Jimquisition: Rape vs. Murder
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Are you suggesting that the level of emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape is on par with dental work? Because if you are, that's one of the stupidest thing I've ever heard - you clearly have absolutely no concept of the turmoil a rape victim goes through after the fact, not including the experience itself. You simply boil it down to "rape-pain", which is mind-boggingly ignorant and short-sighted.5ilver said:
Like some people said, I could defend a game with rape in it, aka main villain you're after is a rapist among other things, but it's hard to defend a game where main character is expected to rape and rewarded for it.
It is perfectly valid to use most dark and evil things in media as long as you don't glorify it. You can't make rape or child murder look good, that's abysmal. You can use it in your game to show that some villain is beyond redemption and deserves death, sure, just be careful.
The whole reason of controversy is past experience with games being not sensitive with sensitive subjects,
It is perfectly valid to use most dark and evil things in media as long as you don't glorify it. You can't make rape or child murder look good, that's abysmal. You can use it in your game to show that some villain is beyond redemption and deserves death, sure, just be careful.
The whole reason of controversy is past experience with games being not sensitive with sensitive subjects,
I disagree profoundly with this video. I don't disagree with any of the points that say rape is a really awful crime, but you just go ahead and trivialize murder way too much.
"It's something where the other guy can fight back." or "it can happen to anyone" or it being justified or framed in a way that shushes our conscience, ...
These things do not make it in any way ok.
The fact that our culture glorifies the erasing of a human existence makes it even worse. It is NOT a mitigating factor towards the act itself.
Then of course there's the whole "well people don't remember being dead" bit. No, they don't, but their friends and next of kin do. It's patently ridiculous to say that murder doesn't leave anyone hurt in its wake, and yet that's the message many popular media paint day in day out.
Yes, we are desensityzed towards fictive violence far more than we are towards fictive sexual content. That's a cultural phenomenon, not a moral compass. The fact that you like Hannibal despite him eating people means that you are simply more capable of ignoring the background noise of physically and psychologically mutilated people he would leave in his wake were he a real person, merely because he didn't put his dick in any of them.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing to think of Lecter as a cool character, but I am saying that it is a bit hypocritical to morally judge roughly equally monstrous characters very differently based on whether or not their story contains rape, or judge a story based on an analogous judgement.
I will acknowledge that there's a difference between killing in combat (which is still not a good thing, but can be considered "less wrong") and outright murder, but there are murder games as well (where you seek out innocent, far less powerful victims who did nothing to deserve it and have no chance against you and proceed to brutalize them) and those really have no place being considered better than a rape game that progresses similarly.
Of course, no one forces you to like the creators of games like that either, but if you want to ban, censor or regulate one, you have to hold to that morality across the board. My own personal opinion is against censorship, no matter how awful the material, but I can respect other views on the matter, so long as they are self-consistent.
"It's something where the other guy can fight back." or "it can happen to anyone" or it being justified or framed in a way that shushes our conscience, ...
These things do not make it in any way ok.
The fact that our culture glorifies the erasing of a human existence makes it even worse. It is NOT a mitigating factor towards the act itself.
Then of course there's the whole "well people don't remember being dead" bit. No, they don't, but their friends and next of kin do. It's patently ridiculous to say that murder doesn't leave anyone hurt in its wake, and yet that's the message many popular media paint day in day out.
Yes, we are desensityzed towards fictive violence far more than we are towards fictive sexual content. That's a cultural phenomenon, not a moral compass. The fact that you like Hannibal despite him eating people means that you are simply more capable of ignoring the background noise of physically and psychologically mutilated people he would leave in his wake were he a real person, merely because he didn't put his dick in any of them.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing to think of Lecter as a cool character, but I am saying that it is a bit hypocritical to morally judge roughly equally monstrous characters very differently based on whether or not their story contains rape, or judge a story based on an analogous judgement.
I will acknowledge that there's a difference between killing in combat (which is still not a good thing, but can be considered "less wrong") and outright murder, but there are murder games as well (where you seek out innocent, far less powerful victims who did nothing to deserve it and have no chance against you and proceed to brutalize them) and those really have no place being considered better than a rape game that progresses similarly.
Of course, no one forces you to like the creators of games like that either, but if you want to ban, censor or regulate one, you have to hold to that morality across the board. My own personal opinion is against censorship, no matter how awful the material, but I can respect other views on the matter, so long as they are self-consistent.
I agree with this statement, and has been a problem I've had with games in general. A game where death has weight in your decision making, is a game I want to play. The Last of Us looks like that will be the kind of game it tries to be.TazTheTerrible said:
I don't necessarily agree with the consistency part. When it comes down to it, our culture has decided that action movies where you mow down anonymous ninja henchmen is not only okay, but exciting.
If I could get a stadium of people to applaud you, I would. I can't believe we've reached this point where murder is ok, I am so utterly disappointed with this community right now. I hope that a lot of these responses were made by people younger then 16-18 years of age, people who don't yet have the cognitive ability to understand just how precious life is. Whats worse, people on this board are even justifying torture and sadistic murders now against rape, saying it's totally ok to be a psychopathic sadist because games put you against enemies who deserve it. We really are a charming species if this is popular opinion.viranimus said:
At the end of the day one thing holds true. You can still live a long, fulling and even happy life after being raped. You can't do that if your DEAD. Stealing that opportunity away from someone is by far the most evil thing another person can do. If someone told me that I had to succumb to being raping in order to live, I would certainly choose life. Most sane people would to, including many of the people who made comments here stating that rape was worse.
Kind of funny how that works.
I agree with the both of you.xPixelatedx said:
I've got games like The Elder Scrolls and Fallout series where I can murder dozens of nonhostile NPCs who do nothing but defend their homes from my attacks. Are those deaths justifiable? I've got Prototype, where I find myself regularly mowing down fleeing, terrified civilians. Are those justifiable? I've got GTA games where I can go on a killing spree, murdering dozens of innocent bystanders, then murdering the police who respond. Are those deaths justifiable?
Both murder and rape are horrible things. The latter leaves you mentally and emotionally scarred, with the possibility of recovery(however slim it may be). The former robs you of a future, with no chance of recovery. Both rob you of your self. Claiming one is worse than the other, for whatever reason, cheapens both of them and the effects they have on society.
There's a difference between killing and murder. War games like COD offer few opportunities to murder somebody but you kill a lot of people. Few games are centered around murder Manhunt being one of the few. The difference being if you kill people to get to a goal or if you murder people for the killing.
Ok, I admit, maybe "all known techniques" was a bit exaggeratingmike1921 said:
I mean raping methods without chemicals involved
I'm not sure I'll be able to explain correctly, but basically it is about lacing erected dick so hard that blood flow is stopped
Then female can rape man until seizure kicks in (eventually it will happen)
But with stuff like viagra man-raping is less lethal of course
P.S.And a little strap-on action never have killed any man
Wow Jim you really went out on a limb with this one, what a champ, It really took balls to come out and say rape is bad...was there a point to this video other than your attempt at championing yet another cause that already has better and more qualified champions?Jim Sterling said:
Did I hear you say that rape is more damaging than murder? If that is the case are you saying that its more humane to euthanize a rape victim? What about the family, spouse or children of the murder victim do you care nothing for their pain?
Also you said murder can be rationalized and/or even justified through story rendering it almost moral at times...So if someone writes a plot to a rape game that makes rape justified or moral for what ever reason you can rationalize it then? It works both ways granted a justified rape has probably never happened but these are video games, I'm sure they can write a plot to do it.
I know you mean well but this video was laced with ignorance on both sides of the topic, it sounds like you care more about people knowing your stance on something than actually having an intellectual discussion about it.
EDIT: My point is that rape and murder are both wrong and by putting the "VS" between them you can make it seem like one is less wrong when they are both just wrong. If someone can rationalize murder they also have the capacity to rationalize rape and vice versa. Its a good thing video games don't cause people to do bad things in real life.
I thank you for the sentiment. Perhaps my perspective is a little skewn byxPixelatedx said:
beingviranimus said:
myself. Being inches/seconds away from death ended can have that same sort of traumatic effect of utter powerlessness, being violated, having the trauma permanently branded on your mind and forced to relive it for the remainder of your days. It has the added effect that rape does not have of regret. To almost be murdered it is like that moment is etched into time and you look at that moment of your life and realize had things been just slightly different and the attempt been sucessful how would you have felt about how you left this world. How would you feel of the things left unsaid and undone. Things you never got the chance to redeem yourself of. Those things haunt you almost as much as the actual trauma itself. The constant thought of "had I just done this differently maybe none of this would have happened" Not to diminish the pain a rape victim suffers but that is a pain they simply dont experience on the same level.viranimus said:
So in all fairness I must admit to being biased, but I still firmly stand behind my statement. If you can justify murder, you can justify anything in this existence.
I lol'd quite much at the picture of Breivik at 04:40. So true.
*is Norwegian, therefore getting the joke*
*is Norwegian, therefore getting the joke*
The Slippery Slope has never been as true as it is for speech. When you censor speech of one type, it becomes much more appealing to start censoring speech of other types. More dangerously, when you censor speech, you run the risk of giving it far more power.TazTheTerrible said:
In danger of skirting Reducto ad Hitlerum, the best modern, real-world example is that of Germany. The what-can't-be-called-the-Nazi-party-any-longer-due-to-legal-concerns has grown in power over the last several decades, which has led to other parties embracing more nationalistic, anti-immigrant rhetoric. Hell, even on the other side of the EU, you have Greece electing fascists. Why? Because discussing *why* The War happened is either illegal at worst, or frowned upon socially at best. When the people in a society take notice of corruption in the current system, they begin to look towards those ideas that the corrupt system deems 'too dangerous,' and embrace them without regard for the consequences.
If you want a less Godwin-y example, the libel laws in the UK are a prime target. Scientists and members of the media in England are often crippled by the threat of libel suits - even when claims they've made are perfectly accurate - because their laws make no distinction between ACTUAL libel and statements of fact which happen to be unflattering. Why are they so broad? Because once 'hate speech' was censored, it became a lot easier to start censoring 'uncivil' speech.
There's no honour in only defending the rights of people with whom with agree.
Problem with all these arguments: Why don't they then apply in real life?
If the fact that sometimes killing can be justified makes any and all forms of "killing" inherently less heinous, then why is murder considered the worst offence by every criminal justice system that exist in reality? If being raped is a fate worse than being killed, then why don't we compassionately encourage rape victims to end their misery?
Rape might be the perfect way to portray someone as evil, but hardly more so than having them blow the head off some random pedestrian. Though in the peculiar environment of puritanical US culture, where violence is awesome and all sex is taboo, it might make some sort of internal sense.
If the fact that sometimes killing can be justified makes any and all forms of "killing" inherently less heinous, then why is murder considered the worst offence by every criminal justice system that exist in reality? If being raped is a fate worse than being killed, then why don't we compassionately encourage rape victims to end their misery?
Rape might be the perfect way to portray someone as evil, but hardly more so than having them blow the head off some random pedestrian. Though in the peculiar environment of puritanical US culture, where violence is awesome and all sex is taboo, it might make some sort of internal sense.
I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything Jim is saying, but I still have a hard time buying into the idea that rape is objectively worse than murder. I actually wrote an post on my blog a while back about Rapelay. The main point I wanted to make was the game kind of got scapegoated to avoid facing much larger social issues.
Here's a link if you want to read it:
http://caseygoddard.blogspot.jp/2011/05/in-defense-of-indefensible.html
There's also some links at the end of the blog post to some other interesting views others have had on the game.
Here's a link if you want to read it:
http://caseygoddard.blogspot.jp/2011/05/in-defense-of-indefensible.html
There's also some links at the end of the blog post to some other interesting views others have had on the game.