Japanese Eroge Company Renames Rape Games to "Platinum Games"

[UnravThreads]

... but hey, who am I to judge?

A human being?

Touché, good sir, touché.

 

[Doug]

... but hey, who am I to judge?

A human being?

Touché, good sir, touché.

*victory dances!*

 

[geldonyetich]

If something someone has said seems openly contradictory to you, then don't be surprised if you simply misunderstood what was being said.

In any case, I'm back in my, "I don't have the time to explain this to you monkeys" mood, so I guess you're out of luck if you were expecting a debate. Frankly, you'd have to try a whole lot harder to understand what I'm writing for me to even entertain a semblance of wanting to try. Writing knowing I'd only be misunderstood is an exercise in futility.

Ok then fine, I still don't understand how letting something be published means you have to put your seal of approval on it.

You were closer when you were discussing social norms. It's not my seal of approval that's the problem, it's society's at large. It's not freedom of speech, it's leveraging freedom of speech against the majority of people's idea of what's wholesome. We simply do not live in a society very conductive to the idea of allowing the open sale of rape games. Even our violent video games don't go as far as RapeLay did: the simulated invasion and subjugation of an innocent family.

As for why I'm not in the mood to debate, I'm simply helpless in the face of someone who is nitpicking what I'm trying to say to the point where they will misunderstand me. Helplessness is not a good feeling. My reaction is simply a reasoned human reaction to a helpless situation.

[Edit: In truly Karmic fashion, this original message as written was a gross misinterpretation of what was being quoted.]

 

[eggcarrier]

I have to quote Yahtzee on this one. "Talk about dodging a pot hole only to fall off a bridge."

 

[geldonyetich]

You don't say?

 

[bad rider]

However, simply calling this censorship is slightly off, it's merely addressing the knee-jerk issue. The real problem at the bottom of this whole thing has nothing to do with free speech.

Instead, it has to do with if one's open-mindedness is so very open-minded as to induce genuine harm. In a scenario out of the game, we don't walk through a park and see a man raping a screaming 10-year-old girl, shrug, and keep walking, thinking to ourselves, "well, who am I to judge?" So there's a definite limit to how open-minded you can be before you're condoning harm. In other words, there's a point where being open-minded is no longer a function of intelligence, but rather an irresponsible lack thereof.

Creating games about raping people is pretty close to that line. It's a bit of a stretch to say that a game like RapeLay will definitely get a person to start raping people, even psychological experiments finding varying results. However, it's not a stretch at all to say that the open sale of such a product is condoning rape on the level of being content in a game you can buy. At the point where we're a society that chooses to condone rape on an additional level, we're that much closer to the "well, who am I to judge" scenario above.

So, when you break it all down to the fundamentals, the reason why a restriction of a game like RapeLay applies is because the harm condoning it may bring to a society is greater than the harm not condoning it may bring to the benefit free speech brings to society.

this same argument applies equally well to murder or any other crime portrayed in video games.

Yes, but as this post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.128903.2785009] clearly outlines, you can't just say, "well, we allow violent games, so lets allow a game about tracking down and raping a 10-year-old." The reason being that the context is totally different, and the severity is a major factor.

i didn't say that. what i said was the argument that selling RapeLay condones rape can be applied equally well to GTA condoning murder. both encourage the player to commit violent crimes and reward them for doing so. if GTA isn't "severe" enough for you, i can point you to games about killing jews in concentration camps, or a suicide bomber trying to kill george w. bush.

And I just showed how it's not quite that simple. However, lets say I just accept your point at face value. What difference does this observation make?

Basically, you're trying to argue that one wrong makes two wrongs right. Does it really work that way?

I can find super violent games so we should have super sexual games! I can find examples of murder in real life, so there should be rape in real life too! Timmy hit me, so I raped Suzy!

No, it doesn't work that way. You might see this logic on a forum (e.g. alcohol's okay so MJ should be ok) and you'll even find supporters of that logic, but there is the only place the logic works: in uninformed mob rule.

This is because it's completely fallacious if you dig but an inch or two deeper: one wrong never makes two wrongs right, especially when you realize that these two wrongs are quite unlike eachother.

Erm his point is double standards on issues that are equally severe. For instance, murder is wrong, rape is wrong, I would say they are on par(give or take one to the other). Ergo, why is it okay for e.g. manhunt (lets go murder everyone) to be released, yet these rape games dont.
Just for the record, I didn't buy Manhunt and I don't buy eroge games. It's your choice what you buy, its not your choice to dictate that to other people.

Edit: Cleaned this post up a bit.

I don't think Manhunt should have been released, frankly - to me, its little more than a torture simulator - and Manhunt 2 was 'uncertified' by the BBFC, so effectivity banned from sale.

Sex games, in principle, are workable, but I don't think that excuses rape games. As has been mentioned before on here, rape is different to voilence/murder:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/the-needles/6127-You-Cant-Be-the-Hero-If-Youre-the-Rapist

So lets pretend for the sake of arguement Manhunt dosent exsist and neither do any other games which say "your the bad guy, roll with it". What you point out is that if your the good guy its okay. This is what I label the grey zone, the its okay I guess way of making things tailored to suit either yourself or society if we are talking wider application. So If we are looking at the grey zone, (bear with me this is going somewhere) Is it okay, for me to pull out a machinegun and mow down a field of cats? God no right? What about if do the same action but then cook them? Still god no right? Well then how about if I shoot them cook them and then feed them to people? Well, okay maybe? Well how about if I shoot them cook them and then feed starving etheopians ? Well thats fine or at least in china it is.
So what we have here is a long list with a likely reponse. Now at any point anyone can disagree/agree with what was done in any of those depending on: if your a vegan, chinese or a sadistic king of guy. Therefore you can see this grey zone wont work. At anytime someone could have a different point of view on these incidents. So the grey zone is very much unworkable as you wont get a serious line on whats right or wrong.

So that leaves us with the split. In this instance its about games in general, should we allow them all? Or should we ban them all. Well for me its a simple case of allow them, the real world implication is that you see a bunch of pixels jumping on another group of pixels without its permision. If you really dislike them, no-one is forcing you to buy it.

So to kind of gather what I said together. Its unfair for us to makes some squiggly line between right and wrong with games. This isnt a case of it will traumatise people, because no-one is bieng forced into anything. Now, -at risk of sounding like a US nationalist- there is a serious point about freedom to be made. If you want true freedom to do as you wish (which is what we should theoretically have in a democracy then fine)then as long as your actions dont affect anyone other than yourself, then fine. We as a collective whole in society should be able to at the least tolerate your actions, we should only be concerned when you are forcing someone else to do something. As such should rape games be allowed, sure, they dont hurt anyone. Should we condone rape, god no. And at the end of the day if you disagree with something, don't adhere to it, don't buy rape games, I won't force you not to, so I won't force you to buy them.


I hope that made sense, it's almost three in the morning and I don't grammer/spell check. If it dosent pm me and I'll clean it up in the morning.

 

[dochmbi]

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

 

[Kojii Doom]

Why the Spaghetti o's would Amazon.com put the game on thier to begin with?

 

[v3n0mat3]

Wait wait wait. So... Platinum? *trying to wrap head around this* I... can't... I... *BOOM*

 

[Grimrider6]

Seriously, Japan...

...I love you. ^^

Knew I moved here for a reason.

 

[geldonyetich]

You were closer when you were discussing social norms. It's not my seal of approval that's the problem, it's society's at large. It's not freedom of speech, it's leveraging freedom of speech against the majority of people's idea of what's wholesome. We simply do not live in a society very conductive to the idea of allowing the open sale of rape games.

Freedom of speech becomes almost completely worthless if you can't publish anything that the majority of people don't like. We have freedom of speech to ensure people get to say things that are unpopular with the majority even a 99% majority (which is why Nazis and the WBC are still allowed to cite their swill). As justice Brennan put it in Texas vs. Johnson (the Supreme Court case overturning bans on flag burning as uncostitutional)
"if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."

Sure, but again, you're completely missing the point if you think that this is a free speech issue. It's not that we lack the right to have rape sims, it's just that our society is primordially against the idea to the point where our desire for free speech is a lesser influence. The quote above is completely taken out of context, the Judge may be saying that the government cannot prohibit the expression of an idea, but the consensus of the people will.

Freedom of speech is not, and never has been, a universal. If it was, there would be no such thing as indecent exposure, pornography would be prominently displayed on every street corner news stand, and you couldn't sell ideas (such as software) because it would be considered obstructing free speech

Really, the only people who really have took a stand against anything I've been saying about the game have been exactly that: folks who are kneejerking to the issue of free speech to the point where they are apparently completely oblivious to how little free speech has to do with this. If you take the platform of "we must defend free speech at all costs," then it won't take you any time at all before your brain goes all cross-eyed and you're advocating the distribution of a game like RapeLay.

 

[Jacques 2]

Finally, a clear, distinct answer that isn't a backlash (2nd sentence), that I can actively respond to. If society is primordially against the idea of rape games, then why do they exist? Supposing that it is a minority break of social norms, not a problem with primordial human beliefs, then why exactly is that wrong? "BECAUSE IT IS WRONG!" isn't an answer, I've run that argument many times, and it doesn't work out well. Fantasy rape, derived from base carnal desires within what we, forgetting the controversy of Freud's current reputability for modern psychology, will call the "id". The "id" being a primordial, possibly evolutionary, drive for reproduction using satisfaction and pleasure as conscious motives and the method of achieving this being left up to the person being driven. This same "id" within the mind is our base emotions towards people, including hate, anger, jealous, frustration, infatuation, love, and the potential for some sort of altruistic compassion, though altruism's existence is questioned, I know.

We often build up negative emotions over time because we repress our feelings "going by Freud's model, the super-ego containing the id" and don't act out of them, which isn't a bad thing, if we acted out everything we wanted to, well, I don't think there'd be anyone here to talk, either because they were murdered or died attempting to kill someone else, or etc. etc. Morality can be defined as a basic understanding of what is acceptable, and barring culture, this comes down to what hurts us, and applying that concepts to others: Empathy. Sociopaths specifically lack empathy, which makes them dangerous because they don't have an awareness for any morality except the actively enforced cultural beliefs. Psychopaths go one step further, becoming generalizing or specifying antipathy to people or a person without rational motivation. However, negative emotions do have effects on the human psyche and if entirely sealed and repressed, they generate; depression, random aggressive or violent behavior, mis-targeting of personal feelings and emotions onto others, generating negative feelings towards a relative innocent. The outward release of negative "energy" (barring that it causes more negative emotions) generates a feeling called Catharsis, a state of rest, release, or even happiness due to emotional release.

Catharsis is a major theme of the movie, Fight Club, though IIRC, it goes unsaid throughout. People achieve catharsis in many ways, and perhaps, these rape games, is a way for that to happen for some people, in a semi-sexual way, yes, but masturbation towards anything is an artificial stimulation of sensory organs to produce similar results to sex, which is one of the most common forms of sexual emotional release.

As for rape games encouraging rape.... I think the catharsis would help prevent psychotic break downs more than encourage demoralization towards it. If you want to discourage rape in society, then target empathy, and attempt to increase it's effect on people by increasing the values of freedom, life, and happiness, versus money, control over others, and social status. This should also help with things like, murder.

I fully expect this post to go un-responded to, so prove me wrong *ygolohcysp esrever*


EDIT: Damn I knew I should have quoted, now I'm below another indirect answer that wobbles around the point, same idea applies though

 

[geldonyetich]

Spoiler

You were closer when you were discussing social norms. It's not my seal of approval that's the problem, it's society's at large. It's not freedom of speech, it's leveraging freedom of speech against the majority of people's idea of what's wholesome. We simply do not live in a society very conductive to the idea of allowing the open sale of rape games.

Freedom of speech becomes almost completely worthless if you can't publish anything that the majority of people don't like. We have freedom of speech to ensure people get to say things that are unpopular with the majority even a 99% majority (which is why Nazis and the WBC are still allowed to cite their swill). As justice Brennan put it in Texas vs. Johnson (the Supreme Court case overturning bans on flag burning as uncostitutional)
"if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."

Sure, but again, you're completely missing the point if you think that this is a free speech issue.

It is free speech issues, video games have been declared free speech time and time again by the courts, so if you wish to censor them you are censoring speech.

It's not that we lack the right to have rape sims, it's just that our society is primordially against the idea to the point where our desire for free speech is a lesser influence.

The public has no right to trample on free speech if it conveniences them, it doesn't matter how dead set against it they are, hentai rape games do not fall under the normal exceptions we give free speech. (Not even obscenity laws because they have artistic value).

The quote above is completely taken out of context, the Judge may be saying that the government cannot prohibit the expression of an idea, but the consensus of the people will.

It is not taken out of context, that is a damn lie. Here's the written argument, just control f "underlying" and you'll find it. Notice how he cites a ton of precedent to back up his legal claims whereas you haven't given anything.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=491&invol=397

Freedom of speech is not, and never has been, a universal.

Yes there have been exceptions, such as libel, slander and inciting a riot, consumption of pornography in private isn't one of them.

If it was, there would be no such thing as indecent exposure,

Flashing is not speech

pornography would be prominently displayed on every street corner news stand,

It's been ruled to be harmful to kids which is why you can't display it in public.

and you couldn't sell ideas (such as software) because it would be considered obstructing free speech

Ok that makes no sense, your ideas are your property and so you should be able to sell them and indeed we've been doing so for quite some time (like an architect sells his idea for a building). How does this obstruct other people coming up with ideas?

Really, the only people who really have took a stand against anything I've been saying about the game have been exactly that: folks who are kneejerking to the issue of free speech to the point where they are apparently completely oblivious to how little free speech has to do with this.

Except legal precedent says this IS free speech and it is no matter how many times you want to stick your finger in your ears and pretend it isn't and that you're not advocating censorship.

If you take the platform of "we must defend free speech at all costs," then it won't take you any time at all before your brain goes all cross-eyed and you're advocating the distribution of a game like RapeLay.

Some free speech should not be defended, such as liable, slander, false advertising, and inciting people to commit violence, but rapeplay falls under none of these.

Oh and even if it was ruled to not be free speech I'd still defend because there's no good reason to ban it. If society hates it than they can ignore it and let it slide into obscurity.

Now, now, what did I tell you about breaking apart my messages into tiny nitpicks? Nitpicking is too easy for me to bother defending against it.

 

[A Pious Cultist]

I fully expect this post to go un-responded to, so prove me wrong *ygolohcysp esrever*

Done.

I fully agree with your point although I was under the general impression that the majority of Freuds theories were later proved to be, well, false. Then again I don't follow pyschology.

I think the general knee-jerk thought is that these games will cause more people to become attracted to the idea of rape and therefore more likely to commit rape. While mainstream acceptance of these ideas could possibly cause more people to "embrace" their attraction to the subject its realistically not going to turn anyone into a rapist on its own (in the same way that child pornography doesn't turn people into paedophile, or atleast, not anyone who doesn't already have an sexual attaction to children but thats just digressing from the subject at hand).

 

[geldonyetich]

Spoiler

You were closer when you were discussing social norms. It's not my seal of approval that's the problem, it's society's at large. It's not freedom of speech, it's leveraging freedom of speech against the majority of people's idea of what's wholesome. We simply do not live in a society very conductive to the idea of allowing the open sale of rape games.

Freedom of speech becomes almost completely worthless if you can't publish anything that the majority of people don't like. We have freedom of speech to ensure people get to say things that are unpopular with the majority even a 99% majority (which is why Nazis and the WBC are still allowed to cite their swill). As justice Brennan put it in Texas vs. Johnson (the Supreme Court case overturning bans on flag burning as uncostitutional)
"if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."

Sure, but again, you're completely missing the point if you think that this is a free speech issue.

It is free speech issues, video games have been declared free speech time and time again by the courts, so if you wish to censor them you are censoring speech.

It's not that we lack the right to have rape sims, it's just that our society is primordially against the idea to the point where our desire for free speech is a lesser influence.

The public has no right to trample on free speech if it conveniences them, it doesn't matter how dead set against it they are, hentai rape games do not fall under the normal exceptions we give free speech. (Not even obscenity laws because they have artistic value).

The quote above is completely taken out of context, the Judge may be saying that the government cannot prohibit the expression of an idea, but the consensus of the people will.

It is not taken out of context, that is a damn lie. Here's the written argument, just control f "underlying" and you'll find it. Notice how he cites a ton of precedent to back up his legal claims whereas you haven't given anything.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=491&invol=397

Freedom of speech is not, and never has been, a universal.

Yes there have been exceptions, such as libel, slander and inciting a riot, consumption of pornography in private isn't one of them.

If it was, there would be no such thing as indecent exposure,

Flashing is not speech

pornography would be prominently displayed on every street corner news stand,

It's been ruled to be harmful to kids which is why you can't display it in public.

and you couldn't sell ideas (such as software) because it would be considered obstructing free speech

Ok that makes no sense, your ideas are your property and so you should be able to sell them and indeed we've been doing so for quite some time (like an architect sells his idea for a building). How does this obstruct other people coming up with ideas?

Really, the only people who really have took a stand against anything I've been saying about the game have been exactly that: folks who are kneejerking to the issue of free speech to the point where they are apparently completely oblivious to how little free speech has to do with this.

Except legal precedent says this IS free speech and it is no matter how many times you want to stick your finger in your ears and pretend it isn't and that you're not advocating censorship.

If you take the platform of "we must defend free speech at all costs," then it won't take you any time at all before your brain goes all cross-eyed and you're advocating the distribution of a game like RapeLay.

Some free speech should not be defended, such as liable, slander, false advertising, and inciting people to commit violence, but rapeplay falls under none of these.

Oh and even if it was ruled to not be free speech I'd still defend because there's no good reason to ban it. If society hates it than they can ignore it and let it slide into obscurity.

Now, now, what did I tell you about breaking apart my messages into tiny nitpicks? Nitpicking is too easy for me to bother defending against it.

Well gee you made several points and I figure this is the best way to address them individually.

Maybe some people communicate in strange barkings of disjointed points. I try to avoid doing so whenever possible.

In any case, a thought occurs that makes me think that we can cut to the chase: our real point of contention is a difference of belief about freedom means.

In supporting RapeLay, one would be saying that freedom means you can do anything you want, regardless of the moral character of it, because you have the freedom to do so. To not condone the sale of RapeLay threatens what's most important to them: that this freedom exists.

In not supporting RapeLay, I'm saying I believe that freedom operates as backdrop in which the individual's responsibility allows truer acts of morality than being forced to. To condone the sale of RapeLay, as something clearly lacking in moral character, merely proves one too irresponsible to enjoy true freedom. In the long run, this also imperils freedom, as all things lacking morality all contribute to harming to a society (even if on an imperceptible scale) and things that are harmful to a society are most likely to fail to stand the test of time.

So long as we have a difference in what freedom means to us, I don't believe we'll be going anywhere. Alternately, to undermine the premises in which my logic operates, you would have to prove irrefutably that RapeLay is a game of good moral character or that things lacking in morality are not in any way harmful.

 

[Jacques 2]

I fully expect this post to go un-responded to, so prove me wrong *ygolohcysp esrever*

Done.

I fully agree with your point although I was under the general impression that the majority of Freuds theories were later proved to be, well, false. Then again I don't follow pyschology.

I think the general knee-jerk thought is that these games will cause more people to become attracted to the idea of rape and therefore more likely to commit rape. While mainstream acceptance of these ideas could possibly cause more people to "embrace" their attraction to the subject its realistically not going to turn anyone into a rapist on its own (in the same way that child pornography doesn't turn people into paedophile, or atleast, not anyone who doesn't already have an sexual attaction to children but thats just digressing from the subject at hand).

I noted about Freud's potential falsehoods, but briefly; AFAIK "id", "superego" and resulting "ego" are Freudian in origin, though psychologists of many fields use them today as names for similar parts of the personality for lack of any better replacements. What's largely disputed about Freud is his theories about the psychosexual stages and the specificness of his "subconscious" ideas, in which, anything and everything had to do with sex (See Oedipus and Electra complexes, in which children want to marry their parent of the opposite gender and kill the other to take their place, and no, I don't agree with these complexes being common if not non-existent).

As towards geldon; read my previous post, please, you may get an insight from it, or not, but at least you'll have looked