA was a phenomenon. It is a fantastic series. It's compulsive, it's enjoyable, it's bloody. It's great! Your statement impliess that Rockstar should never consider making another GTA game, or that Rockstar is guilty of the accusations levelled against it - but why? I love the game. I don't rob, pimp, deal in drugs, use prostitutes, or kill prostitutes to get my money back. I don't get my kicks out of doing any of these things in real life, but find it incredibly amusing to do in the game.
I also find it extraordinarialy funny to try to do an inverted turn under the golden gate bridge in a number of flight simulators - usually resulting in my plowing the plane into said bridge. I also used to find it amusing to drive a car the wrong way around the track in Indionapolis 500. Or to make a living as a pirate in Elite.
But I'm not a pimp. I'm not a murderer. I don't find the idea of smacking into an entourage of Indi-500 cars particularly appealing. I don't want to make a living stealing from shops, homes or ships.
Games do not make murderers. They don't make pimps. Game companies make games. They make the interactive versions of videos. If parents can't grasp the fact that their children are buying the computer game equivelant of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, that is the fault of the parent - not the game manufacturer.
I don't want see a future in 10 or 20 years time where the only game I can play is "PacMan" (a muderous game where the players character uses an obvious advatage - the PacPills - to murder the other four artificial persons and confine them the oblivion - albeit temporarialy). I don't want this future because I'm not 6-years old. I don't want 6-year old entertainmant. I'm 31. I want 31-year old entertainment. It's not my fault if other people can't see the difference.
Re:First amendment... (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, it's a school board. Do you know the kind of people who want to be on school boards?
Rockstar is the scapgoat of the week. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Rockstar is the scapgoat of the week. (Score:2)
The problem is, they aren't blaming Harry Potter or Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events.
Who would have thought that there was any life left in the English boarding school novel? Or that ASOUE would draw children into a universe as dark and uncertain as anything in Dickens?
Re:Rockstar is the scapgoat of the week. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a bible thumper by any stretch of the imagination, its just that I know the bible better than any other religious text (I grew up in a "Christian" environment, whatever that means).
The Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden story is excellent. Its very much worth a read, and much of what it says is still true to this day. Take a look at: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/3.html#1 2 [skepticsan...dbible.com]
Where Ad
Re:First amendment... (Score:2)
Re:First amendment... (Score:2)
I for one won't buy this game.... (j/k) (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I for one won't buy this game.... (j/k) (Score:5, Funny)
This is clearly a geek's game.
This makes a lot of sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This makes a lot of sense... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This makes a lot of sense... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This makes a lot of sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple question. (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of slashdotters were probably bullied (I was) and although it may bring up some bad memories, we don't play GTA because we're secretly drug dealers, or black guys riding a bike through the street as we shoot people. We play them because they're fun, which is what games should be about.
People never complained Mario is full of drug refrences (You can't deny it, please don't try), or that killing aliens in Contra is too violent for children. Back when games were mostly aimed at kids (or geeks with an Amiga), we never heard any of this shit.. Makes me really wonder.
I'd love to meet these people complaining and go "Jump off a bridge" so they could tell me "no" and I could reply with "Well if I can't influence you in person how the hell are games ment to convince me when I have full control of them?
Mushroom mushroom (Score:2, Funny)
I've heard the mushrooms [in Super Mario Bros.] to be more of a phallic reference, but that's about it.
Then read this criticism [everything2.com].
ROTFL (Score:4, Funny)
Right after he has apparently slid down a flagpole (a strong reference to receiving anal sex), he finds himself in the proverbial sewers, already feeling a deep low from his initial hits wearing off. But after more anal sex, he is high in the mountains, which psychedelically appear as gigantic mushrooms, an obvious result of his hallucinatory state. And then, after even more anal sex, he finds himself in a castle, but it is of his own imagination, built up of his drug-induced isolation, for at the end he thinks he has confronted the kingpin Koopa, but he quickly finds that it is but another hallucination, merely a pusher goomba, though he only discovers this after, in a drug-crazed rage, he kills this apparition of his nemesis.
That made my day. Thanks to the GP :)
Easy answers? (Score:5, Insightful)
So is war, but that hasn't stopped people from playing games based on war for at least thousands of years.
Chess, anyone?
AAARRRGGGHHH! (Score:5, Insightful)
For fucks sake; it is a game where you play a kid being bullied. If people play the game, they will understand what it's like to be bullied. If anything, that will reduce the number of bullies (and might even convert bullies who play the game and see what the're doing).
If I where Rockstar, I'd elevate the profile of that game by sueing legislators for defamation/slander/incorrect reporting/lying.
I'm just still amazed that newspapers and politicians can get away with not just distorting the truth but actively lying about something.
But they're RIGHT! (Score:4, Funny)
Why, just yesterday I flew a Cobra attack helicopter in real life against MEC foes! Not only did BF2 cause me to learn how to fly Cobra attack helicopters, it also helped me to learn racism against Middle Easterns and Chinese! Damned foreigners keep trying to take my fu*king base! Die, die, DIE!!
My hatred for minotaurs and other such creatures has SOARED because of so many times playing NeverWinter Nights. My +2 Longsword (nothing to do with Viagara, thank you) should be in in a few days, and if it's not I'll slash the delivery person with it when it finally arrives. If he's Chinese or Middle Eastern, he's really in trouble.
Of course, my absolute hatred for Nazis was at its peak during the days of Castle Wolfenstein. I want to kill all of them because of that game. In fact, my flight to Brazil leaves in a few days. I found out that some survivors are hiding down there and my Wolfenstein-induced blood rage is starting to take over. Grrrrr....
And you don't know how many people died in my neighborhood with a crowbar after I played HL and HL2.
So, I'm quite certain that when I play Bully I'll want to go to the local high school and just beat the sh*t out of the kids until there's nothing but a pasty, red film on the basketball court. And, hey, with violent video games as my scapegoat, I'll get off with a warning while the Bully developers go to jail!
No, that's not my right eyelid twinging. It's your imagination. { wiping drool off of chin }
Disclaimer: To Jack Thompson and the DHS, this is what's called "sarcasm". Look it up.
Re:But they're RIGHT! (Score:5, Funny)
This game should be banned!
Re:But they're RIGHT! (Score:4, Funny)
You think you've got problems? I've been playing The Sims. Now I can't stop myself from cooking, watching TV, going to work, and attempting to build relationships.
That's odd - I've been playing the Sims and now I like to wall people up in my basement. I just can't help myself!
Publicity (Score:3, Interesting)
Once again, misinformed people get up in arms. (Score:5, Informative)
As a troublesome schoolboy, you'll laugh and cringe as you stand up to bullies, get picked on by teachers, play pranks on malicious kids, win or lose the girl, and ultimately learn to navigate the obstacles of the fictitious reform school, Bullworth Academy.
And since when was this "real-life school violence?" Last I checked, this was a video game.
So what's new about this? (Score:5, Informative)
I've played this game before. It was 20 years ago, and it was called Skool Daze, and it was perhaps the best game there had ever been at the time. Utterly, utterly amazing.
I've thought for years that Skool Daze could be remade today and be something special. If Rockstar's description here is accurate, I'm really, really looking forward to this game.
Re:So what's new about this? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So what's new about this? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So what's new about this? (Score:2)
Try hitting the teachers with the pea shooters - while they are knocked under a shield. As far as I know, you-re supposed to hit all the shields, but there are some shields that require a bit too much planning for my tastes.
Of course, there's two or three sub-missions that you have to do. The only one I can't do is prevent one of the characters from heading to the headmaster's office to tell him of my "plan" of somesort. Ev
Re:Once again, misinformed people get up in arms. (Score:2)
Isn't this game just encouraging another columbine style anti-bullying deadly incident by encouraging kids to respond to bullying and malicious kids with retaliation rather than informing the appropriate authority?
Re:Once again, misinformed people get up in arms. (Score:2)
The authorities didn't resolve their problems, and physically they weren't capable of standing up to their attackers without the leverage of weapons.
What is the deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Related forum thread... (Score:2)
http://boards.jp.nyud.net:8090/forums/archive/inde x.php/t-9182 [nyud.net]
Included there was the following poll:
I think the problem with bullying is that it's not "critical eno
Re:Related forum thread... (Score:2)
It is against the state's or country's Criminal Code [justice.gc.ca].
In a business workplace, store, bank, or public city streets, the perpitrator will get taken and punished. For some strange reason, schools are somehow the magical exception where kids have a carte blanche to commit crimes - to a degree where a "normal" adult would be imprisioned for six consecutive life sentences (without even having to resort t
Here's an idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead, almost every teacher or other school faculty (except the cliche cool janitor) who sees bullying just turns a blind eye as long as someone's tooth isn't knocked out. Maybe if we actually did something about it, we wouldn't have to worry as much about games like this, or people shooting up schools. I can't say I condone Rockstar's game, but there are more immediate (and local) ways to stem this than to try and pressure them.
Yes, I was bullied in school. Thankfully, I didn't get the worst that could happen, but it was still enough to seriously drive me to a point of doing some shooting of my own. The problem is that the bullies turn out to be jocks, or the son of the mayor, and the principal is afraid of punishing them, because heaven forbid our football team lose another game, but it's a-okay that people fail remedial math.
Our schools are messed up because people have the wrong priorities. They push social achievement (sports, arts, etc.) and defer money to that over intellectual achievement. Not that schools sports or band is a bad thing- but when it's taking away from the real purpose of a school, which is education, then they become a problem.
rant rant rant
Re:Here's an idea (Score:2)
The arts aren't bad. But I think a public school's primary concern should be general education (math, sciences, literature, history, basic computer skills, some economics). If there's room after that's taken care of to fund extra-curricular arts programs
I personally... (Score:3, Interesting)
I got bullied. I don't see how this game has anything to do with that.
Not an original game (Score:3, Informative)
In Other News... (Score:2)
My saying is, Own the Media (tv), Own the World
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lacks an easy answer? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think we're in the state we're in for a whole bunch of reasons. I think integration has made it extremely difficult to expell students since school administrators always face the race card, and si
Re:Lacks an easy answer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Schools most closely resemble a military camp. Indeed, the earliest schools were modeled in this way. The pupils are subjected to a rather brutal reigime in an effort to maintain discipline.
However, unlike the army, where there is an aim to this dicipline, i.e. training to follow orders in combat, in schools the dicipline is in effect an end in itself, as a means of maintaining control. Thus schools may be liken to t
Re:Lacks an easy answer? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Stop ignoring non-physical violence. I was bullied all through junior high and into high school, but none of it was ever physical. I think if it had been, I would have been a lot better equipped to get some help. I was taught from a very young age that physical violence is not okay and that you should find an adult if someone hurts you, but no one ever really taught me what to do when someone
Re:Lacks an easy answer? (Score:2)
Things are not so simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
I do think that these people are over-reacting. There's plenty of crap out there outside of games. This attention games are getting is pretty much a ploy by politicians to win votes. Parents dont seem to want the responsibility of raising their own kids anymore. If they're concerned about this game, don't let them play it. Don't expect the government to raise your kids for you.
On the other hand, I can't help but think Rockstar is simply looking to get a rise out of people. They're using controversey to sell their games. They certainly aren't creating art here, they just seem to be obsessed with excessive violence. So now they're developing a game which hits closer to home for many people and will be certain to grab plenty of attention.
There were plenty of games with questionable subject matter back in the early days of gaming. However, there's a big difference today. Those old games had crappy, blocky graphics and relatively simplistic gameplay. Games today look fairly realistic, and they provide gameplay that is a reasonable facsimile of real life. It's all polygons and textures, but the experience has a stronger impact than pixelated sprites.
At some point we're going to have games that look absolutely real and when we reach that point we're going to see some serious debates regarding what is permissible. Are we going to allow games where you can tear people to pieces and experience it in all its graphic detail? When will everyone agree that enough is enough? Certainly developers have to be responsible to some extent for the content they produce.
For the most part, such subject may not necessarily drive anyone to reproduce what they've seen. However, it certainly does desensitize people. It makes them indifferent to atrocities. That, I believe, is a greater danger than a bunch of kids suddenly turning into bullies or being inspired to run around carjacking.
Lacks easy answers? (Score:3, Insightful)
If funds for the teachers union were tied to eliminating school violence, there would be no school violence. Those funds are what schools are about, and it's the only thing about them that matters.
If education were about the students rather than payroll, it would be very different than what happens at schools these days.
Re:Lacks easy answers? (Score:3, Informative)
Got news for you, it is about the students but guess what? The system only works as well as the people involved. The kid is acting up in school? The teachers or the counselors needs to bring the parents in, keep everyone actively involved.
There will always be school violence, kids do it, at the youngest of ages they don't even realize they're doing it. You ever seen a 2 year old pull ont he hair of another kid? It just happens. As kids get older things obviou
Re:Lacks easy answers? (Score:2)
All things considered, I think they're paid adequately.
I also think the more this question is brought up, the more clearly it illustrates that schools are primarily about payroll.
you will invariably alienate people from the system
That's OK. If you want to solve the violence problem, why worry about the "alienation with the system" problem instead?
Would you rather cast our some rich kid who will just soak money from daddy or expel some low income kid that will b
Make school administrators liable for damages (Score:2)
Its easy enough: Just make school administrators liable for damages resulting from school bullying including psychological damage.
Science Daily reports [sciencedaily.com] that: "In addition to triggering a depression-like social withdrawal syndrome, repeated defeat by dominant animals leaves a mouse with an enduring "molecular scar" in its brain that could help to explain why depression is so difficult to cure".
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Where does it end? (Score:2)
As if the problem of bullying is so hard to solve. (Score:2, Insightful)
Luckily, this never resulted in anything Columbine-like in nature happening at my school. However I have no doubt at all that should that have happened, they would claim to have never saw it coming.
Disappointed. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be more impressed by the former.
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that parents buy whatever their kids tell them to, then whine when they don't think it's appropriate.
As for bullies: I was bullied as a kid. Then I learned to fight and kicked the crap out of anyone in high school that tried to bully anyone.
If this game is as open-ended as GTA supposedly is, you should be able to be the anti-bully. But, then, GTA isn't really open-ended...you're never anything but a criminal.
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:2)
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:2)
This is a little bit of a touchy issue. The closest comparison is to movies. Because they have a pretty clear and easy to understand rating system, and at theaters the theater has their own guidelines, etc. Its not a government law in most situations, it may be in certain towns or whatever, but movies are mostly self governed.
But, contrary
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:5, Informative)
I was bullied as a child, and the thought of kids playing as a bully really turns my stomach.
Congratulations, you've been sucked in by the Jack Thompson hype. Bully is a game where you fight against the bullies. But don't let little things like facts get in the way, will you?
This is the "think of the children" mindset at work. You are outraged and ignorant. That's a hell of a lot more dangerous than any game, especially when school boards are full of people just like you.
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:2)
If the game advocates violence as a way to solve the problem, count on lawsuits shortly thereafter. While I'm normally offended by barratry, I can't say I'd do much else in a case like this than laugh at the idiocy of anyone who'd try to make money off of schoolyard violence.
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:2)
Not that I'm in favor of the censorship, just pointing it out so we can be ready for the real censorship argument.
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:3, Interesting)
Take an animal in a cage, and over the course of months or years, torment it and beat it. Eventually, what do you expect the animal will do? It'll lose its mind, and attack anything moving or worse.
Why is it that we as a society expect children to endure constant torture and torment without going completely nuts?
Columbine should have been a wake-up call to show what's wrong with the American education system, and how kids treat each other when there's absolutely no penalties for bad behavior. Inste
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:2, Informative)
So, who is pushing the school board to do this? None other than Crazy Jack! From the article: "The goal is to make it such a negative thing that the retailers won't carry it," Thompson said. "This thing hasn't really reached critical mass as a [public relations] problem yet; that's what I'm trying to do."
Maybe Crazy Jack is an advis
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:4, Interesting)
Fantasizing about standing up to a bully in a physical way is natural and inevitable of course, and harmless: provided you know better, safer and more effective strategies.
I am concerned about bullying and my kids, which takes more shapes than physical punishement by the way. I always tell them to take good care of their friends, because some day they may need them. Bullies are attracted to weakness, and the greatest form of weakness is social isolation. Any three geeks probably can stand up to any one bully. They're also witnesses.
While I think fantasy revenge is benign, I do have mixed feelings about a game in which you fight against bullies though. I think that amoral violence may in fact be less corrupting than self-righteous violence. It may well be that such a game has more appeal to bullies than victims.
I beg to differ (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree wholeheartedly. My son (and other kids) were being bullied by a kid in his school. I tried talking to the teachers, but they said that their punishments weren't having much effect and the kid's parents weren't interested.
So, I taught my son three rules:
I also directly informed the teachers about our plan (their one-word reaction: "good!").
That was two months ago, and after two good smacks in the snout (and one miss - my son missed and nailed him in the eye), the bully is no more. My son wasn't the only one to benefit, either: the other kids realized that this worked pretty well.
I made it clear to my boy that I never, ever condone him starting fights. However, neither will I ever punish him for defending himself.
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2)
Nor would I. I'd be a hypocrite otherwise.
My point is that prevention is better than fighting. With fighting, you can't predict the outcome. It may feel good to have your son "take care of the trash" but you'd feel different if he had the crap kicked out of him, or if he seriously injured the other kid, which is a possibility any time you throw a punch. Then, maybe you'd get involved, then his dad would get involved, and who knows where it wo
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2)
I mostly agree with that. Actual prevention is definitely much better than fighting, clearly. The problem is that no one really has a good idea of how to implement it. While some people wholeheartedly know that suspensions and expulsions will "cure" the issue, other people know that education and nurturing are the clear path to success.
On the other hand, with some fighting you can predict the outcome rat
I think you did the right thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a martial artist. I help teach people how to fight. I'm aware that sometimes it's the best option, even if it is never a good option. I also know that that a lot of foolish people have a romantic notion of
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2)
Its refreshing to hear of male characteristics still being taught to males. I applaud what the parent has done for his kid and other kids by example.
Yes, bullies pick out on the apparent "weaker" ones. Why? They are weak, and want power by appearing strong in a social setting.
99% of the time, a bully will not respond when picking on a weaker kid if the picked on kid says something like "Go ahead, make my day" or "Do y
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2)
Yep. Beyond that, I think that minor retaliation is sort of like putting The Club on your steering wheel. It won't dissuade a determined attacker, but the casual thug will almost always move on to easier prey. Fortunately, that analogy breaks down when a significant number of kids fight back: rather can continuing to look for other weak kids, bullies almost universally give up
Re:I beg to differ (Score:3, Insightful)
In what age range is your son?
I suspect the grandparent poster is referring to a specific age-bracket wherein fighting back to a bully can be downright dangerous.
When you're 10 years old, sure, fighting back to the bully might work. But my nephew went to a rather rough high-scho
There's a time for everything (Score:2)
It's a lovely mentality to teach the "walk away"
Re:There's a time for everything (Score:2)
It's a lovely mentality to teach the "walk away" strategy, but the fact is that a determined "bully" will lie in wait for you, or sneak up on you.
I don't know where people are getting this thing about lying down and let bullies walk all over you. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
What I'm saying is the best defense is to have friends. Friends equal allies in a fight. They equal witnesses for the prosecution. When you have friends, you have strength, obvious strength that bullies avoid.
If you don't have friends
Re:You're missing something (Score:3, Interesting)
Which makes my point. If anybody had seen you who was inclined to report you, it would be you who ended up expelled and possibly in jail for assault. It is also not out the bounds
Re:You're missing something (Score:2)
What country do you live in? Here in the US, all this is crap. Kids don't go to jail for anything unless someone dies, and even then it's just juvenile detention. For a fight in s
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:2)
How will you fight the bullies?
We all know the answer to that one. It won't be by beating them at Ping-Pong.
Rockstar became the poster child for video game regulation for a reason. Looking clear-eyed at Rockstar's release schedule it is easy to see more trouble coming down the road.
Bully should raise a red flag because it
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:4, Insightful)
And this is exactly the reason why school boards are up in arms against this game: they don't want anyone standing up to the bullies, because that challenges the social order that exists in America's schools. Bullies have long enjoyed power in America's schools, and teachers and school administrations and school boards have done everything they can to preserve this status quo. Students suffering from abuse by other students have always been pushed aside and ignored, because school in the USA is NOT a place to learn, but to be brainwashed into a social order where intellectuals are second-class citizens and everyone is brainwashed into conformity and taught never to question authority, no matter how stupid that authority is.
This game challenges everything the US school system is built upon.
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:5, Interesting)
2. We have a legally enforcable age rating system for games in the UK which seems to work reasonably well and, to some extent, has taken the heat out of the violent games debate over here (San Andreas is rated 18, so Hot Coffee just wasn't an issue). Isn't the problem with introducing a similar age rating regimen in the US the fact that Walmart (and possibly other stores) will refuse to stock adult rated games thus effectively preventing their distribution and making them uneconomic to develop. I may be mistaken as I don't live in the US to find out first hand, but it's always seemed to be this, rather than any point of principle, which causes the game industry to object to so strongly to age rating laws over there. If the retailers would be a little more reasonable maybe this wouldn't be such an issue?
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:2)
1) Playing as the acting-out victim of bullying will make people worry that the title is encouraging another columbine style incident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School _massacre [wikipedia.org]
2) Making a legally enforcable system for game ratings is tough due to the wide latitude granted to freedom of speech in this country. A voluntary system is much more likely to work, such as the one that we have for movies, which everyone seems relatively c
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
Why wasn't Fight Club banned when adults could legally go see it in theatres? Surely it would have provoked an international emergency with sensible adults suddenly beating each other up in the streets.
The content of the game aside, these people are almost admitting that parents will buy the game for their kids anyway. This is totally the wrong approach, they should be campaigning to raise awareness of the game's content to parents so that they don't buy it for their kids, making sure they follow THE LAW.
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:3, Funny)
You forget Rule #1: You do not talk about fight club.
Of course adults all over the world began beating each other up, but NOT ON THE STREETS! They did it in private! And why didn't you hear about it? YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB!
Ummm, except... (Score:2)
In a perfect world, parents don't buy adult games for their
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:2)
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:2)
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:2)
Hidden content that requires hacking the game with an internet downloaded tool shouldn't be the responsibility of the game developer e
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:2)
Of course it should be their responsibility, who else's would it be??
As to having access to equally bad content, aren't those what parental controls made for? It's unlikely parental controls would deny a user access to hacking tools.
It's the combined responsibility of whoever creates, and whoever uses the hacking tool. Why wouldn't parental controls prevent you from getting access to hacking tools? It certainly seems like they should. Such tools fall squarely within the purview of what parental controls
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:2)
You see where i'm going with this? Just because GTA wasn't offensive to you doesn't mean it wasn't offensive to anybody.
Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:2)
Re:I kind of agree (Score:2)
It might even reform the bullies who are bound to play the game.
Re:I kind of agree (Score:2, Insightful)
Beating hookers in a game is ok, but this is where draw the line?
There is really no reason for a game like this.
Sure there is; i bet its a fun game to play. Personally I believe there's no reason for the Bible. It serves no real purpose (except to allow weakminded people to be controlled by those who 'spread the word'). Certainly its caused more problems than its solved.
I've got a big problem playing