The School Shooter Mod

[Jacksaw Jack]

I'd have to say in this dispute, Jim is victorious, James runs a close second, and MovieBob takes massive penalties for being preachy, uptight and having a 'Holier-than-thou' attitude.

 

[Aureliano]

I'm just going to echo some comments on Jim's contribution here: no, you're neither as funny nor as shocking as you wish you were. No, racial slurs do not cease to be hurtful or awful if you pretend they are not hurtful or awful. And no, you definitely should not be taking the place of the funnier and more intelligent Yahtzee on this site feature.

And in general, hate speech should not be protected speech. You're not expressing anything except your own ignorance by spreading it.

 

[JamesBr]

snip

I can agree with that, difference in opinion I suppose. I should point out that the only reason I pointed to the US as an example is because (in this case) most video games are made in the US, or at least the gun-porn shooters mostly are. They aren't the only ones who are infatuated with there weapons, but they and their western point-of-view is probably more relevant to a "violence in video games" discussion since that's probably the largest demographic of players, people with western backgrounds and symbols. Not to say it isn't relevant in other cultures, just that the difference in symbolism affects a far smaller number of people.

 

[Raiha]

i usually love this segment of the escapist, but this week was just bland. it is unfortunate that you all had to discuss such an uninteresting topic. although i should say that it is unfortunate that such a topic needed discussion. i look at School Shooter as a sort of necessary evil. without someone pushing the boundary's of bad taste, games will not be taken seriously as an art form. that being said, i find School Shooter as a game to be poorly made. controversial garbage, while somewhat useful, is still garbage.

 

[nlaq]

I wholeheartedly agree with Jim on this one.

This is the point where Jim Sterling officially lost any and all respect from me (his awful, awful show notwithstanding). He argues that the only way to combat offensive content is to just not be offended by it, which is stupid in a plethora of ways. The first being that if this line of thinking continued on it's logical path then we as humans would never be shocked or offended by anything, which would be a. not possible and b. completely stupid. The second and largest logical fallacy in his argument problem is that he implies that people can choose what to be offended by, which just makes me foam at the mouth at how someone can POSSIBLY think that.

Out of this entire post where you repeatedly stated how illogical Jim was being, you make a single coherent (yet, misguided) point: "[...] implies that people can choose what to be offended by [...]"

Jim doesn't _imply_ that. He outright states it as fact. Because it's true. Part of being an adult is having control, or (at the very least) understanding, of your emotions. We learn how we react to things, and we make choices that steer us away from the things we find distasteful. This is a perfectly healthy and natural behavior - I believe that everyone has the right to avoid situations that they feel uncomfortable with.

But let's not loose sight of the fact that the things we find distasteful have the right to exist; given that they do not bring physical harm to a person or a person's property. Some people may in fact enjoy this game, and who are we to not let them? I would stay away from it because it would make me feel uncomfortable. But I am not so consumed by my gut reactions to get up in arms about it. If enough people decide simply to ignore it on the basis that they personally don't find it enjoyable, it will become forgotten.

Uh uh. I'll say the "grown-up" speech doesn't work here. You can control your physical reaction to an emotion as an adult, sure, but you'd be retarding yourself to simply ignore it (there's at least a slight insinuation that this is the choice to make, from both this article and agreeing forum posts).

If you, a perfect stranger, were to call me a ****** in a demeaning fashion, I may not slug you in the face immediately, but I know I, one, would be 1) obviously hurt, from the cultural backlash and retardation from not only my own countryman (assuming I'm in the same country) but of my fellow human being as well, and 2) would not let you near my personal space. As with all cases that are offensive, they attempt to demean the target, regardless if the insult is meant from their core to or just trolling.

Case in point, you can shrug off trolls and offensive shit like this school shooter mod, but I advise you don't think it as "gone". Concerning the mod, while the developers had the right to make it, but it still leaves a bad scent in the air.

You proved my point, though. If I were to be so pointlessly and blatantly offensive, the mature thing for you to do would be to do what you described - even if I wouldn't fault you for loosing your cool. But like I think you understand, controlling your emotions and responding maturely is the best solution even in situations when it is difficult. If enough people controlled themselves when the trolling/racist assholes wielded this word to hurt people, I believe (as does Jim) that it would eventually loose it's sting.

I think we are almost on the same page with this issue. The difference seems to be what we're left with at the end of the day as far as an emotional response. I have a very bland *meh* response to it, because I choose to ignore it and not let it upset me. It seems, to me, that you're letting it get to you more than it deserves to.

 

[Spy_Guy]

I was sort of hoping this failtroll (Pawnstick) would fade after the first newspost gave him more publicity than he should ever have had in the first place.

Most people aren't upset when someone makes a new account here, spends his three first posts trying to be as offensive as possible, and the fourth one to flamebait, at which point he is promptly banned.
Yet when the same guy goes and makes a frankly half-assed Sourcemod and calls it "School Shooter", people make this face: >=O

So in the end, I suppose I can't justify calling him a failtroll, because despite his minimal effort, he has still sparked a lot of controversy and he has got the attention of a lot of people.

In the end, I suppose my post here is a small, but not insignificant contribution to this thread not dying like it should, and for that I feel bad.

C'est la vie.

 

[zedel]

Bam! suprise jim! And i though i could contain him by just refusing to watch his show.

I know exactly what you mean. I nearly passed on reading the article because of it. Though thanks to James and Bob, I'm glad I read it. However, in Jim's defense, he seemed to contribute a bit more than I expected of him. : /

 

[Yossarian1507]

I'm a lover of tasteless humor

Yes, we know Jim... Yes, we know.

Who the hell invited him anyway?

Anyway, weak topic, weak episode. Shooters like that are made to create controversy and nothing else. Period. That was all there was need to be said, and they spent 3 pages on that...

 

[Kurt Cristal]

Jim Sterling sounds a lot saner in text form.

 

[Sentox6]

My words would be powerless, yes. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't be being a dick. I can ignore someone kicking me in the shins. It doesn't mean that they aren't the ones to blame for all the shin kicking!

Sure. But who's more likely to make a change?

Either good people take it on the chin and thus remove the power of their words, or we all sit around being very upset waiting for the dicks to stop being dicks.

There's a simplicity to our reality: you can only change one person, and that person is yourself. Yes, the onus should be on people making deliberately offensive statements to change their behaviour, but they won't.

However, these games do not all treat their subject matter the same, therefore different responses are justifiable.

And who gets to subjectively judge what a laudable treatment is and isn't? You?

 

[Bobbity]

Oh fuck.

Actually, it wasn't that bad. Jim wasn't trying to be funny in that painfully terrible way of his, so what he was saying was actually more than half decent. Odd. Very odd.

It seems like Jim is actually reasonably good when he's not trying to force his "humour" upon us...

 

[Meanmoose]

To the people who stopped wathcing Jims show after the first or second episode: It got better ^^

 

[Sixcess]

Jim Sterling:

I've played Grand Theft Auto and I'm sure most people reading this have. I defy the vast majority of you to claim that you haven't, at times, gotten bored and decided to go on a killing spree. In fact, if you ever played the original top-down games, you'll surely remember getting bonus points for running over a line of Hare Krishna followers -- some of the most defenseless, harmless, peace-loving folk on Earth. Saints Row is even more blatant, where entire minigames are dedicated to torching innocent civilians or destroying people and property with rocket launchers. Bear in mind, these victims are no more able to defend themselves than the teachers and students presented in School Shooter.

Bolded for emphasis. This is undeniably a very good point, and sums up something that has always bugged me about the GTA series in particular. Saints Row gets a pass for knowing exactly what kind of game it is, and revelling in the sheer excess of the characters (Like Johnny Gat being on trial for 1 count of attempted murder and 387 counts of first degree murder) whereas GTA completely ignores the random killing sprees in its eagerness to portray the protagonist in a serious, dramatic and often sympathetic light.

 

[Canid117]

Since when was "the other team can shoot back" a weak moral justification?

 

[BlindMessiah94]

Can we please not involve Jim on this excellent series? He's like the school shooter mod in a sense: a stunt, made for shock value. Bob's great, James is great. Let's leave it at that.

 

[ThisNewGuy]

However, these games do not all treat their subject matter the same, therefore different responses are justifiable.

And who gets to subjectively judge what a laudable treatment is and isn't? You?

I think you completely missed the point of my post. I'm not talking about who gets to judge or if there is a validation for judgement.

 

[Realitycrash]

Jim said it well. Sure several here will respect him more now.

 

[Sentox6]

I think you completely missed the point of my post. I'm not talking about who gets to judge or if there is a validation for judgement.

Interesting. You propose a right and way wrong of utilising virtual violence, yet don't feel the need to do anything with this categorisation per se?

At any rate, where do multiplayer shooters fit in your paradigm? Many of them dismiss any context other than "kill your opponents". By your standard, a deathmatch in CoD or a round of FFA slayer in Halo seems very problematic.