This isn't "censorship". This is a "business doing what it wants to do."
Rapelay virtual rape game banned by Amazon
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
This isn't "censorship". This is a "business doing what it wants to do."
Feeding your mind on horrid things, especially detestable things like rape- isn't good. It isn't healthy. And playing a "rape videogame" because you like rape but are worried about the consequences of rape... umm... how long will that last? If someone really wants to murder, how long do you think they'll settle for VG? It would be better to seek help for why they have this desires before they hurt someone...
I mean, people often don't care about animal abuse... nevermind that almost everyone who abuses, murders people starts by abusing animals.
Someone who finds rape fun, buys videogames of it... is really healthy and going to stick with that? Like watching sex on TV is so much better than the real thing? Haha! Right...
I mean, people often don't care about animal abuse... nevermind that almost everyone who abuses, murders people starts by abusing animals.
Someone who finds rape fun, buys videogames of it... is really healthy and going to stick with that? Like watching sex on TV is so much better than the real thing? Haha! Right...
Its self-censorship. Just another mark on the growing list of individuals and companies that make an about-face when confronted with accusations of "immorality". While voluntary, they are all essentially allowing more conservative elements to dictate what they can and cannot say and sell rather than facing the consequences of taking a stand.
You're right - since it is voluntary, it isn't really censorship. But it is damn close.
Just because someone plays a game like this doesn't mean they have any real desire to rape, just like a person who plays Grand Theft Auto probably doesn't have any desire to go on a murder spree. Banning the game or making it less available doesn't solve any problems whatsoever.
SSOOOO.. let me get this right, DECENTCY & COMMONSENCE...VARYS from person to person? SO a game about RAPEING innocent women...is NOT indecent?
Cue misskim with a comment about Islam in:
3...
2...
Decency is relative, yes. Common sense is often lacking. A game about raping someone, while perhaps indecent by your standards and those of most people, is nonetheless harmless fantasy in and of itself, and is protected under the first amendment.
If playing a rape game is your thing, go for it. Have fun. Jerk off. As long as you don't actually go out and rape someone, you're on the right side of the law. Even if you raped someone after playing the game, the people who made the game would not be at fault.
" Even if you raped someone after playing the game, the people who made the game would not be at fault."
This, of course, would be argued differently in a court of law, as we have seen people try to do with games like grand theft auto. I have no problems playing game slike Left4Dead, Gears of War, Halo, etc where the goal is to kill the enemy; a game like this offends me that someone would even think to make one. Good for Amazon.
This, of course, would be argued differently in a court of law, as we have seen people try to do with games like grand theft auto. I have no problems playing game slike Left4Dead, Gears of War, Halo, etc where the goal is to kill the enemy; a game like this offends me that someone would even think to make one. Good for Amazon.
So very true. If you counted all the people/aliens/monsters/etc I've killed over the years in various videogames the number would easily be in the hundreds of thousands if not millions, and yet I have absolutely no desire to kill anyone.
Murder and rape have been around since the beginning of human civilization and the people who commit these crimes are going to commit them irregardless of if they play a videogame featuring them.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
Such as? It sounds like the same thing to me, I guess, at least as far as visualizing an ally with some guy in a trenchcoat going, *psst!* "Hey, you wanna see something that'll make your toes curl?"
Well I'm offended that you're offended, and I condemn the fact that your closemindedness condemns them.
So, what do you do for a hobby? "Rape"I'm pretty sure most people do, but that isn't what we're talking about here.
I don't think anyone said that either.
Your neighbor is totally into it, you should leave the neighborhood now, before he rapes your dog and then your cat, saying, "I like a little pussy every now and then."
Yes, you should live in a constant state of fear. Anyone can be a cylon-I mean communist-I mean rape fantasizer (or whatever they're called). Of course the viewpoint doesn't make much sense to me, because you're basically saying you'd move because you found out your neighbors like to do some rough role playing, but you don't want the government to do anything about it.The thing is, and this is a constant joke about networks too, the "majority" of customers has nothing to do with self censorship of this kind. All it takes is one complaint about something and they would pull it. Sort of like how the school will cancel all Halloween parties because one kid's parents whined about it being Satan's holiday, and no amount of protest from any larger number of people will make them go back on that.
And some of us worry about how limiting those laws might be made.
Or so they and you think, but since no one even really knew about it, I doubt anything would've come from them continuing to sell it. After all, I don't see many people refusing to buy things from Amazon because they sell Caligula.
Again, you said something that doesn't make any sense. What I'm exercising is my right to free speech and my concern that some aspect of free speech may be limited because it involves a taboo subject.
That's what we on the internets refer to as backpedaling.
And I'm entitled to be concerned that he would be concerned what goes on in the privacy of his neighbor's brain.so I really don't know why you are making such a big deal out of such a small statement, he is entitled to find it concerning whether you like it or not
I guess where my concern would come in if this would apply to simulated stuff (i.e. role play of some kind), artwork, etc. or if it would only apply to the real deal, as in someone actually went out and raped and killed someone and took pictures of it. Because as cynical as I am towards humanity in general, I doubt much of that actually happens. Nothing I could find made a point of saying the murderer who was the poster child for the crusade to pass that legislation actually had any real rape/snuff porn or not, it simply says he had "violent" porn, which is pretty vague, really.
That was the impression I had, but I could be mistaken. It could be that's just what the mother was pushing for and she didn't get all of it. Keep in mind this is from a discussion I had on another board before the legislation had actually been passed.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
Yes, you should only feed it fruit and vegetables....
This statement tells me you lack a basic understanding of the difference between fantasy and reality.
Well, let's see, I play Halo, F.E.A.R., Call of Duty, and enjoy first person shooters in general. I also own a gun. I have yet to murder anyone or feel the need to murder anyone, so that kind of blows your point right out of the water. Watch now as its back is broken and it slips beneath the waves.
Yes, they should take the bridge to total freedom with Tom Cruise, since Scientology is the only real authority on the mind.
Yeah, those bastard hunters - murderers, all of them!
Rosy never says no, unless you want her to, then you can just show that uppity bitch and her five sisters who their daddy is.
"Decency", just like "morality", is indeed relative. And "common sense" is not common.
Maybe in the game they are bad women, and dress provocatively.SO a game about RAPEING innocent women...is NOT indecent?
All joking aside, it's a game, so I don't really care, other than that it's a form of media and I oppose censorship.Unfortunately in this country, yes, we do have people who try to sue the gun company because someone used their product to kill someone. I can only imagine it's a matter of time before Boeing is sued for 9/11. On a more positive note, Jack Thompson has been disbarred because the court system finally determined that he was full of shit.
So you're cool with murder simulators then? And besides, these womens' virginity is clearly the enemy in this game; I'm sure the mission objectives are to destroy the evil hymen and any resulting evil fetuses, lest they burst from their chest and grow at a rapid rate into a hideous monster that will kill us all, one by one.
Yes, damn those people for having fantasies and thoughts you don't like, damn them all to hell!
You can be as offended as you like. If you don't like the game, don't buy it. You have a right not to. What you don't have a right to do, however, is tell other people they can't make, buy, sell, or enjoy it.
NO.
This thread is fun to watch. 
What does "irregardless" mean?
Isn't it just a longer way of saying "regard"?
Isn't it just a longer way of saying "regard"?
So, just to recap for those playing at home...
Libertarians think that a private business like Amazon is wrong for pulling the game because they don't want their name associated with a game that glorifies rape and forced abortion. That's capitalism in action, so what's the problem?
People who defend the idea that just because you think about something that doesn't mean you're going to follow-through on it are jumping on Hoser's case for thinking that rape fantasies are wrong and being uneasy if his neighbor was basically stalking his wife, both things that never extended beyond his own thoughts and personal actions which would effect no one but himself (and his family) if true. They're saying that just because he personally thinks it's wrong that it's likely to lead to legislation even though Hoser suggested nothing of the sort. So thinking it does mean you're going to follow-through on it, then?
Is it Valentine's or Opposite Day?
Libertarians think that a private business like Amazon is wrong for pulling the game because they don't want their name associated with a game that glorifies rape and forced abortion. That's capitalism in action, so what's the problem?
People who defend the idea that just because you think about something that doesn't mean you're going to follow-through on it are jumping on Hoser's case for thinking that rape fantasies are wrong and being uneasy if his neighbor was basically stalking his wife, both things that never extended beyond his own thoughts and personal actions which would effect no one but himself (and his family) if true. They're saying that just because he personally thinks it's wrong that it's likely to lead to legislation even though Hoser suggested nothing of the sort. So thinking it does mean you're going to follow-through on it, then?
Is it Valentine's or Opposite Day?
I think they had a right to do as they did. That doesn't necessarily mean I think their decision was the right one, or made for the right reasons.
Yes, they were essentially extorted into doing it by a "moralistic crusader group", social busy bodies who want nothing more than crash the thought police down on anyone who doesn't think as they think that everyone should think.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
It's not so much that as a reaction to them pulling it and the pervading attitude in this thread, which is simply to reject the game like Jack Thompson would reject Grand Theft Auto or any other "murder simulators".
The point of contention there is the juxtaposition of a fantasy that in reality threatens no one with an obsession that has an actual potential to be harmful to his spouse. That and the strawman of that comparison, rather like others have brought up kiddie porn.
He suggested people, in a general sense, should be worried about someone having taboo sexual fantasies, so yeah, that kind of touched a nerve with me, especially since that kind of statement has been pretty standard issue for the kind of moral crusaders who pushed through laws like the one in the UK discussed earlier.
Touche. Though to be fair he didn't exactly articulate himself very well on the original point.
I'm a pretty open-minded guy when it comes to sexuality and pornography and the like, but if someone told me that they got off on rape fantasies, I would be repulsed by the idea. If that makes me judgmental, then so be it, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. It doesn't mean I think they're all going to commit rape, but I just don't understand what makes that appealing and can't separate the fantasy from the aftermath of rape in my mind.
I don't know if I can articulate the differences between rape-based fantasy games and murder-simulators in a non-hypocritical way, but it's just different to me. There's no more personal a violation than a rape in my eyes, and this game just seems to be setting out to be as offensive as humanly possible as a gimmick. Gimmicky shit doesn't usually appeal to me. While I have owned a couple of the GTA games, in general I'm not a big fan of games that set out to glorify murder as their entire reason for being either.
I don't think it should be banned by a government, but pressure or no pressure, I've got no problem whatsoever with Amazon pulling it from their site. If I had a business I wouldn't want it associated with that either. And if Wal-Mart wants to alter the lyrics or content of the DVDs and CDs they sell (with the permission of the artist and/or label and notification of the buyer), so be it. I have the choice to not purchase those items from them, which I exercise.
I'm sorry, but if you found out the next door neighbor had a bunch of secretly taken pictures of your wife hung up in his house, you wouldn't get creeped out by it and possibly consider moving? Just because not all fantasies are acted upon doesn't mean you shouldn't show some concern for the situation either.
Why is someone fantasizing about kiddie porn (and possibly not following through on those fantasies) a strawman argument in a topic about fantasizing about something equally illegal and forced upon someone else? Seems perfectly relevant to me.
Most sexual fantasies involve a willing partner. Rape fantasies, while possibly involving a willing partner pretending to be unwilling if taken to their fullest (legal) extent, are all about enjoying the act of forcing others or being forced against your will. It's about having total power over someone or having that power completely stripped away. The sexual part is secondary at best (since you can just as easily fantasize about a willing partner), you're getting off on power. It's a tad worrisome as a concept to me.
You are. But i think he really just meant that he is concerned for the wider implications that might have for somebody's character.
Although I would add that I wouldn't personally consider it to be overly troubling. I think it is actually a pretty widespread fantasy if the amount of pornograhy created to indulge it is anything to go by. General control fantasies even moreso.
Well it is all right there in the link I provided earlier, "violent porn" or "extreme images" as they are calling them specifically only refers to pornographic material that depicts activities that endanger the life of cause serious injury to the genitals which is fairly specific and certainly rules out anything like fantasy rape which results in neither of those things.
It also states that if it is clear to the viewer that it is simulated then it is exempt and I would think a disclaimer would be enough to facilitate that. And that if you can prove that no non consensual harm was caused it is also exempt.
If it were to catch some of the consensually made stuff like the really horrible shit that comes out of Japan I would consider that to be unacceptable though. It's all specualtion right now as the law only came into effect on the 26th though so it has not been tested in a court, so I will watch with interest to see what happens. I'm no lawyer, so how exactly this all applies is a bit of a mystery.
It certainly is an overreaction though. You are quite right that genuine snuff porn is virtually non-existent, in fact last time I checked into it there wasn't a single recorded case of murder or torture being filmed for entertainment (things like beheading videos don't count as they are not made to profit from entertainment), the snuff movie is effectively an urban myth.
This is what our government is all about though, they are the "shut the door after the horse has bolted" types. That is to say they make endless pieces of meaningless legislation that are purely designed to calm a hysterical section of our society that get up in arms everytime something offends their precious sensibilities. Like the woman you mentioned before who started this whole mess. You have the same section of society, but fortunately you have constitutional protections that we don't. Remember that distributing hardcore pornography that has not been passed by the BBFC is a criminal offense anyway, although not one you are going to be jailed for.
English teacher here
As for the topic at hand...it disgusts me, but then so doest GTA. Amazon has the right, as a business, not to sell it.