Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Ethnic Cleansing - The Video Game

By greenrd in Op-Ed
Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 02:13:07 PM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

The "premise of 'Ethnic Cleansing' is that a city -- clearly New York -- has been destroyed by gangs of 'sub-humans' controlled by Jews who are lead by the 'end boss' lurking in the subterranean 'Lair of the Beast,'" [an ADL] report states. "Plans for world domination are seen in the subway, along with a map of 'problem' areas in the United States and a sign reading 'Diversity, It's Good for Jews.'"


"The player (who can choose to dress in KKK robes or as a Skinhead) roams the streets and subways murdering 'predatory sub-humans' and their Jewish 'masters' thereby 'saving' the white world. During the game monkey and ape sounds are heard when blacks are killed, poncho-wearing Latinos say 'I'll take a siesta now!' or 'Ay carumba!' while 'Oy vey!' rings out when Jewish characters are killed."

Slashdot - both the editorship and the majority of the highly-modded posts - has consistently put forward the view that video games are harmless. On-screen violence does not lead to real-life violence, it is claimed. But when a video game encourages impressionable youngsters to treat entire races of people as subhuman, doesn't this stimulate racist abuse, and reinforce preexisting prejudices? Bullying is not always physically violent, but it can be violent nevertheless.

What should be done about horrifying games such as these? In my country, the UK, and in Germany, selling such a game would (in my opinion) almost certainly result in criminal convictions for inciting racial hatred. I personally believe that is the correct approach. It is certainly a restriction of free speech. However, there are two reasons to support this restriction:

  • The Neo-Nazi groups who spread this vile material wish to deprive the rest of us of basic rights like the right of free speech. They have no interest in upholding democracy. Unfortunately, as has been shown in Germany in the 1930s and in more recent cases (Haider in Austria), far-right parties can be elected to a position of power if they are allowed to spread their nonsense. We should not give them any leeway. Neo-Nazi organisations, being essentially and by nature criminal organisations that wish to (and sometimes do) commit violence against non-white people, should be illegal, as they are in Germany.

  • There are no plausible benefits to allowing this kind of hate-filled garbage to be spread. Note that incitement to racial hatred is very different from a dispassionate analysis of racialist claims - either for or against.

It is true that one exception to the free speech principle provides precedent for further restrictions. However this barrier has already been breached even in countries like the US with exemptions such as obscenity. Free speech is not - and has never been - absolute, even in the US. Proponents of the "slippery slope" argument need to put forward a realistic harm that could come about as a result of banning incitement to racial hatred.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Should the game be banned?
o Yes 6%
o No 79%
o Yes, and ban incitement to racial hatred 4%
o Yes, and ban incitement to racial hatred, and Neo-Nazi groups too 9%

Votes: 148
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Slashdot
o Ethnic Cleansing
o report
o Haider
o incitement to racial hatred
o Also by greenrd


Display: Sort:
Ethnic Cleansing - The Video Game | 124 comments (108 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden)
Where can I buy this game? (3.40 / 25) (#1)
by hulver on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 10:17:20 AM EST

It sounds like fun. Are there Arabs and Asians in it too? Also, you should have an option to hunt down liberal sympathisers & single mothers.

--
HuSi!
Oh for fucks sake (4.71 / 7) (#13)
by hulver on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 10:35:52 AM EST

I obviously forgot to put the fucking <sarcasm> tags around that.

--
HuSi!
[ Parent ]
Don't forget (4.66 / 3) (#45)
by wiredog on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 12:23:17 PM EST

The "drug dealing wetbacks" add-on module!

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
I'm pretty sure... (4.00 / 2) (#87)
by Trollificus on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 04:26:52 PM EST

...it's integrated.
My hubcaps went missing after round one. ;)

"The separation of church and state is a fiction. The nation is the kingdom of God, period."
--Bishop Harold Calvin Ray of West Palm Beach, FL
[ Parent ]

Actually... (none / 0) (#89)
by afree87 on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 04:30:09 PM EST

it sounds much more entertaining than most video games, if only because its manufacturers are a few cards short of a deck.
--
Ha... yeah.
[ Parent ]
I voted for this (3.33 / 9) (#3)
by DesiredUsername on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 10:23:31 AM EST

but I'm not going to take part in the flamefest that is to follow. I don't mind getting you all started, though...

"In my country, the UK, and in Germany, selling such a game would (in my opinion) almost certainly result in criminal convictions..."

I'm sure glad I live in a country where instead of "not allowing nonsense like this to spread" rhetoric we hold ideals of individual responsibility and freedom.

Play 囲碁

Collective responsibility (3.42 / 7) (#11)
by greenrd on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 10:33:53 AM EST

I'm sure glad I live in a country where instead of "not allowing nonsense like this to spread" rhetoric we hold ideals of individual responsibility and freedom.

Individual responsibility is not tenable when taken to an extreme. For example, you cannot seriously argue that a leader such as Osama Bin Laden inciting others to commit terrorism, is not partly responsible for that terrorism - even if it was not an "order" but a "suggestion". This case is similar. The video game is inciting its purchasers to hate, revile and perhaps attack people of other "races".

Other examples where individual responsibility must be tempered by some attention to the indirect consequences of your actions: laws against negligence, laws on health and safety in the workplace, laws on fraud. If you are committed to a view that a mistake is always and entirely the fault of the person who made it, even if there was fraud or negligence involved, then you must - to be consistent - advocate a very minimal government with no laws against fraud or unsafe working conditions or the like. Most sensible people would see this level of extremism as absurd.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

Individual responsibility and "extremes" (4.16 / 6) (#20)
by seebs on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 10:47:31 AM EST

So, you think that this game actually says "go out and kill people"? I seem to have missed that. Is this in the same part of the game where Wolfenstein tells me I should kill germans, because they say "sig heil" a lot?

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Ben Franklin.

Now, I know that you weirdo UK people are inclined to laugh him off as a violent and psychopathic revolutionary, but I think he was on to something. Free speech is an *essential* liberty. As the "risk" posed by this game is a fairly temporary one (if it exists at all), protection from it is *temporary* security.

Laws on fraud do not "temper" individual responsibility; they *ensure* it. They are how we make sure that individuals *are* held responsible for their actions.

A "mistake" is not the result of fraud.

I will say that, while I like the idea of protections from unsafe working conditions, in practice, many of them are bad - perhaps fatally so. A friend of mine is a volunteer firefighter. They are prohibited from training with anything similar to real-world fires - and in fact, the laws end up requiring them to train under much more dangerous circumstances, with sufficiently different characteristics that it's essentially useless as training.

The world is full of well-intentioned bad ideas. You seem to be one of the nexus points. :)


[ Parent ]
I think that sort of thing is dangerous (4.80 / 5) (#34)
by Delirium on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 11:18:04 AM EST

One should be very limited in what can consititute criminal incitement or complicity in a crime. Otherwise we'll end up at the point where burning an American flag is illegal because you're encouraging hatred of Americans or something ridiculous like that.

[ Parent ]
That is illegal in the US (5.00 / 2) (#61)
by elefantstn on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 02:18:04 PM EST

For example, you cannot seriously argue that a leader such as Osama Bin Laden inciting others to commit terrorism, is not partly responsible for that terrorism - even if it was not an "order" but a "suggestion". This case is similar. The video game is inciting its purchasers to hate, revile and perhaps attack people of other "races".

There is a difference between hate speech and an incitement to violence. If you're hanging out at a Klan meeting and you say, "These niggers are ruining the country," that's perfectly legal. If you continue by saying, "Let's go string them all up!" it's not. In the case of this game, depicting scenes where people are killed is no more an incitement to violence than Quake is. The fact that it's racist has no bearing on its legality whatsoever.



[ Parent ]
Where do you draw the line? (4.00 / 1) (#109)
by cyberformer on Thu Mar 28, 2002 at 04:18:29 AM EST

You may be correct, legally and even ethically, but a ban on incitement to violence is still a limitation on free speech. So are copyrights, non-disclosure agreements, radio broadcasting license requirements and several other laws.

Despite rhetoric about the first ammendment, free speech is not an absolute right, in the US or most other countries. Politicians sometimes decide to restrict it because they believe that other things are more important, and supreme court judges sometimes agree with them. If the thing they're placing above free speech is a society where people are not incited to violence, I agree too. (I don't agree if it's Disney's profits they're placing above free speech, but that's a separate issue.)

Having said that, I wouldn't want to ban this game, because (and I've never played it or even heard of it before this thread) it isn't directly inciting violence. Free speech doesn't just mean DeCSS and Xenu.net. It means Mein Kampf, Nuremburg files, flag burning or whatever else each one of us finds most offensive.

[ Parent ]

heh (4.00 / 3) (#30)
by TheGreenLantern on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 11:08:13 AM EST

I'm sure glad I live in a country where instead of "not allowing nonsense like this to spread" rhetoric we hold ideals of individual responsibility and freedom.

Where do you live? Switzerland? The Netherland? Sounds like a great place.

It hurts when I pee.
[ Parent ]
Shame (3.20 / 5) (#4)
by wji on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 10:24:28 AM EST

Neo-nazis have the right to incite whatever they want.

Now, if a corporation was producing this for profit, I'd happily try and shut them down, but it looks like these are just some nuts with computer programming skills. Well, they can spread their stupidity all they want, I say.

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.

well sorta.... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by jayfoo2 on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 03:32:32 PM EST

If a corporation was producing this for profit they would get shutdown, by massive protests and a boycott.

The solution for the morons who coded this is exactly the same. Find out who they are, and publicise it. Then shun them from society. Every time they move mail letters to their neighbors. Every time they get a job send a letter to their boss. Remember it's not slander if it's true.

[ Parent ]
Here I am - Liberal Boy (4.57 / 14) (#7)
by Yellowbeard on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 10:24:55 AM EST

And I have to say - they should be able to sell the game. Likewise, the Klan and other White power groups should be perfectly free to demonstrate, exist, etc. It's a necessary disadvantage to 1st amendment, but if you set a precedent of censoring one group, you open up the doors to censor any group.

"Whenever there is any doubt, there is no doubt." - Deniro in Ronin


Disadvantage? (4.87 / 8) (#14)
by seebs on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 10:37:28 AM EST

I see no disadvantage here. The KKK's speeches can provide hours of amusement for the whole family! Take one of their speeches, then compare their claims to verifiable statistics or real-world data. Play the "bad reasoning drinking game" - every time you can recognize one of the major logical fallacies, you drink.

Anyway, it's a "disadvantage" the same way it was once a "disadvantage" that distasteful people who were arguing against slavery (despite its necessary role in keeping the poor, stupid, colored people under control) were once allowed to speak. I don't think the KKK are right, but I'm opposed to the idea that people we think are wrong need to stop talking. Right or wrong, diversity of opinions is good for us.


[ Parent ]
Some good ideas (3.50 / 6) (#8)
by gauze on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 10:27:13 AM EST

I have thought this about Neo-Nazis before (that they don't believe in free speech etc so they shouldn't be afforded the luxury of it's protection)
but if 'we' deprive others of free speech we are being hypocritical about this free speech issue as well.

On the otherhand, I don't really have a problem with a society that makes no bones about being discriminatory towards racial (or whatever) intolerance, at least it's being honest about it's agenda.


There's nothing wrong with a PC that a little UNIX won't cure.
Flipside (4.00 / 3) (#32)
by gazbo on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 11:10:13 AM EST

On the otherhand, I don't really have a problem with a society that makes no bones about being discriminatory towards racial (or whatever) intolerance, at least it's being honest about it's agenda.
On the otherhand, I don't have a problem with a society that makes no bones about being discriminatory to the the Jews, blacks and muslims, as least it's being honest about its agenda.

But of course, my argument is different, because everyone knows that religious intolerance is wrong...

-----
Topless, revealing, nude pics and vids of Zora Suleman! Upskirt and down blouse! Cleavage!
Hardcore ZORA SULEMAN pics!

[ Parent ]

actually no. (none / 0) (#112)
by gauze on Thu Mar 28, 2002 at 07:14:03 AM EST


What you are saying isn't different from what I said at it's core.

I don't have a problem because it jibes with my sense of justice, it's a selfish decision of mine to not be outraged by this double standard (double think?) I have set up.

The person who would agree with what you are saying have thier own selfish reasons for agreeing with what you said, although they probably don't have any dichotomy to deal with, unlike myself.

I have this big theory about everyone being selfish when they can afford to be, I won't get into it here. Some philosopher probably already wrote extensively about this but I'd rather not know about it, which leads to another theory of mine and we're off in outer space now.

There's nothing wrong with a PC that a little UNIX won't cure.
[ Parent ]
Oh, okay then (none / 0) (#113)
by gazbo on Thu Mar 28, 2002 at 07:27:04 AM EST

I thought you were implying that free speach should be curtailed in the cases when it was 'clearly wrong'.

Your philosophy, whilst being distasteful, has a certain something to it (I've toyed with subscribing to it for some time) and in that context your argument is fine. I was just drawing an absurd extension of what you said to show it was hypocritical - as it is, you've pretty much covered that, so I retract my criticism. There are many other criticisms to fill the void, but I'm not going to write them...

-----
Topless, revealing, nude pics and vids of Zora Suleman! Upskirt and down blouse! Cleavage!
Hardcore ZORA SULEMAN pics!

[ Parent ]

Intolerance of intolerance (none / 0) (#124)
by gauze on Fri Mar 29, 2002 at 02:30:59 AM EST

"Your philosophy, whilst being distasteful, has a certain something to it (I've toyed with subscribing to it for some time) and in that context your argument is fine. I was just drawing an absurd extension of what you said to show it was hypocritical - as it is, you've pretty much covered that, so I retract my criticism. There are many other criticisms to fill the void, but I'm not going to write them..."

I don't know how old you are but as I have passed 30
a few years ago I sort of loosened up on my Utopian ideals a bit (stress on _my_). Ideally, yes, I'd like for everyone to have unabridged free speech, but having actually been punched out by a nazi skin perhaps I'm a bit less sympathetic to thier 'plight' and wouldn't mind seeing them "get the business from the man". sorry I'm tired and trying to be light about this topic, I know it might sound a little wacky.

There's nothing wrong with a PC that a little UNIX won't cure.
[ Parent ]
Free speech... (4.36 / 11) (#12)
by seebs on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 10:33:58 AM EST

I see it as a pure free speech issue. So, no, it shouldn't be banned. Nor should people be banned from saying "Stalin was OK by me", or anything else they want to express.

I'm not even convinced that this is any worse than, say, Quake, or Wolfenstein, which portrays a variety of human characters as "unthinking evil things you kill for points".

I always wanted to do a game which would let you go around beating people up, only you'd be able to select which of several groups you wanted to go after. Gays? The tough monsters would be "dykes on bikes". Breeders? It'd be "normal" bikers. I guess if you wanted to include modern prejudices, you could have "Kikes on Bikes", or Arabs on camels. Same room, different filter.

Is the game you describe racist? Sure, I guess so. (It could just be humor in very poor taste, but it seems unlikely.) Is it wrong for people to be racist? I dunno, but it's certainly sort of amusingly stupid. Should we stop them? No.

If you can stop them, because you *know* they are wrong, then, if they're ever a majority, they can shut *you* up - it's only fair. Let's not go there.



Huh? (4.00 / 7) (#17)
by greenrd on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 10:40:23 AM EST

Is it wrong for people to be racist? I dunno, but it's certainly sort of amusingly stupid.

You don't know if it's wrong to be racist? I think if you had ever been on the receiving end of a significant amount of racist abuse you would feel differently. (I personally haven't, being white, but I can't understand how any non-racist person could even equivocate over whether racism is wrong.)

If you can stop them, because you *know* they are wrong, then, if they're ever a majority, they can shut *you* up - it's only fair. Let's not go there.

That's completely irrelevant. The Nazis in Germany were able to shut up their opponents by beating them up. If they had been banned before that, but had somehow still managed to come to power (by a coup or something), that would have changed nothing. It therefore makes no difference.

If you are trying to argue that it's morally OK for the Nazis to suppress their opponents if they are in the majority, I think you are very confused. I'm not arguing, and have never argued, that the Nazis should be banned because they are a minority. That would be absurd.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

I'm a philosopher, okay? (4.77 / 9) (#26)
by seebs on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 10:55:50 AM EST

There are many meanings of wrong. It could be factually wrong (most racist claims are, I believe), or it could be morally wrong.

I suspect that it is morally wrong, but I can't prove that this is universally true. If you had been raised in the 1700's, surrounded by "scientific evidence" that black people were naturally inferior to you, are you sure it's a *moral* failure for you to believe this?

It is a moral failure to hate people for being different. The abolitionists who, believing firmly that black people were their inferiors, believed that they should nonetheless be freed, were *morally* wonderful people - but they were still racists.

You seem to be assuming that only non-whites can be affected by racism. I used to live in an area where black people with guns were saying that it was time for all the whites to get the hell out of "their" neighborhood. You quite sure I've never been affected by racism?

However, "racism" is a broad concept, and I'm not sure that all of its aspects are morally wrong.

Look closely at what you said:

> That's completely irrelevant. The Nazis in
>Germany were able to shut up their opponents by
>beating them up. If they had been banned before
>that, but had somehow still managed to come to
>power (by a coup or something), that would have
>changed nothing. It therefore makes no
>difference.

This is wrong in several ways; the most obvious is that you suddenly need a qualifier, and one we have no way to judge. Yes, and if God suddenly came down and *put* the Nazis in power, they'd have been in power too... But in fact, it appears to make a *lot* of difference what people will and won't accept. In a society where everyone is completely convinced that you *MUST* not squelch dissenting views, it's much harder for a government to do so.

I am not arguing that it's morally okay for the Nazis to suppress their opponents if they're in the majority. I'm, rather, arguing that, if you feel you can suppress people because you know them to be wrong, then it is *only fair* to say that, if they're ever in power, they can suppress you.

You know what right and wrong are. I do too. More interestingly, we *disagree*. I also disagree with the KKK, but they're pretty sure I'm wrong. We don't have an absolute standard to hand (or rather, we have entirely too many of them). Thus, I want to make sure that, whatever rules we use now (while my moral worldview is roughly at the top of the heap) are rules that will allow me and mine to continue thinking as we wish when someone else is in charge.

Socialism seems to breed bullies. Moral indignation is a dangerous concept; don't let it blind you to the sheer arrogance of assuming that your moral system is so obviously correct that it's laughable to imagine anyone who doesn't hold to it coming into power.


[ Parent ]
Rules (3.40 / 5) (#28)
by greenrd on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 11:04:29 AM EST

are rules that will allow me and mine to continue thinking as we wish when someone else is in charge.

How exactly? As I said, Nazis have no respect for human rights. Do you really think they are going to follow your rules of "fair play"?


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

That depends... (5.00 / 5) (#29)
by seebs on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 11:06:31 AM EST

The trick to overthrowing bad governments is making sure that everyone agrees that they're bad. If we all agree that "squelching dissent" is *totally unacceptable*, the bad guys can't do it.

If, on the other hand, many of us have been advocating *conditional* approval for squelching of dissent, then the fence-sitters, who don't necessarily care about a given issue, will stay on the fence.

This is the "if I don't speak for them, who will speak for me" problem.


[ Parent ]
Not only that, but (4.00 / 3) (#36)
by inerte on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 11:21:10 AM EST

You make a lot of bad assumptions, specially on your opening paragraph. There's no such thing as everyone agrees and something magically starts working.

First of all, most governaments weren't overthrowed by a majority, quite the opposite, historically governaments are take down because there's a powerful minority, that wants more power, uses of several tricks to get the power. Military, bribes, FUDs, etc...

Second, it's not enough to agree. First, you have to make the people agree. This in some parts is easy, in others is hard. It's easy to make people believe killing other is wrong, or shouldn't be allowed, because there are many factors involved that not only affects the killers BEFORE the punishement, as well during.

I am not trying to say if punishing someone for bad behavior is correct, like you did on surface, but we all pactually contracted with society somethings that we can or can not do.

One of the first reasons is the sense that if you do something, you accept others to do the same to you. Therefore, killing here is an extreme action that one cannot allow to garantee its own survival.

But, there are certains conditions where extreme actions can be taken. On self defense, for example. So the real point about fence-sitters is not to provide conditions where more doubts will be cast, but instead, reasons (logicals or emotionals) that will make them get our of the fence.

AFTER someone is convinced, in a theorical area, you later have to make them take ACTIONS about the thing.

Now here, it won't matter if everyone else agrees with you, if the majority believes in something. If someone has a STRONG reason to do something, they will act. The trick is to level this reason.

And sometimes, what I have to speak for them is what I really want to speak, and not a trade where you beneficiate someone and ask something in return. Maybe my return is other's people voice. That my friend, is called compassion, friendship, and ultimately, love.

At least a part of it...

--
Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.
Plato
[ Parent ]

To have such weak ideas... (3.25 / 4) (#24)
by inerte on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 10:52:16 AM EST

I believe you are one of these stupid white BOYS who stay in front of the computer all day.

Now... if you are, doesn't feel good to be on the other side of the fence, right? Have you ever been target of prejudice? In any instance of your life? Imagine living with this bad social karma EVERY second of your life, everywhere. Everyone looks you strangely, as waiting for something bad to happen.

Is it wrong to be racist? *Of course* it is. You won't know until doesn't matter what you do, doesn't matter what you know, you are considered inferior based on irrelevant things as skin color.

Btw, I am white, yes, considered rich in my country, yes, I haven't felt anything closely remote as one black person has. But, I still have a critical sense to know the difference between right and wrong. And sometimes, even try to change a few things (hey, here I am posting! :-)

--
Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.
Plato
[ Parent ]

Free speech (4.94 / 19) (#15)
by onyxruby on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 10:38:11 AM EST

Free speech requires allowing one to make an ass of themselves. So long as they don't make any specific threats against individuals, what they have released would be protected by free speech. While I certainly agree that this type of game falls under "garbage", it is an equally slipperly slope to say that only certain "types" can be bad guys. For example, it's like the difference between Louis Farakan ranting about Whites again and Farakan (just for examples sake) calling for the end of all Whites on a certain block. One is free speech, the other can result in a riot and death of those that live on a certain block.

Next time you hear that the KKK has been denied a demonstration permit or whatnot, you'll likely notice the NAACP filing a legal brief on their behalf (they'll also likely file a demonstration request for same date and time 50 feet down the block). You can't dictate a given form of free speech is OK based on whether or not you like the people involved, or think it's ok to bash whoever it is they are bashing.

All of that being said, the wonderful thing about personal choice is that I can choose not to download and play this game. As long as some skinhead is only blasting virtual Jews, I say let them do it. The moment they transition over to real ones because of their race, fry em'. Likewise for their organization, as long as it does not involve crime, let them have it. The moment they commit crimes to support their agenda though, you prosecute with a vendetta.

The moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.

Not available in stores (4.95 / 22) (#16)
by KilljoyAZ on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 10:39:02 AM EST

Joe Kid Average isn't going to see this on the shelf of his local EB or Best Buy. Most likely this game is going to be advertised in racist publications and bought by racist parents who will give them to their kids so that they can grow up to be racists too. If these games weren't available, they'd use something else.

Racist organizations like the KKK and neo-Nazis are pushed to the fringe in the US precisely because they can and do present their views to the public. The civil rights movement was successful in part because these people were allowed to tell the nation what they thought. They were widely panned and ridiculed as a bunch of cruel, small minded morons who were stuck 100 years in the past and who like to dress up in silly costumes on occasion.

Contrast this with Scientology, an organization with enough legitimacy for public figures like Tom Cruise and John Travolta to openly join. The CoS does its best to keep its true beliefs out of the public view. Do you think the CoS would be anything but a bad joke if they went on national TV and their pitch was that Xenu/e-meter crap?

By the way, neo-Nazi organizations that commit crimes are broken up and sent to prison by federal, state and local authorities in the US on a regular basis.

===
Creativitiy cannot be SPELT by over 98% of all American troops. - psychologist
It shouldn't be banned (4.25 / 4) (#19)
by theboz on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 10:46:45 AM EST

I believe in free speech. That's why we have to make a mod for Redneck Rampage to make a few of them dress up in white robes and have sex with their sisters. Otherwise, it's appropriate enough.

Stuff.

Games don't kill people (4.30 / 13) (#23)
by jabber on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 10:50:43 AM EST

Parents who don't raise their kids properly do.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"

Consider an effect with two causes (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by SIGFPE on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 02:44:40 PM EST

Suppose evil criminal racists are produced by the conjunction of two causes:
  1. Evil video games
  2. combined with bad parenting
Faced with the problem of these people there are two ways to attack the problem: via cause (1) or cause (2). Now it might be entirely correct that without (2) this problem couldn't happen. However dealing with cause (1) is a lot easier. In fact, in this example, it may be so much easier to deal with cause (1) that complaining about (2) is simply wasted breath as it's always going to exist. So if this were the situation (and I'm not saying it necessarily is) then clearly the logical cause of action is to deal with (1) and ban the games.
SIGFPE
[ Parent ]
Yes but (5.00 / 2) (#75)
by jabber on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 03:26:43 PM EST

By extension, we should ban not only this game, but all violent games.. In fact, all games, and all things that anyone anywhere can take any exception to as contributing to the degradation of 'our way of life'. Music, movies, minority religions.. We should blow up some Buddist statues while we're at it. Anything even remotely offensive to anyone's sensibilities should be outlawed, since this is the 'easier' way to deal with the problem.

[lightbulb] Wow! I've just reinvented Political Correctness! And the Taliban![/lightbulb] Yeah, it's pretty absurd.. I see no fault with the reasoning, mind you, it tracks fine, it just leads to some pretty creepy conclusions.

This article is somewhat applicable here. It seeks to pick apart the difference between motive and intent in 'hate crimes'.

Per the article's definitions, motive is that which stimulates an action, and intent is the desired outcome of the action.. In the case of this game, the motive is clearly racism, and the intent is more racism. Now, for which should the game be banned? Because it was made out of a racist mindset, or because it's goal is the breeding of more racism?

Hate is not illegal. David Duke has the right to speak in public, as does Louis Farrakan (sp?). Racists of any color have the right to go and listen to their favorite rabble rouser. There is nothing illegal about any of this.

This game, vile as non-racists may find it, does nothing different.. The authors have a right to make it, and sell it.. Racist customers have the right to buy and play it.. Right? Should it be illegal just because it offends?? I find that idea offensive.

The crime is in the action, not in the motive, nor even in the intent. Hate is not illegal, violating the rights of another person is. Not being offended is not a right. Free speech is a right, even if it's hate speech. It's a hairy issue indeed when the right to free speech violates the right to the pursuit of happiness.. But, illussive as the definition of 'speech' is, it is quite a bit more concrete than that of 'pursuit' and 'happiness'.

So, yes.. Banning the game will give everyone the sense that the government is doing something against racism. If it were to be banned, it would set a very interesting precedent.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Another "Yes, but ..." (none / 0) (#121)
by misterluke on Thu Mar 28, 2002 at 07:58:13 PM EST

You're also assuming these two causes have an equal impact on the behaviour you're trying to suppress, and that actions taken to eliminate the two causes have comparable side effects. In this case, I don't believe either is true.

I believe that while altering or compensating for bad parenting is orders of magnitude harder than just banning the game or other hate media, it's also orders of magnitude more effective at eliminating the undesirable behaviour. As for side effects, I think banning a game sets a dangerous precedent ( insert "first they came for the ..." comment here ), while teaching kids about racism and offering them the chance to form their own opinions about other people based on, say, actually getting to know them has a number of positive side effects.

All in all, it's a sticky issue.

[ Parent ]
Stupid? Yes. Illegal? No. (4.63 / 11) (#25)
by daedalus09 on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 10:53:16 AM EST

1. this game is nothing more than an interactive "pamphlet" for this groups's stupid cause. by bringing attention to the game, you're bringing attention to them - exactly what they want.

2. Is this game racist? Yes. Is it stupid? Yes. Should it be against the law to be racist and stupid? Nope. The freedom of speech allows people to say what they want, no matter how stupid or racist. The reason you hear the slippery slope argument so much is because it's true. Once you start making exceptions to what people can or cannot say, it's not too much longer until criticizing the government is outlawed.

bringing racism into the light (none / 0) (#80)
by drivers on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 03:49:50 PM EST

1. this game is nothing more than an interactive "pamphlet" for this groups's stupid cause. by bringing attention to the game, you're bringing attention to them - exactly what they want.

On the other hand, it has been argued (and I agree) that it is better to expose the methods that racist groups use.

(I agree with your second point.)

[ Parent ]

Ancient news. (4.25 / 8) (#31)
by Apuleius on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 11:08:37 AM EST

A Doom modification with blacks and Jews for targets has been available since, oh, since Doom came out. Why is it making headlines now?


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
Re: Ancient news. (4.50 / 4) (#41)
by khallow on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 12:01:08 PM EST

A Doom modification with blacks and Jews for targets has been available since, oh, since Doom came out. Why is it making headlines now?

This game is being marketed by Resistance Records who apparently does well selling music (and related products) in the "white power" genre. The ADL (Anti-Defamation League) hightlighted the game in a recent report. That's sufficient to make headlines.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Video Games ARE harmless (4.60 / 10) (#33)
by TheGreenLantern on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 11:16:06 AM EST

One person could play a game like this for 4 hours a day for a year, and still have enough sense to recognize it for the bullshit that it is. Another person is cut off by a black man in traffic, and drives right to his local KKK rally.

Clearly racism is learned, you just have to watch those CNN reports showing little kids in Klan hoods to see that. But it's learned on many levels, and not just from one source. If a child were to get ahold of this game and play it for a while, one of two things would happen:

1. At some point he let's slip some racist garbage in front of his parents, at which point they impress upon him that they'll not stand for this sort of thing from their children.

2. Junior let's slip with racist garbage, and the parents either don't acknowledge it or encourage it. At this point, you either have racist or apathetic parents, which means Junior would have probably picked up this crap from somewhere else anyway.

It hurts when I pee.
What I wouldn't mind seeing... (2.50 / 6) (#35)
by Skwirl on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 11:18:49 AM EST

is a grassroots movement to hack, DOS and googlebomb these guys off the net. Here, let me get you started: "Ethnic Cleansing: The Game."

I'm pretty sure you can't legislate away a social problem. Society as a whole has to decide that it will not tolerate any form of hatred.



--
"Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself." -- Herman Hesse
Okay, then... (5.00 / 4) (#47)
by seebs on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 12:39:59 PM EST

You broke my hypocrisy meter.

How about we start with the people who hate people who hate? For fuck's sake! Listen to yourself!

"I vote we DOS these people and hack their systems" followed immediately by "society as a whole has to decide that it will not tolerate any form of hatred".

Frankly, I'd rather live with people who hate me, but don't break my stuff, than with people who like me, but go around breaking the stuff of anyone they don't like.

If you want to fight hatred, start locally. You have a lot of work to do.


[ Parent ]
Methinks I was misinterpreted (4.00 / 1) (#51)
by Skwirl on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 01:08:34 PM EST

When I said "What I wouldn't mind seeing..." it wasn't meant to be a ringing endorsement. Also, I try pretty hard not to hate anybody, but rather to hate certain actions. I hate racist speech, but I am mostly indifferent to the practitioners of it. That's why I wouldn't mind seeing their propaganda pushed farther underground.

The script kiddies are going to busy themselves doing something, so they might as well test their 31337 skillz doing something (more or less) non-destructive.

One of the neat things about democracy is that the radicals on either side of the fence tend to cancel each other out. I'm kind of afraid that there aren't enough crazy-wack-job left-wing radicals to cancel out the crazy-wack-job right-wingers.

What I do mind very, very much is anytime government tries to censor speech.



--
"Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself." -- Herman Hesse
[ Parent ]
Wow! (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by seebs on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 01:14:44 PM EST

I've always had exactly the opposite expectation; I am drowning in left-wing wackos.

Anyway, I interpreted your attempt at starting to make the game unfindable as a fairly solid endorsement of trying to corrupt the Google records. I don't approve of that; it's a tool, and we should not damage it just to spite people.


[ Parent ]
Define (none / 0) (#116)
by shrike7 on Thu Mar 28, 2002 at 08:35:31 AM EST

'crazy-wack-job left-winger.' Is it someone with ideas as nutty as the skinheads, or someone who appropriates their methods? Either way, I think you'd be able to find many more of the first definition-hell, I've been called similar things-and about as many of the second.
CXVI
[ Parent ]
Au contraire (4.50 / 8) (#37)
by karb on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 11:26:32 AM EST

Proponents of the "spippery slope" argument need to put forward a realistic harm that could come about as a result of banning incitement to racial hatred.

No, that's not how it works in the U.S. The burden is on those who wish to limit speech.

The rules on obscenity are only that, in certain forums, it is not permitted. There is no overarching bar to obscenity. There is no precedent for banning obscene speech.

Also, I would posit that few americans agree with the european laws banning 'incitement to racial hatred'.
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?

Au contraire, bis (4.00 / 3) (#40)
by linca on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 12:00:36 PM EST

There is no precedent for banning obscene speech.

Hays Code anyone?

Also, throughout the wolrd, including in the US, I believe there are laws regarding comics publications.



[ Parent ]
Hays Code (4.33 / 3) (#44)
by wiredog on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 12:21:06 PM EST

It's not a law. It's something agreed to by (some of(ever read the "Fabulus Furry Freak Brothers"?))the comics publishers. So is the ratings code used by the MPAA. And the one used by the TV networks. The music industry has one too. So does the video game industry. But you can release unrated products in all those categories, and people do.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
yes! (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by karb on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 01:25:53 PM EST

And that's why all the video game people were up in arms about a potential government ratings system. Because none of the current rating systems in effect are government-mandated, and are optional for content-producers (but recommended in the interests of profitability :) )
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?
[ Parent ]
Au contraire indeed (none / 0) (#59)
by deadplant on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 01:52:12 PM EST

actually, I believe the obscenity laws in the USA are based on "community standards". TV told me this means that any judge who is deciding whether something is obscene or not must base his decision on his perception of current local attitudes about what is obscene.

This might be restricted to sex/porn related stuff, I don't know. But the point is that anything sex related can be banned (censored) by a judge in the USA if a majority of 'typical' people would find it offensive.


[ Parent ]
censoring and banning (none / 0) (#69)
by karb on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 02:49:36 PM EST

There are certain things that are 'banned'. Some sorts of pr0n certainly are, especially of the child variety.

This is the only speech I am aware of that is currently banned in the states. I'm not taling about censorship, which, depending on who you ask, is either rampant or relatively non-existant. Not allowing somebody to receive funding from the NEA does not prevent them from exercising their free speech rights, but it does not ban them from producing work.

Note that there is a significant amount of speech that is, in effect, 'banned', because it relates to criminal activity. Inciting a riot, for example, is, by nature, a speech-related crime.
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?
[ Parent ]

I love the hypocrisy (4.00 / 8) (#38)
by The Littlest Hobo on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 11:30:07 AM EST

What, you've never seen True Lies? Rambo 3?

They were both horrible. (none / 0) (#50)
by special ed on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 01:06:39 PM EST

Neither Arnold Schwartzamacallit nor Sylvester Stallone can act their way out of a oiled paper bag.

What's your point?

Meanwhile, the world turns foolishly on and ants tickle his butt.
[ Parent ]
I can't quite make up my mind (3.71 / 7) (#42)
by shrike7 on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 12:05:03 PM EST

as to whether this should be banned or not. Just because the Neo-Nazis would restrict freedom of speech is no reason to deprive them of theirs, as you seem to imply. Freedom of speech is all about preserving the rights of everyone, even hateful, disgusting morons. Also, the whole 'there's no social value in letting this garbage spread' argument seems specious to me. There's no social value in allowing racist views to be published in any form, or so I would argue. While you're certainly right that this stuff is toxic, the real solution to me would be putting pressure on businesses not to sell the thing, so that cretins who might be interested in it might a) never hear about it; or b) be dissuaded by its scarcity. So I suppose I have made up my mind. Let them try to sell it, but make it as hard for them as possible.
CXVI
Freedom of Speech is more important (4.76 / 17) (#43)
by notafurry on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 12:06:44 PM EST

It's easy to say that this game should be banned, and the logic behind it banned as well, but what you're really saying is we should punish people for how they think. You're proposing we establish and promote the concept of "thoughtcrime". And there is absolutely no justification for that.

If you want freedom os speech, you cannot accept limits to that freedom. If you want to give oppresses minorities the rights and abilities to speak out against their oppressors, you have to give the oppressors the right to speak as well. You have to give every minority the chance to speak their minds, or you're no better than the evil you claim to fight. Freedom of speech does not mean "you are free to speak about anything you like so long as I don't find it objectionable." Freedom of speech literally and simply means defending the right of an individual to stand up and promote at the top of his voice that which you would willingly give your life to prevent.

If you want to teach children morally positive behavior, do so. Celebrate this game, show it to them, explain to them all of the things that you think are wrong with it. They'll listen. Show them that not only do you think the ideas behind the game are wrong, but that your own moral ideas are better and stronger. Trying to hide this kind of speech only legitimizes it, gives it the power of the oppressed. Make it open and allow them to speak out loud and clear, and they will never win, because we'll all have the power to speak out against them as well.

OpenDNA's Solution (4.55 / 20) (#49)
by opendna on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 12:58:30 PM EST

When I become dictator I'm going to hire 100,000 clowns to go around slapping stupid people.

No censorship. Just clowns.

"It's the Jews' fault!" <SLAP>
"Thanks Bobo."

<SLAP> (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by Sabbac on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 04:34:17 PM EST

brilliant, just plain brilliant.

[ Parent ]
May I (none / 0) (#104)
by jabber on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 07:21:48 PM EST

May I use that in my sig? Thanks.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Replace video game with book.... (4.40 / 5) (#53)
by Woundweavr on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 01:21:15 PM EST

Books can have inflamatory messages and are still protected under the First Amendment (baring those exceptions such as 'obscenity' or direct threats). This type of thing, while stupid doesn't make it illegal. For the same reason as a libertarian can say the government shouldn't be able to do this or that, racists can make racist statements/media. Racism isn't unique in that the 1st Amendment doesn't or shouldn't apply. It may be dumb and unpopular but it still receives protection.

A video game is not more "dangerous" than a book or a religion. Many people here (on k5) feel Christianity or Catholism is "dangerous" in that it creates bad ideas and outlooks (including bigotry). That doesn't mean that the government has the right to restrict it (or Islam or Wiccas or whatever). Mein Kampf is a dangerous book too, but its still available.

Racism sucks, but exempting it from 1st Amendment rights would go against what that freedom is there for and definitely start you sliding down a slippery (nigh verticle) slope.

old Old OLD news... (4.91 / 12) (#57)
by SvnLyrBrto on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 01:47:40 PM EST

Is there anything NEW about this one?

Tacky crap like this has been going around ever since people first figured out how to make their own .wad files for doom.

Other groups for which there exist FPS mods, .wads, or etc.:

Federal (ATF) Agents... This one actually made the news. It includes scenery of the Waco incident, and features monsters replaced by ATF agents.

Illegal Mexican immigrants... Features "Rio Grande" river scenery.

East German refugees... You play a socialist border guard trying to shoot those escaping to the democratic West Berlin

Kathy Lee Gifford... No... I'm NOT kidding. Somebody replaced the Spider Mastermind with KLG.

There was even a "FIGHT racism" Doom mod. The scenery is modded to look like republican party HQ... posters of those elephants and all that. The regular zombies are replaced by skinheads. Zombie Seargents and above are replaced by various forms of klansmen. The Cachodeamon is replaced by a fat, floating rush limbaugh screaming something that sounds like: "talent on loan from god". And the Cyberdeamon and Spider Mastermind are replaced with ronald reagan and george bush sr. respectively.

That last one reminds me... A while back, even Slashdot was showcasing a couple of quake 'bots you could download, to enable you to hunt down the shrub and it's #1 minion, cheney.

And there are many, MANY more. Basiclly any group that offends another group large enough to have a few computer types is will have an FPS mod targetting them.

This has been going on since FPS's have existed. Just what is new or special about THIS one?


cya,
john

Imagine all the people...

More thorny than you think (3.00 / 5) (#60)
by QuickFox on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 02:11:57 PM EST

This issue is much more thorny than many commentators here seem to realize.

Many comments give a strong, beautifully stated defence for freedom of speech. This is very fine. But let's for a moment look at this issue from a different perspective.

Suppose the article was about child pornography.

Try reading the comments here again. Ask yourself it the arguments would be the same if the issue was child porn. What would be similar? What would be different?

Of course child porn is a completely different issue. Child porn is about a perversion that causes lifelong suffering for the victims.

Whereas racism of course is a perversion that causes lifelong suffering for its victims.

Food for thought.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.



Actually.. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by wiredog on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 02:22:41 PM EST

There was a debate about child porn here recently. Many of the arguments were the same. Where the harm issue comes in is that this is a video game, whereas child porn involves real children being exploited. Now, in the case of computer generated child porn, the arguments get much more difficult. That one is going to end up in the Supreme Court someday. And I wouldn't take bets on how the court would rule.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
Legal precedent (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by mbrubeck on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 03:44:03 PM EST

Here's the US 4th Circuit Appeals Court opinion on the matter. Excerpt:
Hence, the term "child pornography" now includes "any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" where:
  • (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
  • (B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
  • (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engag- ing in sexually explicit conduct; or
  • (D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or con- tains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexu- ally explicit conduct.


[ Parent ]
Followup: Supreme Court appeal (5.00 / 1) (#81)
by mbrubeck on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 03:53:14 PM EST

By the way, this case is currently being heard by the US Supreme Court.

[ Parent ]
Bad analogy (4.50 / 2) (#64)
by elefantstn on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 02:23:15 PM EST

The reason child pornography is illegal is that its creation involves the sexual abuse of minors. It is not illegal because it encourages improper thoughts. As far as I know, erotic fiction about children would be legal, because it doesn't involve the actual abuse of a child that stripping them down and photographing them does.

There are cases pending, I think, regarding whether simulated child pornography, i.e., computer animation, is legal, but I think it will be ruled to be legal. The entire legal justification for the illegality of child pornography is based on the inherent illegality of creating it.

[ Parent ]
Ooops! (4.00 / 1) (#71)
by QuickFox on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 03:01:52 PM EST

I should have mentioned that i meant fictional child porn. I forgot to mention this because it seemed so obvious. Without that my comment is pointless.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.



[ Parent ]
And with it... (none / 0) (#74)
by elefantstn on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 03:22:35 PM EST

Without that my comment is pointless.

...and with that part, my response is pointless. C'est la vie, I suppose.



[ Parent ]
But what about distribution? (4.00 / 2) (#72)
by broken77 on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 03:03:37 PM EST

I don't mean to imply anything, I just don't know how my question fits in to what you're saying (which for the most part makes sense to me). How about someone finds illegal pictures on the net, and then distributes those pictures. That particular person didn't create the situation that allowed the child to be exploited, but merely got a free electronic copy of it. But doesn't the law still treat it as the same thing? I.e., distribution of child pornography carries a legal penalty (although not as harsh as the person who committed the actual sexual act).

So, the question, or clarification, I'm searching for, is this... Is child pornography really illegal because "its creation involves the sexual abuse of minors", or merely that the imagery actually shows a real child in a real sexual situation? As I said, it's a clear-cut case when it comes to the distributors of it, but what about the consumers who don't pay for said material? They're surely not inciting its creation. They are doing something unethical and immoral, that's without question, but the legality of it gets blurry for me because of all this (creation versus purchasing versus viewing for free).

Ok, so finally, to my real point. If we're to extend the analogy of child pornography to hate-based video games, then based on just the mere viewing of child pornography is illegal, wouldn't the mere playing of this video game be illegal too?

I'm starting to doubt all this happy propaganda about Islam being a religion of peace. Heck, it's just as bad as Christianity. -- Dphitz
[ Parent ]

Not according to the courts (none / 0) (#76)
by elefantstn on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 03:27:31 PM EST

As I said, it's a clear-cut case when it comes to the distributors of it, but what about the consumers who don't pay for said material? They're surely not inciting its creation.

I'm fairly certain that courts have always upheld anti-child-pornography laws on the basis that the consumption of said porn does incite its creation. The courts have never made a distinction between buying or "stealing" it -- just having and using it creates a market for it. I don't know whether I agree or not, but legally, that's how it's always been in the US.



[ Parent ]
This is similar to endangered animal laws. (5.00 / 2) (#88)
by BlaisePascal on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 04:30:09 PM EST

Trafficing and (sometimes) possession of items made from endangered animals fall into the same logic, at least in the US. The selling of a leopard-skin rug will get you in big trouble, even if the leopard was a legal kill at the time it was killed. Possession of a leopard-skin at all might require some serious documentation to prevent it's confiscation. The basis is that even sales of legally acquired endangered animal parts would encourage poaching of the animals.

I remember hearing a case a few years ago of a gentleman who sold a feathered headdress that had been in his family for nearly 100 years, originally belonging to a famous native american who gifted it to an ancestor. The museum officials he sold it to turned out to be federal agents catching him in a sting operation. Even though he could prove that the feathers predated the endangerment of the eagles they came from, he still got busted and convicted.

The logic with child porn is similar, in that the assumption is that the availability of child porn encourages a market for it, which in turn encourages the creation of it, which the Government want's to eliminate.

[ Parent ]

The difference (4.33 / 3) (#65)
by shrike7 on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 02:23:51 PM EST

To create child pornography, you have to harm someone, unless you're writing imaginary stories or drawing imaginary children. If you're doing either of those things, there's something wrong with you, but you should still be allowed to do it, as long as it was entirely imaginary. Assuming that this game was entirely a product of someone's imagination, I don't see a difference. Finally, by allowing this sort of stuf, we know who these people are, and that that much more easy to track. Which, in my opinion, is a good thing.
CXVI
[ Parent ]
The fantasy argument (4.40 / 5) (#62)
by dipipanone on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 02:18:44 PM EST

One point that I'm surprised hasn't been raised is that this thing is actually a *game*. Games are not reality, no more than novels or movies or whatever and whether I'd buy it or play it depends almost solely on how good the gameplay is and how successful it is in immersing me in its fantasy world.

Does that mean I'm a racist? Of course it doesn't, no more than it means I'm a killer if I were to play Hitman, or a Millwall supporter if I were to play Hooligans: Storm over Europe.

If I found the ethics of the company producing the game, I might refuse to buy it on that basis regardless of how good the game play was, but the fact that it happens to be tasteless in theme and content isn't a reason to stop me from buying it. If it was, I don't suppose I'd have a game left on my hard drive.

Finally, I have to say that it actually sounds like it might be a pretty good game judged by these criteria. I'd certainly download it and try out the demo if there was one, to see whether or not it was any good. However, if some proportion of the profits were being donated to a white supremacist organization, they wouldn't see a penny from me.

--
Suck my .sig
The game seller.... (4.00 / 1) (#67)
by special ed on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 02:41:59 PM EST

is Resistance Records, The "Soundtrack for the White Revolution". So any hope of any money not going to racist organizations is right out the window.

Also, the game is Windows only. Windows is the tool of white supremacists!

Meanwhile, the world turns foolishly on and ants tickle his butt.
[ Parent ]
Yeah, but... (none / 0) (#102)
by dipipanone on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 07:01:37 PM EST

I pretty well guessed it would be. But that wouldn't stop me playing and enjoying it if it were any good.

I just wouldn't buy it. :-)

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
So I Finally Disagree With Greenrd (4.71 / 7) (#70)
by snowlion on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 02:50:18 PM EST

I usually agree with everything you say. greenrd. {:)}= This story surprises me..!

Personally, I think that freedom of expression is critical. I see no real major distinction between a video game vs. a book. I could start drawing a gradient with a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book and then a text adventure game and then move to NetHack and then apply graphics.

If you start talking about the Enemy of Democracy and things like that, the next thing you know, you find yourself in McCarthy's seat, maintaining the ideological purity of the land. Or you find yourself as an FBI agent doing COINTELPRO work to break up dissident anti-Americans. Hey, I'm an Anarchist. Most people believe I am an enemy of Democracy because I believe in no government whatsoever (a common misunderstanding). My writing could be called "an incitement to class hatred", and I would be "anti-democracy". That kind of thinking bothers me.

This doesn't mean that I don't think people and communities shouldn't be able to avoid hearing things that they don't want to hear. We do that all the time here in Kuro5hin, when we moderate down stories. If communities say, "Hey, we don't want you shouting that smack in our public places," I think that they can do that. But I don't think that anyone at K5 would say that you can't post your story elsewhere, or that you shouldn't be able to post the story to the mod queue, or that you shouldn't be able to write a story and give it to your friend.

We should not give them any leeway. Neo-Nazi organisations, being essentially and by nature criminal organisations that wish to (and sometimes do) commit violence against non-white people, should be illegal, as they are in Germany.

I was thinking, "Anarchists, being essentially and by nature criminal organizations that wish to (and sometimes do) commit violence against people and property, should be illegal, as they are in some countries." (A brief quip.)

No, I don't think you should give racists any leeway. I was in the bus the other day, and saw a college kid with a cap that said, "Fuck White Power" on it. He was white, male, about 19-21 years old. I agree completely with the message and his wearing the cap. I don't think that we should give them leeway. But I don't think depriving racists of basic rights such as free speech is the thing to do.

If a racist does something illegal, catch them at it, arrest them, throw them in jail. Figure out why they are that way, and address that. If they are just talking, let them talk. Everyone gets to have their say.

If you believe that ideas are dangerous, so dangerous that some can't be heard, you need to think about that, and then choose an authority for determining which are too dangerous, and which are not. And then you need to figure out what to do with the dangerous people.

That's not a power I'm willing to hold.


--
Map Your Thoughts
Freedom of speech as long as I agree? (4.25 / 4) (#73)
by xtremex on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 03:15:07 PM EST

I believe in freedom of speech no matter WHAT the speech is. I believe the Klan has much right to rally as the Zionists. The minute you take freedom away those you don't agree with, who's to stop them from taking away YOUR freedom of speech if they don't agree with you. You have to take another look at it. If the subject matter were THAT repulsive, then NOBODY would buy the game, but last I heard, the game was selling rather well. Morbid curiosity? Who knows. It's things like this that tests us if we REALLY believe in the freedoms we have. If you're against this, then you're a hypocrite. You have every right to hate these people. But they have the SAME freedoms you do. Thank God we have the freedom to say our mind, otherwise you wouldn't be talking at all. I doubt the game company believes YOU have the right to criticize them. You thinking they shouldn't be allowed to produce their game is just silly. DON'T BUY IT. You have that freedom.

Slippery slope... (4.00 / 1) (#84)
by revscat on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 04:01:42 PM EST

I don't really think you are as absolutist as you may think. Consider for a moment that there are already laws on the books that are restrictions on speech, and that are wholly reasonable. The cliched "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is against the law, even though that is a prior restraint upon free speech. Slander is similarly prohibited. These have been on the books almost since the country was founded, and yet we still have one of the most robust marketplaces of ideas in the world.

Sometimes laws erode our freedoms unnecessarily and to our collective detriment. But sometimes laws can lead to a better society in which to live in.




- Rev.
Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper.
[ Parent ]
Common misunderstanding (5.00 / 2) (#92)
by Rand Race on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 04:37:20 PM EST

There is no law that states one can not yell fire in a crowded theatre. There is a Supreme Court ruling written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States (1919) that states "But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. ... The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. ... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

In effect: You can say what you will, but you are responsible for the effects of your speach. Falsely yelling fire! in a crowded theatre will get you charged with disturbing the peace, or public endangerment, or inciting a riot, or even manslaughter, but your right to yell fire is not violated (in case there is a real fire or if you are an actor in the movie with the line 'fire!').

This raises the question of wether or not this game is "of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." But even that must be shown, which means the game must be initialy allowed or it would be a prior restraint of free speach which has been found to be unconstitutional over and over again. And I doubt any "clear and present danger" could be shown for this game, and a good thing too; think how many games put you in the place of committing crimes, and if this is an incitement to racial violence then Quake is an incitement to mass carnage and GTA is an incitement to... well, GTA.


"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

This game sounds sick sick sick (2.00 / 4) (#78)
by CrazyJub on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 03:37:53 PM EST

Let me start by saying this game is a horrible example of racism at it's worst. That being said, where can I download this? :-)

Cause of violence? (4.20 / 5) (#82)
by Clanwolfer on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 03:56:00 PM EST

'Mein Kampf' spread Hitler's ideas far and wide. Ban books.

Al-Qaida uses videos to distribute training and propaganda. Ban VCRs.

This game panders to stereotypes and mindless violence. Ban video games.

I think I've made my point. Video games are a medium, just as much as any other form of entertainment, and can spread any message. Don't propagate a backlash against the medium; if you're going to lash out, lash out at the people who spread the message.


--"I'm simply not going to take it any more."

Why this kind of stuff should not be banned (4.50 / 4) (#83)
by X-Nc on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 04:00:55 PM EST

I think the game and the whole issue are both "bad" and "evil" and the underlying ideoligy should be killed. However, if you ban it and outlaw it then it moves underground. This makes it much harder to fight. It is very importent to make sure that these ideas are aired and rationally counterted if we are ever to be able to kill them.

--
Aaahhhh!!!! My K5 subscription expired. Now I can't spell anymore.
Not really (4.88 / 9) (#85)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 04:17:23 PM EST

Proponents of the "slippery slope" argument need to put forward a realistic harm that could come about as a result of banning incitement to racial hatred.

I apologize if I am being US-centric.. but I live in the United States and I don't take my freedom of speech for granted. It is the right I feel most strongly about, and it's no accident that it is #1 in the US bill of rights. I understand that European countries have a much different view on the matter, especially in regards to spreading racist filth such as this game.. but here in the US, I would be genuinely afraid for my rights if authorities moved to ban this or any video game.

Your answer, is that in the US it should be backwards. Slippery-slope proponents have no need to prove that banning this game is harmful - the people who want it banned have an obligation to show us why this, as opposed to many other forms of speech, should be banned. I am not European and I don't pretend to know the culture, so my view on whether European countries are right to ban racist material is irrelevant.

There's nothing wrong with being enraged by this game.. I'd be worried if someone wasn't bothered by it. But content is simply not a valid criteria to use when banning speech.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.

Okay. (3.33 / 3) (#94)
by ghjm on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 05:35:13 PM EST

So go write and release a video game in which you plan and execute a realistic attempt to kill the President. See how far the First Amendment gets you with that one.

-Graham

[ Parent ]
Well it won't get you to the Supreme Court (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 06:29:49 PM EST

I don't see your point. Are you from the US? Are you even remotely familiar with the Supreme Court's history of rulings? If there's one thing you can be sure of, it's that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of free speech.

What would the charge even be? Let's say conspiracy.. If you were to be charged with conspiracy for making a video game simulation, the US attorney would get laughed out of district court. It wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

You wouldn't get convicted of anything (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by KilljoyAZ on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 07:38:14 PM EST

but you would probably get more attention from the feds than Joe Citizen, in case you were planning on actually doing something along those lines. It's legal AFAIK (IANAL, YHBT and other various acronyms), but probably not a good idea.

===
Creativitiy cannot be SPELT by over 98% of all American troops. - psychologist
[ Parent ]
Different ... (none / 0) (#122)
by karb on Thu Mar 28, 2002 at 10:48:53 PM EST

Some speech-acts, by definition, are crimes. In the U.S., as well as elsewhere. Inciting a riot and making terroristic threats are two purely speech-related crimes. In addition, any number of speech acts could also be considered crime ( "I'll pay you to kill him", etc. ) Considering these to be crimes is not equivalent to curbing free speech.

Regardless, such a game would be extremely unlikely to get you thrown in jail, although several visits by the Secret Service would probably be forthcoming. They would no doubt ask you to stop (you are making their job harder, duh) but have little legal recourse to actually make you cease.
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?
[ Parent ]

I'll agree (none / 0) (#115)
by shrike7 on Thu Mar 28, 2002 at 08:14:56 AM EST

that this shouldn't be banned. But what, other than content, is criteria for banning speech? And there are some forms of speech most people agree should be banned (specific incitements to violence, for example.)
CXVI
[ Parent ]
Criteria (5.00 / 1) (#119)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Mar 28, 2002 at 02:44:49 PM EST

Well in the US... Specific types of speech are banned. These include obscenity, libel, specific incitements as you mentioned, and the ubiquitous "yelling fire in a theater". I'm sure there are others, but it's really a short list of specific types of speech with immediate consequences.

Other than that, the government can regulate speech based on the forum but never based on content. For instance, let's say your town sets up an announcement board in the town center. They could allow residents to post announcements - however, when someone posts "Abortion kills babies" they cannot ban it based on content. They could restrict everyone to using the board only for announcements of events, but they must restrict everyone equally.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

the point (none / 0) (#123)
by shrike7 on Fri Mar 29, 2002 at 01:57:35 AM EST

I was making was that when the government does regulate your speech it really is generally based on the content of that speech. The examples you mentioned are certainly limited, but they are prosribed because of their content. And here in Canada, 'hate speech' is illegal. I don't think it should be, but it is. So the government will judge the content of the speech in question, and while the focus of the proscription varies from country to country, it does always exist.
CXVI
[ Parent ]
Comparison (4.25 / 12) (#86)
by Tatarigami on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 04:21:41 PM EST

Nazis: "Jews and blacks are running the country. They need to be suppressed. Play our game."

greenrd: "Nazis want to run the country. They need to be suppressed. Don't play the game."

Different causes, different speakers, same horrific message. Sorry greenrd, but so far the bad guys are ahead just on the fun factor. Where's your game?

And regarding the potential for far-right parties to be elected into power -- if they're democratically elected, don't they deserve to be in power? If their message appeals to that many people that strongly, shouldn't vox populi settle the issue?

idiot (3.50 / 2) (#91)
by Sunir on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 04:36:16 PM EST

You're not born a Nazi, you choose to be a Nazi. Suppressing ideas is not the same as suppressing races.

"Look! You're free! Go, and be free!" and everyone hated it for that. --r
[ Parent ]

Fool (4.25 / 4) (#95)
by Tatarigami on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 05:39:42 PM EST

Suppressing ideas is not the same as suppressing races.

Yes it is. The idea of race is the source of the whole argument. Do you seriously believe there's any significance between black and white, other than the amount of melanin in the skin cells? In your work, is it impossible to replace you with someone from a different ethnic group and the same training? Would anyone who didn't have a personal relationship with you even notice the change?

We may be born black, white or other, but we choose to get all hot under the collar over it.

And don't try to tell me there's a difference between suppressing an idea and suppressing the person who's thinking it.

[ Parent ]
Jerk. Moron. Loser. Wooorm. Baby. Woorm. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by snowlion on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 07:20:33 PM EST

Sorrry; Just suffered a flashback...

Haaaaaaallaleuia!


--
Map Your Thoughts
[ Parent ]
Democracy (4.20 / 5) (#93)
by ghjm on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 05:32:21 PM EST

Suppose you have a nation ethnically comprised of 80% Blues and 20% Greens. Most Blues have a bitter and entrenched ethnic hatred of the Greens. A Blue politician called Dolpha Lerhti campaigns for the highest office by promising that the Greens will be killed. "There just isn't enough food to go around. Every meal eaten by a Green means another dead Blue baby. The Greens must be stopped, for the sake of our children." Dolpha Lerhti wins the election with 58% of the popular vote. After gaining office, the plan is implemented. A million Greens are killed in the first year.

In your terms, because Dolpha Lerhti was democratically elected, he deserves to be in power. His message appeals to that many people that strongly, and the vox populi should settle the issue. Now that the election is over, the Greens should die; that is the will of the people.

What if Dolpha Lerhti campaigned with the promise that he would forcibly relocate the Greens to closed reservations or prison camps - but while in office, it turns out that he has actually been killing most of them in secret. Is this wrong because of the killing, or merely because he was not up front about it during the election campaign?

What it boils down to is that democracy is not, by itself, a sufficient recipe for a free nation. It must be combined with the rule of liberal laws ("liberal" in the original, not the U.S.-political sense of the term). There must be guarantees to certain basic rights and privileges, regardless of who has been elected. This is why instituting democracy in lawless nations generally fails to work: without the rule of law, democracy is just another form of tyrrany.

-Graham

[ Parent ]

There's a couple of fresh ideas for me (3.66 / 3) (#96)
by Tatarigami on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 05:44:27 PM EST

I admit, I hadn't considered those points. I suppose I was relying on people having a natural underlying sense of proportion which would keep the radicals from becoming more than a minority -- and yes, even as I say it I realise how that sounds.

I had a momentary lapse of cynicism.

:o)

[ Parent ]
I agree, and yet I don't... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by der on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 06:13:49 PM EST

There must be guarantees to certain basic rights and privileges, regardless of who has been elected.

I agree. Guarantees like 'politicians will not commit mass-murder in the name of ethnic cleansing' (ie the right to live), which would prevent your Nazi-era-Germany scenario.

I don't think there is or should be a guarantee to 'not have to be exposed to video games you may find offensive'. Who cares?



[ Parent ]
Right Idea, But Baclwards. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
by Xrtsys on Thu Mar 28, 2002 at 04:44:11 AM EST

Since you use the term rule of law, I assume then that you are familiar with at least the basics of political science. However, there is a slight error in your conclusions regarding this (and, I'm a nitpicker at heart, so I have to point stuff like this out). Lack of rule of law does not create a tyranny. Rather, tyrannies are usually bolstered by a very strong rule of law. Lack of rule of law creates an anarchical, vigilante-esque society, much like the one romanticized in Westerns. Without rule of law, there can be no government, tyranny or otherwise. Actually, America has benefitted (in the past - this is largely untrue in the present) from relative lack of rule of law compared to European nations. The idea that the government must be held accountable, and that it is our duty as citizens to rise up against any unjust form of government, is actually quite contrary to the concept of rule of law. And, if it had not originally been a nation of vast land and low population (every man is an island), this type of individual responsibility would never have taken hold. And, there is a trend to be noticed - as the US has grown more populous, the population has grown increasingly less individualistic (we now venerate extraverts, and eschew loners), and the government has begun to pass laws that intrude further and further into individual civil liberties. Rule of law in the US is stronger than it has ever been, and the populous has fewer rights than it has ever had. Not to say that I think rule of law is a bad thing - anarchy is certainly not an ideal state of existence - but there is a balance to be maintained.

[ Parent ]
Errr ... (none / 0) (#111)
by Xrtsys on Thu Mar 28, 2002 at 04:45:37 AM EST

I did put paragraph breaks into that post, I swear I did. Where's the edit function?

[ Parent ]
I disagree (none / 0) (#114)
by shrike7 on Thu Mar 28, 2002 at 08:09:19 AM EST

The point being made, I think, was that the government has to be subordinate to the laws as well. At any rate that's how I interpret the concept, with the law being enforced impartially against everyone in a state, including the agents in that state. With that in mind, I don't see that it's possible to say that dictatorships are places where the rule of law is strong, because they invariably flout their own laws to stay in power.
CXVI
[ Parent ]
Democracy (none / 0) (#117)
by DAHIJ on Thu Mar 28, 2002 at 10:41:05 AM EST

Democracy is belief in the capacity of human experience to generate the aims and methods by which further experience will grow in ordered richness.- Bob

[ Parent ]
voting public (none / 0) (#118)
by widoxm on Thu Mar 28, 2002 at 10:45:39 AM EST

And regarding the potential for far-right parties to be elected into power -- if they're democratically elected, don't they deserve to be in power? If their message appeals to that many people that strongly, shouldn't vox populi settle the issue?

No, because the vast majority of the voting public will not be intelligent, informed, globaly aware or long-sighted enough to vote sensibly.

[ Parent ]

It should not be banned (4.90 / 10) (#97)
by Sethamin on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 05:45:33 PM EST

The fundamental idea of a democracy is freedom; freedom to believe what you wish, express your views, and discuss them with others. It is also the freedom of information, which means that you can always consider all the facts yourself and make up your own mind.

If you really believe this is trash, then you should trust the public enough to decide this for themselves. If you don't trust the public to do that and want to "protect" them from trash like this, then you don't believe in pure freedom.

BTW, I am Jewish, but even filth like this cannot convince me to abandon the very fundamental idea of freedom. Always remember that freedom of information is key; having access to unfiltered, uninterpreted, first hand data and being able to decide for yourself is true freedom. Anything else and you are making value judgements for others.

A society should not be judged by its output of junk, but by what it thinks is significant. -Neil Postman

greenrd could you post a link to the download.. (4.50 / 2) (#98)
by RandomAction on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 05:52:01 PM EST

..site, I need to 'evaluate' the game before passing judgement.

post the link pleasseee.

censorship seems right... (5.00 / 9) (#101)
by aralin on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 06:43:57 PM EST

... when it supports your opinion. But obviously, there is always problem with it.

To paraphrase you: The far-left groups when you let them spread their material can easily get to be elected and deprive us of free speach as was proved in the eastern block.

So let's outlaw communist and social democratic parties as well? Hmmm you would most likely outlaw governments in 65% of europe.

Lets go further, the democratic bastards when left to spread their materials can easily get elected and then impose their imperialistic methods to get a cheap labour and through media control blind the masses and commit atroctities in the name of higher principles like democracy. (That's what you'd been taught growing in the eastern europe.)

You see, there is always an excuse for a censorship and it always seem 'right'.

United states killed in the name of democracy way more people than Hitler's germany during WW2 in the name of their own ideals. Some died by very bad deaths including the one and half million of Iraqi childern whos death by hunger is 'worth the price'.

CENSORSHIP IS BAD. Repeat it every day before you go to sleep. Does not matter which opinions you censor, you limit your vision. I still believe that people are inherntly good and they won't commit crimes unless blindfolded with propaganda and censorship. CENSORSHIP IS BAD!

And BTW is 'Mein Kampf' wouldn't be censored, you would find out that Hitler's opinions about basic education were actually way better than anything implemented within US. But you are not allowed to make your own opinion. You are just fed one part of the story. THIS MAKES YOU DANGEROUS.

I agree (4.50 / 2) (#106)
by darthaya on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 08:11:38 PM EST

Sense should be *taught* not *forced*.

Censorship is as bad as the Neo-Nazism.



[ Parent ]
Link to game site (5.00 / 3) (#107)
by iwnbap on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 08:24:35 PM EST

Here

Curiously, I know "resistance" as a left wing radical youth group.



Racists are funny, in a sad sort of way. (3.00 / 4) (#108)
by RegisteredJustForThisComment on Wed Mar 27, 2002 at 11:42:36 PM EST

Reading through their FAQ is like reading Geekizoid: you laugh, but not for the reasons they want you to. You're not laughing with them, you're laughing at them. They think they're pure comedic geniuses, when really you're just laughing at how pathetic they are.

Selected bits:

Q.)When I click "Launch Game" from the first menu, a window pops up and says it is missing some file.
A.)You are probably using a very old version of Windows 95 or 98. Write down the name of the file you need, and either look for it on the internet, or email me at thoughtcriminal@europe.com and I will send you the file.

Q.)The game won't run at all.
A.)Did you install to a different directory than "C:\ec"? The game will NOT run if you did. (This notice is also clearly printed in the game booklet.)

Q.)Why do the "corpses" of dead subhumans fall through walls?
A.)Because.

Q.)I've fallen through walls before and ended up "outside" of the game...Why?
A.)I don't know.

Q.)Why do I hit a black wall when I try to go down the subway tunnel?
A.)Because subway tunnels are very long things, and making an entire subway map for the sake of "realism" would have meant an awful lot of wasted processor speed and memory.

Q.)Why do you advertise "Realistic Negro Sounds" and then only have monkey and ape sounds?
A.)Because it's funny.

Q.)How does that crazy Hasidic Jew follow me all through the game in level 2 if I don't kill him?
A.)You should have killed him.

Oh, Mr. ThoughtCriminal@Europe.Com, you are such a tease! You make me giggle like a schoolgirl! Stop, you're killing me!

[ Parent ]

why, (5.00 / 2) (#120)
by auraslip on Thu Mar 28, 2002 at 05:57:19 PM EST

would I not feel bad for pirating this game?

I wonder......
124
Ethnic Cleansing - The Video Game | 124 comments (108 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!