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]
The St. Louis Decision: A Call to Arms

By jayhawk88 in Op-Ed
Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 03:13:20 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

This past week, Senior U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh ruled on the constitutionality of a St. Louis county ordinance designed to regulate the access minors have to violent or mature-themed video games in arcades and on home systems. In his ruling, which found in favor of the county, the judge also found that video games are not protected forms of speech, saying that video games offer "no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech. The court finds that video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures." Read on to find out why the idea that video games are not free speech is disturbing to this gamer.


First off, I would like to make clear that I personally find no flaw in the St. Louis county ordinance restricting access to violent or mature games to minors. To me, this is no different than requiring age restrictions to view or purchase adult-themed movies, magazines, or books. Some may argue that because video games are so different from other media, and often times cannot be as easily classified, such restrictions walk a fine line between protection of minors and censorship. This idea is certainly worthy of further debate; however, I find the judges assertion that video games cannot be considered protected speech disturbing.

The concept of protect speech is an ever-changing definition, dependent on the latest court interpretations and ruling. Traditionally, however, courts have conferred protected speech status to nearly all forms of media, including the Internet, and other forms of expression. This right of protected speech in entertainment and media is important, of course, to ensure people have a right to express themselves as they see fit, and others have the right to enjoy that expression. As the ACLU web site quotes Justice John M. Harlan, "One man's vulgarity is another's lyric."

Thus, the decision by Judge Limbaugh that video games to not deserve the protection of free speech is disheartening. As an avid player of both computer and video games for well over 15 years, I find flaw in Judge Limbaugh's assertion that video games are more like "board games and sports" than movies. Obviously this assumption would hold true for some video games; simplistic game titles like Bejeweled and Collapse certainly have more in common with Monopoly than Memento. Even more complex, modern video games such as Quake 3 and Flight Simulator lack the traits one would associate with traditional forms of entertainment media, such as storylines, drama, plot, suspense, or humor.

Judging all movies based on Thirteen Ghosts, The Animal, Black Knight, and Coyote Ugly would obviously be a great disservice to the industry as a whole, and would not give the viewer any indication of what movies are truly capable of creating. Judging all video games based on four titles, as Judge Limbaugh did, is an equal disservice to all video games. Though we do not yet know what video games Judge Limbaugh reviewed in coming to his decision, I would be quite surprised if the titles represented the best of what video games can give us.

Whom among us that watched in horror when Aeris was struck down by Sephiroth can say that video games cannot convey a sense of tragedy and loss? How can anyone who has played through Half-Life or Dues Ex say that video games lack drama or suspense? Who can play a game such as Ultima 4 or Chrono Cross and not appreciate the epic storytelling taking place? Though it is true that many video games are all about a high score or mindless killing of enemies, the fact is that many also have a story to tell, and can offer the player more than just an afternoon of mindless entertainment. The fact that most movies, television shows, books, and magazines are content in offering a brand of mindless entertainment similar to what many video games offer seems lost on Judge Limbaugh.

Indeed, I see this ruling as part of a greater problem that video games continue to face, that of not being accepted as the new and powerful media that they are. Despite all the progress made over the past 15-20 years, despite all the advances in quality and increases in popularity games have enjoyed, it seems that many people (those in power especially) still just don't "get it". A lack of understanding of what video games are capable of, and what game players are truly about, is in my opinion the one major factor still holding back video games from wide mainstream acceptance. The St. Louis ordinance is hardly an isolated case, as video games have been on the defensive from other assaults for the past few years. It's time for gamers to take responsibility for the way our past-time is portrayed and perceived by others.

If you enjoy playing video games, and are passionate about the potential of video games in years to come, I urge you to start taking an active role in supporting video games. Your actions do not have to be earth shaking or headline making; I don't believe we need a "Million Gamer March" or anything similarly dramatic. Rather, simply take pride in your enjoyment of video games, and do whatever you can to let others know why you feel this way. Proudly answer "Yes" if someone asks if you play video games, and try to explain why you enjoy them. Invite non-gamer friends and family to play with you frequently. Do your best to show others that video games aren't just for kids or people with no other friends or lives. Show them that video games are a legitimate, exciting form of entertainment that should be embraced, rather than scorned or shunned.

Right now, I believe that we are on the cusp of a true Golden Age in gaming. Technology, combined with an every-increasing interest by the younger generation in gaming and game design, should serve as the foundation for what could become an unprecedented run of gaming popularity and quality in the years to come. It is important that we, as gamers, do everything we can to ensure the future of that which has given so much to us.

Sponsors

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

Login

Related Links
o not protected forms of speech
o including the Internet
o other forms of expression
o ACLU web site
o Bejeweled
o Collapse
o Quake 3
o Flight Simulator
o Thirteen Ghosts
o The Animal
o Black Knight
o Coyote Ugly
o truly
o capable
o of creating
o other
o assaults
o Also by jayhawk88


Display: Sort:
The St. Louis Decision: A Call to Arms | 35 comments (34 topical, 1 editorial, 0 hidden)
dungeons and dragons (none / 0) (#2)
by logiterr on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 12:07:59 PM EST

Maybe we should PG-13 our DMs.

Heh heh heh heh (4.62 / 8) (#3)
by wji on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 12:09:15 PM EST

Someone should make a video game that's blatantly defamtory of the good judge and see if he thinks it's "speech" then.

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
Yeah (4.50 / 4) (#4)
by trhurler on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 12:25:25 PM EST

Most video game plots are horrible, even without bad translation problems(melodrama is usually the culprit, though pure cheese factor can come into play also,) but I must agree that in a world with Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid 2, and similar games, the idea that games cannot convey ideas is absurd. That said, I find it hard to fault the judge; the people pushing a free speech defense should have found and presented those games as their evidence, and apparently they did not do so. You can't expect a judge to know everything.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Question of length (4.00 / 1) (#6)
by jayhawk88 on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 01:20:40 PM EST

It is somewhat disturbing that the defense didn't bring any games as evidence. As I said, I'd be very interested in finding out what games the judge played.

I also wonder about time involved in the judge playing these games. You can tell you've got something special 20 minutes into The Godfather, but a title like FF7 (and most other video games) takes quite a bit more time to really get into before you can really start to appreciate what's going on.

Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? -- John Ashcroft
[ Parent ]
what he played (none / 0) (#19)
by Andy P on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 06:17:39 PM EST

According to Penny-Arcade, he played:

"Mortal Combat"

"Fear Effect"

"DOOM"

"The Resident of Evil Creek"

For those who don't play games, it's "Resident Evil", not "The Resident of Evil Creek". That last one on the list isn't even a fricken game!

[ Parent ]

Is that really what he played (none / 0) (#20)
by jayhawk88 on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 06:35:32 PM EST

...or is that just Tycho spouting? Sometimes it's hard to tell.

Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? -- John Ashcroft
[ Parent ]
Games CAN convey ideas. Hear hear! (none / 0) (#8)
by jabber on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 01:47:23 PM EST

Anyone who says otherwise has never seen Ethnic Cleansing. It certainly conveys ideas. And it, like all other conduits of free expression, must be protected. Regardless of how displeasing that might be to any of us, or to Voltaire.

Many books, which are inarguably protected as 'speech', are as free of ideas as most games. The potential to serve as means of expression is both in books and in games.

Claiming that games should be protected as speech though, seems like getting on some ACLU bandwagon. They're cultural artifacts, IMO, more like paintings or works of art, as far as their ability to convey meanings and ideas. I see little the matter with restricting the access of minors to movies or art exhibits that are deemed (democratically ? ) as offensive or excessively violent. I do have a problem with such things being criminalized. Same for games.

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

Wait for the supremes (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by cameldrv on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 12:35:43 PM EST

District court judges do this kind of crap all the time. Constitutional law is not set by the district court. The case will be appealed and we will see what happens.

Wing Commander (4.33 / 3) (#7)
by blurp on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 01:23:02 PM EST

Some games really begin to blur the line between video game and movie. The later Wing Commander Games (IV and Prophecy) almost seem more movie than game.

However, this is why appeals exist. With code being accepted as a form of speech (see link here), I doubt that in the end computer games will not be.

I agree though that the county has the (legal) right to limit what its minors are exposed to, even though I disagree with all forms of censorship.

-blurp

keeping kids from buying (4.00 / 1) (#14)
by Altus on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 03:40:28 PM EST

violent games... I dont have a problem with that (other than the fact that they will get them anyway, so why bother)

my problem is with the wording of the decision. By saying that games cannot express ideas the flood gates have been opened to all kinds of censorship.

Thats what worries me


"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the money, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]
Re: Wing Commander (none / 0) (#23)
by ghjm on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 11:04:35 PM EST

The later Wing Commander Games (IV and Prophecy) almost seem more movie than game.

...which is why they sucked. At the time it came out, WC1 was the best full-immersion space combat simulator that had been ever released (though X-Wing would shortly challenge it for the title). Watching the movies was just a way of resting up between combat missions, and perhaps motivating the missions a little, so you felt there was a reason to be out there. The later WC series sacrificed gameplay - you spent way too long watching movies, and not nearly enough time playing.

When I feel like consuming some passive entertainment, I'd prefer to sit on my comfortable couch in front of my relatively large, low-resolution, best-viewed-from-a-distance television set. With surround sound and big speakers and TiVo and a remote control. And a beer.

The whole point of games is that they are different from movies. You don't watch them, you play them. You are doing something. You lean forwards, not backwards. They make you tired. After you finish gaming you might relax by watching TV. As a practical matter, you cannot go to an auditorium and play a video game with 200 other people - though if you could, it would be very, very cool. :-)

This is why it is such a mistake to allow the debate to be framed as "how similar or different are games from movies" - as if somehow movies are the ultimate example of protected speech!

Suppose you accept that video games "...have more in common with board games and sports than with motion pictures." How is this an argument invalidating their status as protected speech? The dangerous precedent here is not that video games are not protected speech. This decision also implies that sports and board games are not protected speech!

Are board games and sports not in some cases recognizable as art or at least speech? Does a framed copy of a Monopoly board not differ from the Mona Lisa only by degree? Does an Olympic sprinter not speak powerfully to us about the human spirit? Is ice dancing somehow less "speech" than ballroom dancing, because ice dancing has more of the characteristic of a sport?

For that matter, if sports and board games contain no worthwhile speech, but motion pictures do, how do you explain all the motion pictures that have been made about sports? There are even movies about board games: Clue, Searching for Bobby Fischer. And there are numerous movies about video games - Wing Commander, Star Wars :-)

Given two identical laws, prohibiting on aesthetic grounds the public performance of baseball and opera, this decision seems to imply that the baseball law is somehow more constitutionally acceptable. This just cannot be allowed - the ruling *has* to go down on appeal. Surely there's enough rationality left in the country that even the [adjective] judiciary we currently find on the bench has to realize that this thing is unsupportable.

-Graham

[ Parent ]

blah blah (2.75 / 4) (#9)
by Goatmaster on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 02:08:19 PM EST

No, the "Golden" age of gaming has come and past. Now all they are is fancy graphics with nearly zero fun factor. There's no real story in most games, and those that do have a bit of a storyline tend to have shallow plots and are highly predictable. I say grow up, games are for kiddies.


... and so the Goatmaster has spoken
Max Payne? (3.50 / 2) (#10)
by pietra on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 02:30:29 PM EST

No storyline? What, was I hallucinating?

[ Parent ]
Max Payne (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by shrike7 on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 03:43:30 PM EST

had the most excruciating plot I've ever seen in a video game. Its length just made it worse. And on top of that, it was staggeringly easy.
CXVI
[ Parent ]
Regarding Max Payne (none / 0) (#25)
by Eater on Sat Apr 27, 2002 at 02:26:45 AM EST

I have heard some people screaming about how great the storyline is, while others say that it's just an old recycled story filled with cheap metaphors to the point of annoyance. Really, I think that both these viewpoints are correct in a way. Max Payne's real plot, once you get down to it, is really pretty straightforward (warning: if you haven't played through Max Payne, spoilers follow, but they're not very interesting): good cop leads perfect life, his wife gets murdered, he goes out to seek revenge. It's really not that much. However, the thing that really makes Max Payne great is the way the story is told. And I don't mean really the in-game graphic novel, or the "dream/nightmare" levels, but the amount of emotion that's put into it. It's just like a book - you can find books with the most stupid and unoriginal plots, but characters that are well developed, with their emotions expressed with skill and beauty. In the end of course, it's still a matter of preference - if you don't like that sort of thing, you'll think that it's crap and will only see the shallow plot.

[ Parent ]
I will concede (none / 0) (#28)
by shrike7 on Sat Apr 27, 2002 at 04:05:20 PM EST

that the nightmare levels were well done. I just thought the writing for the graphic novel was ghastly. I thought the dialogue was trite, and the characters shallow. If you thought otherwise, fair enough. There's no disputing taste.
CXVI
[ Parent ]
intentional (none / 0) (#29)
by jayhawk88 on Sat Apr 27, 2002 at 05:13:02 PM EST

having not played it myself, I can't comment with certainty, but wasn't the cheesy dialog and such an intentional choice? It was my understanding that the developers were going for a "look" for lack of a better word, that of old noir detective works.

Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? -- John Ashcroft
[ Parent ]
If that's the case (none / 0) (#30)
by shrike7 on Sat Apr 27, 2002 at 05:17:32 PM EST

we have found an exception to my favourite rule about the arts: 'Noone sets out to make a bad movie/book/TV show/video game.'
CXVI
[ Parent ]
I had the same though. (4.00 / 1) (#11)
by Count Zero on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 03:08:29 PM EST

...video games offer "no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech. The court finds that video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures."

My first thought upon reading this yesterday (when I first learned of the decision) was "Obviously he didn't play any SquareSoft games."

Note that all is not lost with this decision though. The St. Louis law is based on an Indianapolis statute which was overturned once it got to federal appeals court.

Needless to say, as an Indianapolis resident, I will not be voting for Mayor Peterson's re-election, as he continues to harass arcade owners, despite the Supreme Court deciding not to hear the city government's appeal.




It's the parents! (4.50 / 4) (#12)
by guy on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 03:10:29 PM EST

Why is it that this society is so obsessed with removing all parental responsiblity?

Kids will always have access to violence. Why? because it's reality (what a concept!) and it won't go away. Legistlating against this form or that is futile. It's the responsiblity of a child's custodian to put this violence in context, help the child judge what's appropriate and channel frustration and aggression in a controlled manner.

If a child plays video games all day long, then shoots someone. It's not the game's fault. It's the parents' fault - they should be aware of what their offspring is up to, and make sure he interprets messages correctly and able to discern between wrong and right.

This type of legislation only serves to let parents off the hook and shift responsibility to anonymous companies where political correctness is not an issue and big payoffs are to be had.

A child addicted to video games to a point where they become his reality is a neglected child and his custodians should be held responsible.

You're barking up the wrong tree (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Lord of the Wasteland on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 05:34:07 PM EST

The ordinance that was upheld required parental consent before a child could rent, buy, or play certain games (those rated "M" by the ERSB, I believe). How is this "removing parental responsibility"?

[ Parent ]
I remember getting involved in certain illegal... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by SIGFPE on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 08:20:31 PM EST

...activities as a kid of about 11. To blame my parents would have been utterly ridiculous. They had done all they could to teach me various principles for how to lead my life - but I did my own thing. It was my choice. (Well, maybe if they had given me more pocket money...)

Come to think of it...I think there are many kids who would deliberately carry out illegal activities because their parents would be punished as a result. I find your final proposal is quite ludicrous.
SIGFPE
[ Parent ]

Ultima 7 was... (4.00 / 3) (#13)
by karjala on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 03:29:41 PM EST

Ultima 7 was packed with ideas. You could talk to different people and see the effects of globalized capitalism on the local economies, the destruction of the environment, the rise of racism, first-hand.

There were more ideas than I could get out of any book at the time.

So what about interactive movies? (4.00 / 1) (#16)
by mold on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 04:38:00 PM EST

Are interactive movies movies, and covered by free speech, or do they count as games?

---
Beware of peanuts! There's a 0.00001% peanut fatality rate in the USA alone! You could be next!
Judge Limbaugh . . . (4.00 / 1) (#17)
by rigorist on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 04:56:19 PM EST

also recently held that the federal junk fax statute was an unconstitutional abridgement of freedom of speech. Junk faxes GOOD! Video games BAD!

Not just ideas (4.00 / 1) (#22)
by strlen on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 10:38:23 PM EST

Why just make the argument on idea? Aren't the pictures in the games good enough itself? And why can't sports be (even though I despise most, if not all, team sports) expression in itself? You can certainly call banning a certain game from being broadcasted an example of "censorship". And why is there an urge to regulate human behaviour so much? In what way does the fact that I play a game in any way hurt another human being?

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
PA's Take (4.00 / 2) (#24)
by Malicose on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 11:45:34 PM EST

Tycho of Penny Arcade fame put it great in today's strip: "If games can't communicate ideas, then why does he care who buys them?"

Few people understand (3.00 / 1) (#26)
by Bnonn on Sat Apr 27, 2002 at 06:48:22 AM EST

    Do your best to show others that video games aren't just for kids or people with no other friends or lives. Show them that video games are a legitimate, exciting form of entertainment that should be embraced, rather than scorned or shunned.

This is the problem. I wear an authentic dogtag with my nick and clan (CHKNHD.nz) on it. The dogtags were used as a means of identification at a large lan our clan participated in, and I continue to wear mine because I think of it as a small symbol of who I am and what I enjoy.

Trying to explain to people what it is, and why I wear it, and what Bnonn means, and what CHKNHD.nz is...it's very difficult. You feel stupid, but only because you know there's every chance people simply won't understand that gaming isn't something only for kids and socially-dysfunctional geeks. Gaming is like going to the movies, going to the pub, playing a game of chess and playing a non-exertive sport all rolled into one. It's an extremely social and infinitely variable thing.

It's starting to catch on; one of the guys in our clan is not a geek in any sense of the word, but he's a great guy. Looking at him you'd expect he's a football player. When I met him I was surprised, because every other gamer I'd known until then was someone you could look at and be totally unsurprised they gamed. Even I had that automatic feeling that only nerds played games; a feeling propagated by the fact that the only gamers I knew were nerds--so it's going to take a while for the stigma to fade.

It's better than it was though. A lot of people at A3 (the lan with the dogtags) weren't nerdy guys at all. And there were a few girls, if not many. Once more girls start catching on that gaming doesn't have to make you a loser, things might start gathering a bit of momentum. Sadly, I suspect that it'll be another decade at least before judges and juries start to be game-savvy, let alone tech-savvy. Because of this it might be a while until we see some stupid laws being thrown out at their inception (although I believe the motion in question here still has to pass through a number of other courts before it's legalised. I'm not really an expert on the US judicial system).

Football player (none / 0) (#34)
by Vijil6 on Thu May 30, 2002 at 02:25:11 AM EST

Hehe. I've joined k5, fyi.

[ Parent ]
the medium vs the message (4.00 / 1) (#27)
by christfokkar on Sat Apr 27, 2002 at 01:46:02 PM EST

Does anybody see the more disturbing implication of this ruling, namely that code is not protected free speech? Or artwork, movies, or text?

What is a video game other than the sum of its parts?

I think someone should drop the Declaration of Independence, Birth of a Nation, the Mona Lisa, and some pages of an algorithms textbook onto a CD, link the presentation together with some code, and then give it to this judge.

Really. Since when did the medium have anything to do with speech? Shouting fire in a crowded theater has nothing to do with theaters.



blah blah blah (3.00 / 1) (#31)
by turmeric on Sat Apr 27, 2002 at 05:47:32 PM EST

the cusp of the videogame revolution? shit, you sound like the magazines i read back in 1992, or you sound like ken williams of Sierra back in 1989, or you sound like, well, uhm, they are games, and most of them have virtually nothing to say besides 'here is our retarded militaristic model of reality, have fun running around in it' the reason they are not accepted as a new and powerful medium is that they are really an elitist medium available to a very small percentage of the upper middle class population. the proper video cards, drivers, sound, etc, all cost thousands of dollars a year that will become obsolete soon and lose all their value. shitty investment. people who find half-life 'powerful' should realize that books are every bit as 'powerful' but that libraries still have trouble getting proper funding in this country. stupid movies that are not 'powerful' are the most popular. i mean, what do you want, respect from the academic establishment? video game studies programs at public universities? how about we get the women's studies program going first, seeing as how women have been around for a few million years and they are still not given enough respect.

touchy... (none / 0) (#33)
by Vijil6 on Thu May 30, 2002 at 02:23:08 AM EST

The simple fact is that video games are becoming more and more realistic, as well as becoming a more and more dynamic medium for the exchange of ideas.  Although saying "we are on the cusp of the gaming revolution" may be a bit over the top, the fact is that games and their employment is growing rapidly.  

I have done a Communications course at university involving intensive study of some computer games.  We do have courses in them.

Of course books are powerful.  Games, however, when properly made, are more so.  The player can have infinite control over an extremely deep plot.  

And about women not being given enough respect, if you had your way there wouldn't BE any guys.  Until that happens, many people will be totally convinced that women are not being given enough respect.  I'll admit some people are very sexist against women, but I get the distinct impression that the inverse is true, to a far greater extent.  It comes in the form of feminism.  Is that a racist label or what?

[ Parent ]

Gaming literacy (none / 0) (#32)
by Secret Coward on Sun Apr 28, 2002 at 02:40:05 AM EST

If video games are not speech, then it stands to reason that you can not commit slander or libel with them. Someone could create a game which portrays judge Limbaugh as a child molesting murderer who takes bribes in return for rulings. The player's job is to acquire enough evidence to prosecute him or bribe another judge to convict him. Presented with such a game, certainly judge Limbaugh would agree that the game conveys a message.

Video games provide a dynamic medium which can express ideas in ways that other mediums can not. Imagine a game where your job, is to start a grass-roots campaign to change the law. You speak with local residents, and see how the legislation effects them personally. You schedule meetings with residents and legislators. You create advertisements. As the game progresses, you watch as your advertisements change voter opinion, you watch as legislators slip your ideas into larger bills, you experience the political system. Such a game could say a great deal about our political system.

An entire class of games, edutainment, conveys knowledge in a manner that no other medium can match. No movie or book can teach you to type like a computer game. No song will teach you Spanish vocabulary like a computerized flash card game. A computer game could convey the complex intricacies of an economic system that no photograph could match.

What we have here, is a gaming illiterate judge. Much like someone who can not read will fail to see the message in a book, judge Limbaugh failed to see the message in a medium that he does not understand. Ironically, he agreed to censor games based entirely on the message they convey.

Difficulties... (none / 0) (#35)
by Vijil6 on Thu May 30, 2002 at 02:42:17 AM EST

Being a gamer is hard at the best of times. It's a hobby, a passtime, and it inspires me theologically, philosophically and artistically. Like reading books, they do the same. One main difference is the level of sheer fun involved. Of course, as Bnonn has said, one feels stupid when telling others about ones interest in something so seemingly sadistic as computer games. I too wear a dog tag most of the time, which is, as Bnonn says, very difficult to explain. I suppose a good analogy is my faith. Conservative bigotted right wing fundamentalist Christianity (or any of the other labels you want to give it) is extremely difficult to explain to people. They simply can't get their heads around the various stereotypes surrounding people who happen to believe in something beyond the ordinary. Even on this site I see a tonne of people ardently claiming that I am a bigot. Do I hear a word starting with "hypocrite" coming into play? Ah well.

The St. Louis Decision: A Call to Arms | 35 comments (34 topical, 1 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!