[ SECRET POST #3659 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3659 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 32 secrets from Secret Submission Post #523.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: I'm fine with censoring video games for violence

[ketita]

I actually disagree. I think there is a real human need for entertainment and media. I think it's important. It's one of the ways that humans shape the way they view and interact with the world around them, pass on cultural messages, process ideas, etc.
And it's exactly for that reason that I don't think media should be a free-for-all. People are fine with the FDA regulating substances that enter the body, but nobody seems remotely willing to apply critical thought to the things that enter their mind.

I'm not talking about some kind of sweeping Morality Police to censor all games ever, or that everything has to be My Little Pony dress-up. But I think a look at what is being desired and what is being rewarded is legitimate.
And I definitely don't think that people wanting something is necessarily a justification for anything. People want lots of things. People want to drive through red lights.

Re: I'm fine with censoring video games for violence

[thewakokid]

I see what you mean about media being an important part of human cultural development but I don't think there's any specific type of content that is needed. I mean, if you compare the range of "media" humans have used to develop their culture and you go from cave paintings of mammoths to virtual reality games about driving trains. We need something to entertain us and capture our imaginations but it doesn't need to be any one specific thing. And it doesn't need to not be any one specific thing.

I'm fine with the governing bodies advising people what could be harmful for their body but when they say "you can't have that", that's where I disagree. People smoke, people eat fatty carcinogenic foods, people drink alcohol, and as long they know the risks that's absolutely fine by me. I'm fine with games being rated to tell them what's in it and what to expect but telling people "no, you can't have this thing" is some controlling bullshit.

I think a look at what is being desired and what is being rewarded is legitimate.

You're not talking about taking a look at anything. We have a ratings system to "take a look" at what's being dished out in games. Your original comment was that you think it should be censored.

I'm fine with taking a look at games, I'm fine with classifying games, I'm fine with warning people about what's in games, but the second you draw a line and say you can't have what's in this game that's where we stop looking and start imposing our will on other people.

People want lots of things. People want to drive through red lights.

Of course people want lots of things. It's human nature to want lots of things and if you can get what you want without hurting anyone else, then it's your absolute right to be able to have that. Driving through red lights I can prove causes harm to people. Wanting a bit of violence in your entertainment has been repeatedly proven to harm no one.

And one more point, you think violence in video games should be censored? What about films? What about TV shows? What about books? I read The Three Musketeers recently. Classic literature, right? Some cold-blooded murder in that done by the heroic characters. Are we gonna have to go back through and "take a look" at all entertainment throughout history for objectionable things? Cause those mammoth cave painting I mentioned don't always end happily for the mammoth.

Re: I'm fine with censoring video games for violence

[ketita]

I appreciate your comment. And in many ways, I do actually agree with you - while I don't personally care if some video game has some blood edited out and I don't think it's a big deal one way or another, I also think embarking on a widespread censorship program would end badly. It always does.

Happily, since this is F!S and the point of the thread was to post controversial opinions, not detail the way in which I would implement a system enforcing these opinions, I don't really have to argue further.

I agree that in many ways, the current system of rating is enough. Though I would also wonder if it wouldn't be nice to have... less violent versions of some of the games offered. Like a "50% less blood and gore" setting, haha. Obviously this wouldn't work with every title, though.

Oh man, I have a whole speech about classical literature and art and artistic integrity and whatnot but I also have to do readings for school :X so I'll have to forego it for now.

In short, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ controversial unpopular opinion was controversial and unpopular.

Re: I'm fine with censoring video games for violence

[thewakokid]

Yeah, I'm happy to agree to differ on the points where we do differ.

Believe it or not, the comment up there is my reigning in my opinions on this to keep it brief. I could go on and on.

It is slightly refreshing to have an actual controversial opinion. Usually we don't usually get real controversy.