Creepy Summer Lesson PSVR Game Gets New Trailer, Details

[Callate]

If you've read most of my posts in this thread, you should see I'm not beginning and ending with that gut reaction. What I won't do, however, is bow down to platitudinous moral relativism where nothing can ever mean anything, and no contrary reaction or opinion can be tolerated.

I understand that you're tired of restating your points, and I appreciate that you've taken the time and effort to engage here. I'll try to be brief.

I'm not advocating "platitudinous moral relativism" either. But I do feel it's important that what we call "morality" be closely engaged in what's real, what's achievable, and what works.

There was an article I read many years ago- I think in "Dragon"- where a panel was discussing, among other things, the recent release of "Doom". A Canadian on the panel, regarding the American penchant for violence, said something like "I would say [real-world violence in American society] was due to violence in the media... But we have all the same stuff in Canada..."

When I bring up things like first-person shooters, it's not because I think you're ignoring one creepy thing for the sake of another out of some sort of puritanical obsession with sex. It's because it would be quite understandable for a reasonable person, from the outside, to consider both to be creepy- but a deeper examination seems to suggest their niche isn't actually engaging in harmful behavior.

If someone should be required to try to understand another culture's quirks and foibles, then the 'defender' of such quirks and foibles needs to understand the perspective of the perceived outsider. The rationale for why someone in the West would see Summer Lesson as creepy or disturbing surely isn't hard to follow (the NSPCC pdf I linked to should suffice).

I do follow. And if someone were acting that way towards a real student, I would think that was a warning sign. But I don't see evidence that, say, "Summer Lesson" is teaching someone in a position of authority how to desensitize a real-world student towards inappropriate behavior.

The whole "junior/senior" dynamic is so deeply rooted in Japanese society, to my understanding, that it's difficult to envision how such a scenario could be envisioned that didn't involve a lopsided power dynamic. Perhaps that is a reason to look askance at it, but again, I have to recognize that that's an outsider's perspective.

Again, pointing that out doesn't magically make everything Summer Lesson may represent beyond reproach. And, for the hundredth time in this thread, perhaps; I object to my own culture's attitude to violence (and objectification/sexism).

And here, perhaps, we diverge.

I once had someone online say they wanted to kill me because I had the audacity to suggest that "Stand Your Ground" laws had the unfortunate effect of giving almost anyone an "alibi" that a fatal shooting was self defense, merely because they "felt threatened".

That someone felt they could make a plausible threat against me, based on my stance on a real-world issue, troubles me.

That someone could, conceivably, obtain a real gun, use the Internet to obtain my real address, and shoot me, troubles me.

That an attitude suggesting violence is a solution to problems might be implied by a piece of media or a work of art...? Not so much.

I have to believe- sometimes against evidence- that, presented with ideas, adults are capable of separating good information from bad, and judging their merits. And that as a whole, we have a better ability to do so if we're subjected to a broad array of ideas. Some of those ideas may be appealing, others unappealing but necessary, and some maybe downright disturbing. But that those ideas themselves aren't quashed because people fear being pre-judged just by their expression.

And, yeah, it's a balancing act- because the criticism of something is, itself, an idea.

But as far as violence: I look at the availability of weapons, I look at population density in urban centers, I look at unemployment and education, I look at the lack of teaching on many levels on ways to safely handle conflict... And I look at the lack of correlation between annual rates of violent crime and the perceived levels of violence in video games... and a focus on the latter begins to feel like a distraction.

Though I'm sure the whole life-imitating-art-imitating-life argument will persist long after I'm dust.

Must a game or any work of entertainment/art be proved to be solely responsible for harm for it to be criticised, or for it to reflect unsettling things about a given culture or society?

Solely responsible? No. Nut there's a certain excessive ease to "slippery slope" arguments that shouldn't be ignored, either.

I'm not entirely sure how I can even begin to respond to that. A scumbag like Rogers was, seemingly, the product of a dysfunctionally masculine society and culture on a number of levels. If something as 'pitiable' as Summer Lesson is the answer, then you're surely asking the wrong questions.

The pitiable homeless person is a problem we try to address. We don't complain about their alcoholism or their drug addiction, their bad teeth or the way they smell. We say: this is a human being who doesn't have shelter, and that reflects badly on us all. Maybe somewhere up the line, we'll work on addiction counseling and job training, but right now, get them under a roof.

The creepy bum is a problem we walk around. And maybe ask someone in authority to move out of sight.

It would have been better if Rodgers had been shot and killed before he had killed anyone.
Still better if someone had seen his video, taken it seriously, and arrested him.
And better than that if he had had some sort of counselling that made him never think murder was the proper response to his sense of persecution.
...And possibly even better than that if he had the kind of supporting social network that never made him develop a sense of persecution in the first place.

It's easy in the aftermath of a terrible tragedy to react in anger- to say that Rodgers didn't deserve any of the things it might have taken to steer him on another course.

Much like it's easy to say a drug addict deserves scorn and misery, not treatment.

But that may not be what works, and I see an awful lot of people who seem to put indignation above pragmatism.

There's an argument to be made that much of the extreme behavior- criminal behavior- that societies witness comes from people who are so estranged from their peers that they don't feel there's any significant consequence to acting out. Jon Ronson's So You Have Been Publically Shamed includes a chapter on a prison for extreme violent offenders- many multiple murderers- and found that the common thread among inmates was that they were so ashamed- so filled with self-loathing- that their emotions, their ability to connect with others, simply shut down.

I guess what it comes down to is, subjectively- obviously- I can't, and don't, "disagree" with your labeling Summer Lesson as "creepy". But I'm far from confident that label is helpful.

 

[saltyanon]

You'll need to elaborate on the underlined, as I've no idea what you mean. The only thing I know about that game is that I don't like FF (bar VII and VIII back in the day), and those odious seeming, terribly designed protagonists are reason enough to avoid any game.

The boytoys and the Summer Lesson girls are both designed with sexualization in mind. There's enough fodder in that setup alone for straights and fujos alike.

I thought you're supposed to be familiar with Japanese stuff? You should've sniffed this from a mile away. Those イケメン are just as creepy as Summer Lesson's girls. Do you think Free is an innocent show about boys and swimming and friendship?