Recently there was a post on this, but I can't remember if the post addressed this question or not.
Targeting systems in M1 tanks operate like a video game (as well as other artillery). Given this, and our generations prone use of war-style video games (like my fav COD MW2), do you think such devices serve to dehumanize life of the targets? Blowing up real people would be like playing a video game.
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
Of course. The US military tried to build its own games around the turn of the century and they sucked. So I suspect, they got into bed with the major game manufacturers to build them. Hire a pro. It's what I would do.
We have a society which encourages simulated murder as entertainment.
Now wait a minute, I want to play video games where I kill people and blow things up. The market demands such games, therefore they are made.
bloomj31:Now wait a minute, I want to play video games where I kill people and blow things up.
Based on your posts, you have sociopathic tendencies.
bloomj31:The market demands such games, therefore they are made.
First, the market demands nothing. There is a market for such games. There is no such thing as a "the market".
Second, economics is a value free science. But that doesn't mean all choices are equal in purpose or effect.
Third, ethics matter, because while economics is value free, philosophy is not.
Not quite a video game.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
bloomj31: Now wait a minute, I want to play video games where I kill people and blow things up. The market demands such games, therefore they are made.
No one is arguing against you. I think you would find that a majority of users on this board enjoy military first person shooters and the like. He's addressing the relationship between the American military and the game industry (it does exist).
O my god, I do not have sociopathic tendencies.
You think I'm the only person who loves violent video games?
Maybe we're all sociopaths. Lol. Come on LS, lighten up.
LvMIenthusiast: No one is arguing against you. I think you would find that a majority of users on this board enjoy military first person shooters and the like. He's addressing the relationship between the American military and the game industry (it does exist).
Only because those are the games people want to play. I played the hell out of CoD4. Not because the military told me to, but because it was fun.
I enjoy the occasional Grand Theft Auto rampage.
Stranger: Not quite a video game.
I feel like that's a semi-decent movie. I enjoyed the trailer.
bloomj31:O my god, I do not have sociopathic tendencies.
Have you read your posts on moral relativism? Have you read your posts on murder and violence?
Good lord man, do you really think you have portrayed yourself as anything but an ethical nihilist?
liberty student: bloomj31:O my god, I do not have sociopathic tendencies. Have you read your posts on moral relativism? Have you read your posts on murder and violence? Good lord man, do you really think you have portrayed yourself as anything but an ethical nihilist?
So you think a sociopath is just a "moral nihilist" who's had a bad day?
It's more than that. Profile of a sociopath
At most, I fit two or three of these criteria. At most.
bloomj31:Not because the military told me to, but because it was fun.
You were marketed to. There is a reason why you play such games and other people do not. There is a reason why males play that game more than females. There is a reason why childless males play those games more than fathers. You're the target demographic.
bloomj31: It's more than that. Profile of a sociopath At most, I fit two or three of these criteria. At most.
Based on the persona you portray here, you hit 1 thru 6 pretty solid.
Not that a checklist means anything. I know what a sociopath is, I've been around them before. And your moral relativism and the things you write here (whether honest OR dishonest) smack of this. Wilderness picked up on it the other day when he posted the picture of Narcissus.
You're not the first one we have had here, and you won't be the last.
liberty student: You were marketed to. There is a reason why you play such games and other people do not. There is a reason why males play that game more than females. There is a reason why childless males play those games more than fathers. You're the target demographic.
The games appealed to me when I was a kid, they appeal to me now. No one told me to play them, I just did.
They're a great way to do things I can't do IRL.
liberty student: Based on the persona you portray here, you hit 1 thru 6 pretty solid. Not that a checklist means anything. I know what a sociopath is, I've been around them before. And your moral relativism and the things you write here (whether honest OR dishonest) smack of this. Wilderness picked up on it the other day when he posted the picture of Narcissus. You're not the first one we have had here, and you won't be the last.
Alright well, if I'm a sociopath who just plays violent video games to satisfy a desire to harm others, explain to me why other people enjoy the same games I do?
Are they also sociopaths? Or have we all been brainwashed?
bloomj31:Alright well, if I'm a sociopath who just plays violent video games to satisfy a desire to harm others, explain to me why other people enjoy the same games I do?
Folks who have read your posts will know exactly what I am getting at. Your attempts (twice in this thread already) to hide in the crowd don't serve someone who seeks attention very well.
You're definitely not a fool, but you seem to underestimate that the rest of us can be fooled.
yes you do.
it's obvious
liberty student: Folks who have read your posts will know exactly what I am getting at. Your attempts (twice in this thread already) to hide in the crowd don't serve someone who seeks attention very well. You're definitely not a fool, but you seem to underestimate that the rest of us can be fooled.
Ok, fine, this is your forum, you're here with like-minded anti-war proponents, I don't expect anyone to take my point of view over yours.
However, The point I'm trying to make is that my behavior and/or desires are not some aberration or some incredible exception to the rule. I think MW2 has sold...a million copies by now? I don't know, probably more.
What you're trying to do here is rationalize away the existence of a very large market for violent video games by saying the desires have been inserted into people's minds by the military or something like that. My genuine desire to play such games therefore becomes a rare exception to the rule rather than the rule itself.
I personally think you just don't like what the market is telling you; namely that humans have at least a partially violent nature that can only be satiated through real or, in this case, imagined combat. I have said before that in times of peace, we make games of war. This is not a coincidence.
wilderness: yes you do. it's obvious
I don't expect you to think anything different, you're a huge anti-war advocate who's also really into objective ethics and objective morality. You're not going to think anything other than "sociopath" when reading my posts. But I'm being viewed through your lens, you're not an objective observer, you're biased. As are we all.
and you've said many times here before that you will only follow rules if they are enforced. you will do nothing unless somebody forces you to stop or go. red light... green light... repeat.
wilderness: and you've said many times here before that you will only follow rules if they are enforced. you will do nothing unless somebody forces you to stop or go. red light... green light... repeat.
That's right, because otherwise, it's not a rule. It's a guideline.
might makes right
totalitarian books
can't control yourself
endless list of the kind of posts you have
bloomj31:Ok, fine, this is your forum
Ah yes, little Jacob being frozen out... You've had hundreds of opportunities to make your ethical case, and you have. Now you want to distance yourself from it, that's fine. But as I said, you might think people here are fools, but you would be underestimating them greatly.
bloomj31:you're here with like-minded anti-war proponents
I'm here with like minded peace proponents at an Institute that promotes peace and trade. The real question is, if that is the mission of LvMI, why are you here every day?
bloomj31:What you're trying to do here is rationalize away the existence of a very large market for violent video games by saying the desires have been inserted into people's minds by the military or something like that.
On the contrary, I just applied the marketing argument you posted in another thread today. It's your own ideas I am referring to.
bloomj31:I personally think you just don't like what the market is telling you
There is no "the market". How you can be here, and claim to be reading material, and still not understand that the market is not a zero sum game, an entity or a movement but a mechanism or pattern is beyond me.
bloomj31:namely that humans have at least a partially violent nature that can only be satiated through real or, in this case, imagined combat.
This is collectivism at it's best. It's a rejection of praxeology, reason and individualism. Again, why are you here if you don't hold any of those ideas in high esteem? Why do you not apply them if you do?
bloomj31: I have said before that in times of peace, we make games of war. This is not a coincidence.
This is simply assertion, something that would look good as a movie slogan. You've proven nothing, because America has not stopped being at war since Korea. On the contrary, when America is at war, the state seeks to create an endless supply of soldiers who are tabula rasa in the heart and mind. These games are excellent tools for that.
wilderness: right makes might totalitarian books can't control yourself endless list of the kind of posts you have
right makes might
Brilliant. I am done with Narcissus. This is what he wants. Attention. Every day, the "look at Jacob Bloom show, now playing on the Mises.org community"
bloomj31:I have said before that in times of peace, we make games of war.
yeah the Imperial Force is at peace!
even got bubba laughin'
liberty student:Brilliant. I am done with Narcissus. This is what he wants. Attention. Every day, the "look at Jacob Bloom show, now playing on the Mises.org community"
thank God somebody else sees this too!
good day sir
I'm not trying to distance myself from my ethical argument. I'm saying that you're labeling me in order to make what I'm saying appear marginal and/or indicative of a psychological disorder. You're doing this to invalidate my point of view.
The market may be a pattern or a whatever but it does illustrate its preferences by actively selecting certain products and actively deselecting others. That's why David Friedman's game doesn't sell and why MW2 and Fallout 3 sell huge; they reflect market preferences.
Does marketing play a huge role in the market? I think so. But I fail to see how or where the military is doing its advertising for these games. The games are advertised as fun diversions and distractions. Not as some way of exercising patriotism and/or nationalism.
Now, if you're going to tell me that the military is brainwashing people into playing violent games and that the market's preferences for said games is not authentic, why do you assume that any market preferences are authentic and not just a manifestation of brainwashing in some other way?
In other words, why do you always give the market credit except when it comes to selecting violent games?
liberty student: Brilliant. I am done with Narcissus. This is what he wants. Attention. Every day, the "look at Jacob Bloom show, now playing on the Mises.org community"
Alright, whatever. I need to go work out anyways.
Anyway, back to the original topic...Yes, I think the government knows what it's doing in making tanks feel like video games (the air force is even worse, from what I understand.) Given that people like the video games, and play them, most people have learned to turn off certain feelings when playing the games. The kid who plays one of these games isn't generally bloodthirsty (if he is, by the way, the game might be providing a necessary outlet - otherwise he might become a criminal, or even a cop), but, on the contrary, knows it isn't real. But then what happens when you put him in front of a comptuer with the precise feel of a video game and have him bombing real cities? He's used to the format, and it's easier for him to adjust.
Now, why are the games popular? I think it's hard to deny that going back a few thousand years, people survived who behaved a certain way, so it's not surprising that pleasure centers are activated by that kind of behavior. Our society has found ways to stimulate that center without killing anyone, and that's a good thing. On the other hand, people can be trained to avoid such behaviors - it's called morality. It is, I think, an ethical duty to desist from such behavior, even if doing so puts you in danger yourself, else civilization cannot exist. Now we're finding "harmless" ways to stimulate that center - but maybe that stimulus isn't always enough, so yes, it's dangerous. But it's not that simple. We didn't train ourselves for thousands of years not to behave that way, then all of a sudden video games said it's ok. Rather, we have always believed in exceptions, we've always found ways to immorally indulge our desire to kill, saying for instance "Well, Roman society matters, but barbarians can be killed at will." The video games are a symptom. Has it become more marked recently? Absolutely.
Jeremiah Dyke:Targeting systems in M1 tanks operate like a video game (as well as other artillery). Given this, and our generations prone use of war-style video games (like my fav COD MW2), do you think such devices serve to dehumanize life of the targets? Blowing up real people would be like playing a video game.
Well there are games which actually have military advisers and the Army put out a game in which you go through basic training and all the schools. I forget the name. It will probably come to me though. I think that males are biologically susceptible to violent games. In every society, males undergo a journey to manhood that usually involves some kind of test in battle. We are prone to prove our worth and value by our abilities. That is why you get more 18 year olds in the army rather then 30 year olds. The older you become the less likely you are to join some form of militarized unit or engage in military like behavior. It is very strange because in a way we seek to find ourselves and yet the military seeks to destroy the individual ego.
Edit: The game is called "America's Army"
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man:Edit: The game is called "America's Army"
bloomj31: The market may be a pattern or a whatever but it does illustrate its preferences by actively selecting certain products and actively deselecting others. That's why David Friedman's game doesn't sell and why MW2 and Fallout 3 sell huge; they reflect market preferences. Does marketing play a huge role in the market? I think so. But I fail to see how or where the military is doing its advertising for these games. The games are advertised as fun diversions and distractions. Not as some way of exercising patriotism and/or nationalism. Now, if you're going to tell me that the military is brainwashing people into playing violent games and that the market's preferences for said games is not authentic, why do you assume that any market preferences are authentic and not just a manifestation of brainwashing in some other way? In other words, why do you always give the market credit except when it comes to selecting violent games?
Seconded.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Bloomj31:Does marketing play a huge role in the market? I think so. But I fail to see how or where the military is doing its advertising for these games. The games are advertised as fun diversions and distractions. Not as some way of exercising patriotism and/or nationalism.
laminustacitus:Seconded.
Snowflake: Laughing Man:Edit: The game is called "America's Army" It already came out. It was basically like counterstrike except instead of CT vs T both teams see the other as terrorists.
Wow, one game.
Not to mention the fact that people liked it. I never even heard of this game but apparently it got good marks from critics.
So the point still stands that there was a market for it. Is everyone who enjoys playing this game a sociopath like me?
bloomj31: Wow, one game.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/americas-army-cost-us-govt-USD33m
Woops!
filc: Bloomj31:Does marketing play a huge role in the market? I think so. But I fail to see how or where the military is doing its advertising for these games. The games are advertised as fun diversions and distractions. Not as some way of exercising patriotism and/or nationalism. laminustacitus:Seconded. Snowflake: Laughing Man:Edit: The game is called "America's Army" It already came out. It was basically like counterstrike except instead of CT vs T both teams see the other as terrorists. http://www.fastcompany.com/articles/2005/01/top-jobs-wardynski.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Army Woops!
America's army =/= Modern Warfare 2. Your point is absolutely pathetic. In order to prove me wrong, you have to prove that the United States military is a driving force behind most of the games like Counterstrike, Halo, Call of Duty, etc., one little-known game (I've never once heard of America's Army before even though I am pretty well-versed in the contemporary first-person shooters) will not.
filc: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/americas-army-cost-us-govt-USD33m Woops!
Yeah, one game, several iterations. Presumably because there's a market for it.
Seriously, I've been playing multiplayer FPS since Goldeneye on 64 and I honestly never heard of this game until now.
JAlanKatz:Yes, I think the government knows what it's doing in making tanks feel like video games (the air force is even worse, from what I understand.)
The reason that they feel like video games is due to the fact that it is depersonalized. Modern warfare, especially in NATO, relies on something very akin to an economy of scale due to their heavy use of capital, which separates the soldier from his target resulting in a depersonalization of warfare. Furthermore, the capital being used (e.g. tanks and aircrafts) require controls resulting in a very much video-gamized feel since the soldier is controlling the capital to kill indirectly.
Honestly, you need to prove that the military is designing weapons to feel like video games. As the old adage goes, correlation does not equal causation.