Valve Removes Active Shooter

[haste.]

Remember how everyone fell apart with the call of duty scene of shooting in the airport

Well, don't know how much you traveled during that time, but it was meant to push a few triggers . I personally think this was a complete failure on Valve as many have stated they aren't properly vetting the software on their platform. Steam has become the DD platform that is about nothing more than profit.

so just to contradict myself I wouldn't be shocked if this was intended because we are all talking about Steam... I worked in marketing for many years and this would be a win even with the bad pub. Assuming they can claim they are cleaning it up and it takes, it's a win socially and platform wise... well why not allow it for a few days it'll go away? I have to imagine they have a pretty high end marketing department who could convince management they could clean this up.

 

[M76]

My point is I don't think one has to do with the other and that there is no public evidence of your point.

Take this created scenario, Let's say I become a strong advocate to make it okay for children to be depicted naked in video games and that games that let you murder rape beat etc them. What is your opinion of me then?

Inversely if I advocate that it cannot be depicted in games. What is your opinion of me for that?

It sounds, maybe I am mistaken that you would think less of me if I wanted it banned as opposed to it being allowed?

As weird as it sounds, actually yes. If you're a normal person you have nothing to fear from children depicted in games. Since you won't view them in any predatory way. But if you strongly argue against it, then that would make me think about the reason. Why would you be arguing against it if not for the fear of what it might trigger in you.
It's the same thing with violence. I don't understand why is it a good thing if a character doesn't bleed in a videogame. How does that make it OK? The morally questionable act is the violence committed, not the fact that the victim bleeds or not. Killing innocents in a videogame won't be better if they don't show the blood.
If you don't want violence in a game don't depict it at all. I'm one of those people who honestly and genuinely feels guilt about running over pedestrians in GTA.
And I don't think removing blood and gore from the dead bodies makes it PG12. Either remove violence completely like in Midtown Madness I don't know if anyone remembers that. I loved their solution. Pedestrians would jump out of the way all the time and it was impossible to hit them. Or if you depict it, then don't sugar coat it with green blood, or no blood at all. Because it does more harm than good, it tries to normalize violence by removing the consequences of it. Circling back to your naked children conundrum. If you're depicting a child rapist in a videogame, having the victim fully clothed won't make it any better, or more acceptable in my opinion.

Like saying frak instead of fuck, or writing f*ck doesn't solve anything because we all know what they mean. It's as if they think it's the word that is evil and not the act it represents.

I hope you get the point.

Or if I advocate for either direction does it paint me the same way? In which case that could argue that no one should voice their opinions on any subject?

I think it's not the right question to ask. It all depends on the context. I wouldn't argue either way because I have no stake in it. If naked children offend you don't come to Europe. Because here it is a pretty regular sight at beaches. I don't understand this irrational fear in the US.

I do feel that people joining a fight one way or the other for the purpose of just getting popular or followers etc could be suspect for having a background agenda or motive. But I see nothing wrong with people fighting for what they personally believe in whether I agree with it or not.

I strongly agree with that. I'm not saying everyone who argues has an agenda. I'm not even saying it's an agenda for all. It's just a repressed desire they don't dare confront. But I'm not sure it actually applies to mass shootings I admit. It is more relevant to sexual repression issues.

But we went full circle again without actually addressing the elephant in the room: How does banning the depiction of mass shootings in fictional works help in the real world?

Indifference and inaction are at the roots of many problems in the world as well.

I don't think moving against fictional depiction of acts helps in solving the problem at all. I'm all for action, but since nobody wants to hear about gun control what can we do?

I do feel that video games do get way too much shit from a lot of people. Movies in my opinion are pretty grotesque and violent as well. But we just slap a rating on it and move on. People trying to get video games more restricted have clearly never heard kids shout "awesome!" when jason kills a camp counselor

Don't get me started on that. The whole rating system is completely stupid. TV stations here are in the habit of cutting movies and tv series to shreds to be able to show them during the day. It solves nothing, because the context is the same, they just remove the part where the bullet actually hits someone. They cut from the shooting to the dead body, it's ridiculous.

 

[Darunion]

As weird as it sounds, actually yes. If you're a normal person you have nothing to fear from children depicted in games. Since you won't view them in any predatory way. But if you strongly argue against it, then that would make me think about the reason. Why would you be arguing against it if not for the fear of what it might trigger in you.
It's the same thing with violence. I don't understand why is it a good thing if a character doesn't bleed in a videogame. How does that make it OK? The morally questionable act is the violence committed, not the fact that the victim bleeds or not. Killing innocents in a videogame won't be better if they don't show the blood.
If you don't want violence in a game don't depict it at all. I'm one of those people who honestly and genuinely feels guilt about running over pedestrians in GTA.
And I don't think removing blood and gore from the dead bodies makes it PG12. Either remove violence completely like in Midtown Madness I don't know if anyone remembers that. I loved their solution. Pedestrians would jump out of the way all the time and it was impossible to hit them. Or if you depict it, then don't sugar coat it with green blood, or no blood at all. Because it does more harm than good, it tries to normalize violence by removing the consequences of it. Circling back to your naked children conundrum. If you're depicting a child rapist in a videogame, having the victim fully clothed won't make it any better, or more acceptable in my opinion.

Like saying frak instead of fuck, or writing f*ck doesn't solve anything because we all know what they mean. It's as if they think it's the word that is evil and not the act it represents.

I hope you get the point.


I think it's not the right question to ask. It all depends on the context. I wouldn't argue either way because I have no stake in it. If naked children offend you don't come to Europe. Because here it is a pretty regular sight at beaches. I don't understand this irrational fear in the US.


I strongly agree with that. I'm not saying everyone who argues has an agenda. I'm not even saying it's an agenda for all. It's just a repressed desire they don't dare confront. But I'm not sure it actually applies to mass shootings I admit. It is more relevant to sexual repression issues.

But we went full circle again without actually addressing the elephant in the room: How does banning the depiction of mass shootings in fictional works help in the real world?


I don't think moving against fictional depiction of acts helps in solving the problem at all. I'm all for action, but since nobody wants to hear about gun control what can we do?


Don't get me started on that. The whole rating system is completely stupid. TV stations here are in the habit of cutting movies and tv series to shreds to be able to show them during the day. It solves nothing, because the context is the same, they just remove the part where the bullet actually hits someone. They cut from the shooting to the dead body, it's ridiculous.

I suck at multi-quoting so sorry haha.

I can fully get behind your comments on the censorship. We like to censor blood or a word or a nipple but not the content. Like radio, i listen to some shows in the morning and they can talk about sex and the act of it and details of it, but cant say the word fuck because that would violate regulations. Not to mention the sex toy commercials they run between 8-10am. Not saying censorship is helping anything by any stretch, it really is just something that makes us feel like we fixed something.

I do think something needs done about the violence and anger that seems to be occurring a lot. But I really hate the concept of just doing something and not having enough data behind it to show that what is being done has an extremely high chance of fixing the problem.

We are becoming very polarized anymore it seems. Many arguments and discussions go more toward 'downhill slope' or 'dystopian future' extreme views when something comes up.

Like the gun thing, I fully support rights for firearms but I would at least hear a discussion on changing something if evidence can be provided that doing something would directly cause an effect that is intended. I don't support 'lets try and see what happens' because that wastes time and in the land of laws, it is easier to pass a law than remove it later. IE Lets ban all civilian firearms, but then find out it had no effect, it would be a pain to undo that law after the fact.

Just like this game, if there is evidence that this is going to lead to mass shootings then okay get rid of it. But if some kid is already on the road to a mass shooting, we cant just blame the game, we would have to blame the capn crunch cereal he eats too because he did that just before he shot up a school tool.


TL;DR We all need less knee jerk and more civilized discussion and research.

 

[Darunion]

Well, don't know how much you traveled during that time, but it was meant to push a few triggers . I personally think this was a complete failure on Valve as many have stated they aren't properly vetting the software on their platform. Steam has become the DD platform that is about nothing more than profit.

so just to contradict myself I wouldn't be shocked if this was intended because we are all talking about Steam... I worked in marketing for many years and this would be a win even with the bad pub. Assuming they can claim they are cleaning it up and it takes, it's a win socially and platform wise... well why not allow it for a few days it'll go away? I have to imagine they have a pretty high end marketing department who could convince management they could clean this up.

I see what you did there

For valve it really is just a giant PR battle that once this game came forward, they weren't going to win no matter what they did. Even if they do start to clean up and now fully vet games, a new distributor will come forward with out these limits and then becomes a giant competitor and somehow will become champion for free expression in art.

 

[M76]

Source for your claims that fighting against horrific media means you are leaning towards performing the act yourself (which I know is 100% bullshit) or the most Feminist's are sexual predators. LOVE to see any factual data on either. I know there isn't...

You're asking for the impossible. You think they'd admit to it? Then how would you imagine that data would be procured? Very intelligent and well read people have suggested this idea before me. I'm not the inventor of the idea, but I strongly agree with it. Hence the quote from Shakespeare.
That you're saying "100% bullshit" shows me one thing: You're not genuine. Because you cannot know to an absolute certainty. You might be convinced, but that's not fact that's just your opinion. And in this case I'm more inclined to believe the opinion of the late Christopher Hitchens than yours.

Edit: The right to refuse extremist psychopathic murder simulation is any distribution platforms right. Dude you are a young man. I get it. But this is not acceptable for any media platform. Why do you think any smut is illegal? I honestly don't know why I'm spending time on this anymore, I just am SHOCKED that anyone on the internet is trying to defend this shit. Just like if Kyle is annoyed with my rant he can ban me. But I'm not propagating mass murder.

It seems to me that for you actual violence and the depiction of violence in a work of fiction is one and the same. I've seen this many times from people trying to shut down games and movies or even books. I'd love to get some insight why do you equate the two.

 

[M76]

It really is just a moral posturing. Remember how everyone fell apart with the call of duty scene of shooting in the airport, in a game where you shoot people all day long?

I swear the people in overdrive mode about this all sound like this to me:

"Hey look at me, what a swell guy I'm. I'm against mass shootings of people, look at me, recognize me, what a great person I am!!!, Hey I can't be a bad person, since I'm against mass murder right?"

Well guess what, we're all against mass shooting of innocent people, that goes without saying. Nobody is pro-mass murder. And proclaiming it doesn't make you special or better.

 

[haste.]

As weird as it sounds, actually yes. If you're a normal person you have nothing to fear from children depicted in games. Since you won't view them in any predatory way. But if you strongly argue against it, then that would make me think about the reason. Why would you be arguing against it if not for the fear of what it might trigger in you.
It's the same thing with violence. I don't understand why is it a good thing if a character doesn't bleed in a videogame. How does that make it OK? The morally questionable act is the violence committed, not the fact that the victim bleeds or not. Killing innocents in a videogame won't be better if they don't show the blood.
If you don't want violence in a game don't depict it at all. I'm one of those people who honestly and genuinely feels guilt about running over pedestrians in GTA.
And I don't think removing blood and gore from the dead bodies makes it PG12. Either remove violence completely like in Midtown Madness I don't know if anyone remembers that. I loved their solution. Pedestrians would jump out of the way all the time and it was impossible to hit them. Or if you depict it, then don't sugar coat it with green blood, or no blood at all. Because it does more harm than good, it tries to normalize violence by removing the consequences of it. Circling back to your naked children conundrum. If you're depicting a child rapist in a videogame, having the victim fully clothed won't make it any better, or more acceptable in my opinion.

Like saying frak instead of fuck, or writing f*ck doesn't solve anything because we all know what they mean. It's as if they think it's the word that is evil and not the act it represents.

I hope you get the point.

I agree with points made. Violence is violence. Profanity is profanity. But fuck is considered different than shit. Killing a child is different than killing a grown person whom can protect themselves (btw killing a child will get yourself killed in prison in the US). So a FUCKING mass murder simulation at a school is much different than Grand Theft Auto killing gangsters and protitutes.

Why argue it with morals? Morality would tell you that there are extremes. Education would tell you there are extremes. CoD is a game simulating military action, not mass murder. BF is a game simulating military, not mass murder. State of Decay, DayZ, zombie etc. simulate killing fictional zombies or hostile military. Not mass murder. Who cares if there is blood? It's an graphical aspect to the game, the complaint is about the actions you are partaking in. Your argument is so flawed to 95% of society no matter where you are from on this great planet is going to disagree... and the 5% supporting it, well....

Take a look in the mirror. You made a statement you think people who are upset by mass murder simulations are going to commit the act which is both insane and sickening. You are trying to twist the conversation to other crazy extremist positions as well, go back to the original conversation that you think a mass murder simulation at a high school shouldn't be censored (I know you aren't from the US so mass murder is unfamiliar). Then think about it with the statistics and take another look in the mirror. I'm sick of trying to convince you this is not acceptable to grown fucking (<- intended and ban-able sorry mods) adults, who have realized that it's scary out there with so many who maintain your mindset. You make extreme comments and cannot back them in any way.

Sorry mods gonna go to my safe place (beat the responses to it), fired up from the blindness of this person... feel free to delete my post and punish. But I'd love to see the response from the defense who has criticized woman, promoted mass shooting simulations and has completely admitted doesn't understand either.

 

[Kdawg]

people sitting behind keyboards who feel they are untouchable.

joke's on them. They have farther reach, but are more likely to suffer severe consequences for saying stupid shit.

 

[Joust]

Well. This thread took a nose dive.

It did remind me to have patience with the young. They have still-developing principles that they will fight to the death to defend.

Equal parts nobility, pride, and naivete.

 

[M76]

Who cares if there is blood? It's an graphical aspect to the game, the complaint is about the actions you are partaking in. Your argument is so flawed to 95% of society no matter where you are from on this great planet is going to disagree... and the 5% supporting it, well....

Did you not understand my post? I'm arguing the same thing, that it's not the blood that matters it's the act.
Who cares if there is blood? Well the rating agencies seem to care about that for starters, because it seems they base the ratings on the amount of blood and not on the context of the violence committed.
I'm not arguing for mass murder please stop acting if I were. I'm arguing that censoring based on content is a slippery slope and it shouldn't be a thing.
I have enough faith left in people that they can come to the conclusion on their own that mass murder is bad, and I don't have to elevate myself as some absolute moral compass that will tell them what's acceptable and what's not.
It seems to me that you want to ban "mass murder simulators" because you feel that other people are too dumb to understand that mass murder is bad. I think we all understand it, and we can handle it accordingly. It's not real, it's fictional.
I think GTA is enough of a mass murder simulator already.

Take a look in the mirror. You made a statement you think people who are upset by mass murder simulations are going to commit the act which is both insane and sickening. You are trying to twist the conversation to other crazy extremist positions as well, go back to the original conversation that you think a mass murder simulation at a high school shouldn't be censored (I know you aren't from the US so mass murder is unfamiliar). Then think about it with the statistics and take another look in the mirror. I'm sick of trying to convince you this is not acceptable to grown fucking (<- intended and ban-able sorry mods) adults, who have realized that it's scary out there with so many who maintain your mindset. You make extreme comments and cannot back them in any way.

I didn't say that every one will commit mass murder. I said that they possibly had a desire to do that. How many people hates their work? And how many of them thought about murdering their hated bossess and collegaues? Do you remember the internet minigame whack your boss? Don't tell me there never was any desire in anyone to just go on a rampage. And I think some people are so afraid of their own repressed desires that they will argue extremely vehemently against everything depicting their desires. And of course not all who argue against it is like that. Some might argue for different reasons.

Sorry mods gonna go to my safe place (beat the responses to it), fired up from the blindness of this person... feel free to delete my post and punish. But I'd love to see the response from the defense who has criticized woman, promoted mass shooting simulations and has completely admitted doesn't understand either.

OK, for the last and final time. WHERE ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DID I CRITIZE WOMEN? Because critizing "woman" as you put it in singular would mean one single person and would be meaningless.

And where the hell did I promote mass shooting simulations? I don't want a mass shooting simulation. I want freedom of expression, and whether you like it or not, freedom of expression encompasses everything even things you don't like. If you only allow things you don't find offensive then that's not freedom of expression.

I'm beginnig to think you're a simple troll who is only trying to wind me up by deliberately misconstruing what I post. And you ignore most of my statements that contain the arguments you claim are MIA.

 

[Nobu]

Seriously, don't like that steam wont host your morally questionable game? Put it on newgrounds, some other host, or sell it yourself. Steam has no obligation to sell your product, fullstop. It doesn't matter if it's rated G, they can refuse to sell it because they don't think it'll sell well or because they don't think it fits in their ecosystem, or any other reason.

 

[haste.]

Did you not understand my post? I'm arguing the same thing, that it's not the blood that matters it's the act.
Who cares if there is blood? Well the rating agencies seem to care about that for starters, because it seems they base the ratings on the amount of blood and not on the context of the violence committed.
I'm not arguing for mass murder please stop acting if I were. I'm arguing that censoring based on content is a slippery slope and it shouldn't be a thing.
I have enough faith left in people that they can come to the conclusion on their own that mass murder is bad, and I don't have to elevate myself as some absolute moral compass that will tell them what's acceptable and what's not.
It seems to me that you want to ban "mass murder simulators" because you feel that other people are too dumb to understand that mass murder is bad. I think we all understand it, and we can handle it accordingly. It's not real, it's fictional.
I think GTA is enough of a mass murder simulator already.


I didn't say that every one will commit mass murder. I said that they possibly had a desire to do that. How many people hates their work? And how many of them thought about murdering their hated bossess and collegaues? Do you remember the internet minigame whack your boss? Don't tell me there never was any desire in anyone to just go on a rampage. And I think some people are so afraid of their own repressed desires that they will argue extremely vehemently against everything depicting their desires. And of course not all who argue against it is like that. Some might argue for different reasons.


OK, for the last and final time. WHERE ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DID I CRITIZE WOMEN? Because critizing "woman" as you put it in singular would mean one single person and would be meaningless.

And where the hell did I promote mass shooting simulations? I don't want a mass shooting simulation. I want freedom of expression, and whether you like it or not, freedom of expression encompasses everything even things you don't like. If you only allow things you don't find offensive then that's not freedom of expression.

I'm beginnig to think you're a simple troll who is only trying to wind me up by deliberately misconstruing what I post. And you ignore most of my statements that contain the arguments you claim are MIA.

Childish arguments. No defenses for anything other than your opinion and made extreme theories throughout this thread (it scares me that "most feminists are sexual predators" which you posted doesn't put together what I am referencing, even after I blatantly stated that) . Sorry I typed woman instead of women during a rant - I'm sure a reader with basic understanding of the English language could use reasoning to understand the connotation. Also you typed that I would be likely to be thinking of committing the attack because I find it horrific that you are supporting a game that simulates it (I'm a adult too so not school shooting). You're back tracking and minimizing now. Either provide stats or suck it up and admit you are just making it up because you are so ingrained in your ideology you have created alternate realities in your mind. You are now hiding behind the "I'm defending freedom of expression" but defending this game is a direct defense of a mass murder simulation. I'm shocked that is hard for someone to comprehend.

Seriously man, take a look in the mirror. Good luck to you, I hope you'll reflect on all this because it's fascinating to me, but it's evident you will not provide any sort of sourcing for your extreme views other than your opinion and attack on a small grammatical error. Defense of "freedom of expression" is more important to you than common human decency. Trying to debate with that is impossible. I'm starting to think with looking back at your commentary you are a Russian troll mine poster lol.