On Being Deliberately Offensive

[Ricardo Lima]

Anything that does not agree with certain dominant ideologies is under threat these days.

 

[Ishal]

A rape scene getting a rise out of it's audience only means the audience is human, not that the scene was tasteful or worked in the story.

Just how, pray tell, does one make a rape scene tasteful?? It is a universally reviled and disgusting act.

And don't go and talk about it's story significance. That only means it is justified within the narrative, not tasteful.

 

[Dissentient]

It sounds to me that like the people who watch Game of Thrones are getting fed up with all the raping and murdering of likeable characters like it's the only thing that show is about. They want something more and to see the worst characters get what they have coming. It's becoming this slow, dark, joyless slog to get through, and the fans are realizing "Oh my god, everything the show's critics say about it are right!"

Nah, one of the main reasons I personally even like the franchise is relative lack of plot armor. And for me fifth season and book were no less enjoyable than first ones. And no, I'm fine with villains being relatively fine and well. You know, they are as necessary to the story as protagonists.

 

[Vault101]

you know maybe people being offended by something is not the worst thing ever? maybe it actually opens up discussion as to [I/]why[/I] some people find something offensive?

like with the Game of Thrones debacle. There are issues with using rape as a dramatic device, issues that have roots in all kinds of things in our society, media being a by product of said society...

you'll notice a lot of criticism in regards to GOT is the fact that it feels gratuitous compared to the books, not that staying true to the source material is the only measure of what should/shouldn't be but many write it off as the compelling of overly sensitive PC police

hell if I'm being a little harsher here I'd almost get the impression that those who cry "censorship" and "PC police" want to do the exact same thing to people who take issue...to silence them

but I don't, I want to know WHY people find said thing offensive and decide for myself where I stand

perhaps I'm just biased but Yahtzee tends to have that smug "middle everything" approach where you can appeal to peoples liberalism by dismissing the whiners

I despise Hatred for what it represents. It's the tired and predictable come-back against the anti-fun Nazis that want ALL games banned.

who are thease Anti-fun Nazis? do they meet up? is there a branch in my country?

 

[GabeZhul]

I despise Hatred for what it represents. It's the tired and predictable come-back against the anti-fun Nazis that want ALL games banned.

who are thease Anti-fun Nazis? do they meet up? is there a branch in my country?

You can join my circle if you want. We meet every Saturday afternoon. We start by beating up a clown (NO FUN ALLOWED!), then we proceed to burn a university book on game theory (IT HAS THE WORD "GAME" IN ITS TITLE!), then proceed to march up and down the streets in the neighborhood while making silly hand-gestures and steal candies from little kids (FOR THE EVULZ!) You should really come to our next meeting, we are planning out how to build our first concentr*cough-cough* I mean education camp for gamers. Yes. Good times.

On a more serious note on being deliberately offensive:
That's not a new thing. That's not even a new thing for games. Yes, it is tasteless and dumb, but that's kind of the point. It is supposed to be shocking. It is supposed to be over the top. Anything short of that and it wouldn't be what it is, just like how a black comedy joke that doesn't make you cringe even a little is not black comedy.

Now, the execution of it, we can discuss. It can be good, it can be bad, it can be rubbish, just like how a black comedy joke can be completely unfunny. I would put hatred in the "bad" category, partially because of the negative hype made it out to be more than what it was, but its the same negative hype and what said hype tells us about modern social media culture that provides us with some food for thought. What is pointless to talk about however, is offensiveness.

For that one, I have one simple mantra: "Offending you =/= offensive". People can be offended by the stupidest of things, because it is 100% subjective. There are people who are offended by the murder of innocents in Hatred, but there are also people who don't care the slightest about that and focus on the game as a whole, and there are yet others who think it's fun and silly. There are people who think that rape in a series about bad people doing bad things to good and bad people alike is offensive, others see it as par for the course, yet others would find the lack of it inexcusable due to the context. Some people are offended by, say, loli content in eroge or even just ecchi games/anime and consider it child pornography, others look at it and just see a bunch of pixels, yet others have a fetish for it.

At the end of the day "being offended" is not worth discussing. It's akin to "like" and "hate"; something extremely subjective that no one can really "appreciate" aside of the person making the claim, and therefore it forestalls any constructive discussion.

 

[MetalDooley]

You could have the most poorly written, 2-dimensional character ever, but if you show them being raped people will react strongly.

Spoiler: Season 4 spolier

Theon Greyjoy got raped in season 4 and then had his penis cut off.Nobody gave a shit probably due to the fact that he's male and obstensibly a villain.It seems that people will only react strongly when it's an inocent female character who's raped

 

[Imre Csete]

Just how, pray tell, does one make a rape scene tasteful?? It is a universally reviled and disgusting act.

Female on male seems to be okay, even in comedy films, because the male is always consent, obviously [(not) just in case the sarcasm gets by and someone bothers to take it seriously]. For example, I don't remember any backlash for Wedding Crashers, maybe because it was a more simple age, without teens growing up on smartphones.

 

[maninahat]

A rape scene getting a rise out of it's audience only means the audience is human, not that the scene was tasteful or worked in the story.

Just how, pray tell, does one make a rape scene tasteful?? It is a universally reviled and disgusting act.

And don't go and talk about it's story significance. That only means it is justified within the narrative, not tasteful.

That is an interesting question. I suppose tastefulness depends on what purpose the rape has within telling a story - If the primary purpose of the rape scene is to let you know that one character (the rapist) is a bad guy, then that can be seen as lazy and exploitative writing. Similarly, if the purpose is just to make you dislike someone more, or feel more sorry for the victim, then you've kind of used rape as a shorthand, and again will be seen as lazy and exploitative.

The Mary Sue put forward the view that rape in a story should carry a lot more weight. That rape should play a more central role to the story, and thus be granted a reasonable degree of gravitas. If the story feels like it is dismissing the rape, or there is a lack of time given to showing the physical and emotional consequences of it, then it can feel like it isn't treating the issue terribly seriously. I watch a lot of Tamil movies, and sexual assault/rape comes up a lot. In these, the hero will kung fu fight with about 30 bad guys to stop them raping a woman. Once the woman has been rescued, that's the end of the issue - the woman seems to forget that a horrendous sex crime even happened and no screen time is given to address what the hell must be going through her head after going through that.

 

[K12]

Totally agree with the Game of Thrones comments by the way. You didn't like watching the rape of a young women who you've grown attached to for 4 and a half seasons? Gosh I bet that wasn't the intended effect!

I do kind of get the criticise that it's a regressive moment for Sansa back to being a victim... but "being a victim" is all about how you deal with abuse and not about whether or not you can avoid it. When Sansa was mistreated by Joffrey she became numb and fatalistic, this time round she immediately tries to do something and keeps trying after having major setbacks. She recognises that this shouldn't be happening and that things can change. That's a very important character development for someone who's been abused!

Anyway, back to the actual topic... Games that are deliberately offensive as a substitute for actual quality are annoying and make gaming in general look bad but unfortunately there isn't really a way of addressing it without making the problem worse.

I can't really decide who's dumber in this situation. The people who constantly talk about how Hatred crossed the line apparently without realising that they are doing all of the games advertising for them OR the people who bought a fairly dull game just to stick it to the SJWs. What exactly has disliking video game violence got to do with social justice anyway?

 

[Coruptin]

It sounds to me that like the people who watch Game of Thrones are getting fed up with all the raping and murdering of likeable characters like it's the only thing that show is about. They want something more and to see the worst characters get what they have coming. It's becoming this slow, dark, joyless slog to get through, and the fans are realizing "Oh my god, everything the show's critics say about it are right!"

There was a great post on the book's Subreddit which claimed that the show has moved from refusing to cheat to help the good guys win to cheating to make the good guys lose. I liked the idea of good-intentioned characters losing because of their own tragic flaws, but contriving unrealistic scenarios just to get the edgy rape/gore scenes in is cheap and against the spirit of the material.

The series has shown that ruthless actions have consequences. Most agents who have committed some atrocity face repercussions. Think: Jaime losing his hand, Joffrey being poisoned at his wedding, Tywin losing his legacy and dignity, Cersei being pubicly humiliated (boy lots of Lannisters in here), Black Watch traitors, Stannis' defeat, Arya's whole goddam character arch. Without the tragedy those moments wouldn't have the impact they do.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

perhaps I'm just biased but Yahtzee tends to have that smug "middle everything" approach where you can appeal to peoples liberalism by dismissing the whiners

Aren't you no different? By dismissing those who oppose the whiners, by insinuating that they want to censor the whiners?

 

[Thanatos2k]

It sounds to me that like the people who watch Game of Thrones are getting fed up with all the raping and murdering of likeable characters like it's the only thing that show is about. They want something more and to see the worst characters get what they have coming. It's becoming this slow, dark, joyless slog to get through, and the fans are realizing "Oh my god, everything the show's critics say about it are right!"

I'm not sure why people are watching expecting things to suddenly "get better." Bad things happen to everyone in Game of Thrones. Sometimes people get what they "deserve" and sometimes not! That's why the storytelling is actually compelling, because you don't know what's going to happen. No character has plot armor. It's refreshing.

The series has shown that ruthless actions have consequences. Most agents who have committed some atrocity face repercussions. Think: Jaime losing his hand, Joffrey being poisoned at his wedding, Tywin losing his legacy and dignity, Cersei being pubicly humiliated (boy lots of Lannisters in here), Black Watch traitors, Stannis' defeat, Arya's whole goddam character arch. Without the tragedy those moments wouldn't have the impact they do.

Exactly. All of the events make sense in the context of the world, and all led logically from the events preceding them. What doesn't happen are the tropes you come to expect out of television shows. So genre savvy viewers trying to predict things based on accepted tropes get mad when things don't happen that way. After 5 seasons now, I'd expect them to be used to it, but apparently not.

 

[AgedGrunt]

I think people were mad at Game of Thrones, not because they really liked the character and didn't want them to be raped, but because they felt the rape was a tasteless, unimaginative and inappropriate plot device that didn't fit.

Onto the subject at hand - I can't be mad at the likes of Hatred. It is trying so very hard to be edgy and inappropriate, it comes across like the real people it is based on; desperate, sad, and try hard. I don't think Game of Thrones was trying to cause a moral outrage with the show, they just inserted rape because they thought it was suitably dramatic. Hatred tried to go for moral outrage however, much like Postal games do; they want to be bad taste and crass because that's what the idiot, delinquent kid does in class for easy attention.

Should all things art be tasteful, artful and meaningful? In general, can art not sometimes be tasteless, impulsive and senseless, as in life? I understand critiquing, but this sounds more like judging, and in bad form.

 

[Callate]

Isn't it wonderful how we've enshrined "criticism", regardless of whether it's nuanced and constructive or the ravings of overwrought hypocrites who can barely string a sentence together? (Which is fortunately less than the entrance admission to Twitter?)

The people who said jazz was leading to juvenile delinquency were critics. The people who said that the rhythm of rock and roll was going to cause irregular heartbeat were critics. The people who condemned movies for presenting unmarried couples as something other than moral degenerates were critics. The people who saw Communism behind everything were critics. It's only afterwards, with the climates that enabled such ill-founded criticism all but forgotten, that we pat ourselves on the back for our enlightenment and say that of course, we'd never fall prey to something like that.

Spoiler

 

[maninahat]

I think people were mad at Game of Thrones, not because they really liked the character and didn't want them to be raped, but because they felt the rape was a tasteless, unimaginative and inappropriate plot device that didn't fit.

Onto the subject at hand - I can't be mad at the likes of Hatred. It is trying so very hard to be edgy and inappropriate, it comes across like the real people it is based on; desperate, sad, and try hard. I don't think Game of Thrones was trying to cause a moral outrage with the show, they just inserted rape because they thought it was suitably dramatic. Hatred tried to go for moral outrage however, much like Postal games do; they want to be bad taste and crass because that's what the idiot, delinquent kid does in class for easy attention.

Should all things art be tasteful, artful and meaningful? In general, can art not sometimes be tasteless, impulsive and senseless, as in life? I understand critiquing, but this sounds more like judging, and in bad form.

No. But rape scenes inserted into tv shows tend to demand a little more diligent writing and taste. A tv show about sword chairs and pet dragons is certainly no exception. Also, of course they are judging Game of Thrones, what's wrong with judging shit?

 

[maninahat]

Isn't it wonderful how we've enshrined "criticism", regardless of whether it's nuanced and constructive or the ravings of overwrought hypocrites who can barely string a sentence together? (Which is fortunately less than the entrance admission to Twitter?)

The people who said jazz was leading to juvenile delinquency were critics. The people who said that the rhythm of rock and roll was going to cause irregular heartbeat were critics. The people who condemned movies for presenting unmarried couples as something other than moral degenerates were critics. The people who saw Communism behind everything were critics. It's only afterwards, with the climates that enabled such ill-founded criticism all but forgotten, that we pat ourselves on the back for our enlightenment and say that of course, we'd never fall prey to something like that.

Spoiler

The critics defend the arts too. It was Siskel and Ebert who turned around and said "you no what, we should stop treating cartoons as a thing just for kids" (They were talking about a Batman cartoon). The critics rescued the likes of Waiting for Godot, when at the time of release, half the audience walked out on the opening night of the play. For every person who calls hip hop a blight on youth culture, you've got a person defending Pink Flamingos.

 

[Ishal]

I suppose tastefulness depends on what purpose the rape has within telling a story -

I just said to find a reason other than story significance. That only tells me why the rape is happening, it says nothing about if it is tasteful.

The Mary Sue put forward

Aaaaand dropped.

the view that rape in a story should carry a lot more weight. That rape should play a more central role to the story, and thus be granted a reasonable degree of gravitas.

This coming from the petulant babies who crossed their arms and stamped their feet, proclaiming that they refused to cover the show any more because of that one scene. Yeah, I won't be taking them seriously. Sorry, friend. Of all the reasons to stop watching the show, and at this point there are many, that was ridiculous.

Also, such a claim is talking out both sides of the mouth. Rape is central to the story, and the world. It happens constantly, both on screen and even more implied offscreen. It's a horrible place, and a horrible time. But by it being a central role, it's going to happen a lot... and thus lose it's gravitas. If it's central and indeed a thing in the world, I'm afraid there is no way to avoid diminishing returns.

If the story feels like it is dismissing the rape, or there is a lack of time given to showing the physical and emotional consequences of it, then it can feel like it isn't treating the issue terribly seriously.

And who says it has to be? What if other serious things are going on, and rape is merely one of the many horrible things that happens?

Wanting it to be tasteful is a direct appeal to emotions. How it is presented, if we find it palatable, how does it make us feel about both parties involved. So I'll ask again, what is a "tasteful" rape? The act itself. In any context it is horrible. With proper build up or no.

 

[Ishal]

but I don't, I want to know WHY people find said thing offensive and decide for myself where I stand

That's great, so does Yahtzee. As he just demonstrated in this very article. I do believe he has evaluated the situation enough to give a solid opinion on it.

perhaps I'm just biased

Maybe just a bit.

but Yahtzee tends to have that smug "middle everything" approach where you can appeal to peoples liberalism by dismissing the whiners

You really seem to have a problem with someone taking the middle ground, don't you? I don't know what you're referring to by "liberalism" here, I don't think dismissing whiners has anything to do with their political alignment alone. I think it has to do with evaluating their claims and arguments. Claims which Yahtzee found lacking, same with the other side. This is not a bad thing.

You are aware what it looks like when you complain that someone didn't take a side, right? Especially your side. Because clearly one side is right, and the other is wrong. That's just how it is. If only he could see it your way.

 

[Spacehouse]

I believe the main point of the article is Yahtzee lamenting all the possible progress civilized discourse can bring to the internet, unfortunately everyone is aggregating to people with similar opinions creating emotional and intellectual hugboxes, fostering extremism and stomping out any possibility of an actual Debate happening and thus halting the mental advancement of the human race.


or maybe thats just me

 

[Redd the Sock]

It sounds to me that like the people who watch Game of Thrones are getting fed up with all the raping and murdering of likeable characters like it's the only thing that show is about. They want something more and to see the worst characters get what they have coming. It's becoming this slow, dark, joyless slog to get through, and the fans are realizing "Oh my god, everything the show's critics say about it are right!"

I'm not sure why people are watching expecting things to suddenly "get better." Bad things happen to everyone in Game of Thrones. Sometimes people get what they "deserve" and sometimes not! That's why the storytelling is actually compelling, because you don't know what's going to happen. No character has plot armor. It's refreshing.

Because most of them have been conditioned by normal movies and TV to expect, at the very least, this level of "bad guy" activity isn't going to happen. They expect someone to save her, or in more feminist circles, her to have a hidden knife to stab Ramsey with. Given the amount of plot speculation I've seen thinking Sansa and Theon will go on a quest to find Bran and Ricken, I think there's been a strong desire to turn Sansa into more of the hero type she hasn't been.

For the rest of us, we not only get the show never treats anyone well for the long term, Sansa's arc in particular exists as one big middle finger to the idea of princesshood and such arranged marriages, so it made sense to go there and make it as uncomfortable as possible (aka this was and is the reality of arranged brides). The idea of Sansa trying to find Bran next season, while it works, is not going to be what they want or expect as "girly girl" Sansa will find herself far away from the comforts of life that she's never done without. Hell, if that is the direction they take her, I'll be money that at some point of her being exhausted and hungry having only some rodent Theon caught to eat, that she'll think she was better off with the Boltons being raped, and the internet will explode again for it condoning rape instead of showcasing the hard reality faced by many in that situation.