AeternusDoleo t1_iwc6ggc wrote on November 14, 2022 at 3:45 PM

Interesting, but I am curious if this person understands the gravity of what he is trying to censor here. For it goes well beyond video games:

>Perhaps you—dear reader—are still not convinced. I ask you, then, to try this experiment at home. The experiment comes in two stages. Stage One: Take a photograph of someone you love and stab the eyes out. Are you hesitant to do it? Does it make you feel uneasy? Are you unwilling to stab out the eyes? Remember, it’s just a glossy piece of paper. If you can stab the eyes out, then you can move on to Stage Two: leave the maimed photograph in a place where your loved one will find it. When they find it, give them a lecture on the metaphysical status of images and why your actions didn’t mean anything because photographs lack moral status.

The first act is just the destruction of a photo. Not a big deal, you can print more. The second part is a statement, no longer part of a virtual environment, no longer part of just your own perception. It is a deliberate statement to others who will observe this.

By this argument, video game violence is more morally justified then watching a violent movie or even watching the news on TV. Because a video game remains local to your own perception. You choose the violence, if any, and aside from a multiplayer game (which face it, participants consent to the application of violence to themselves and others in), rather then to have it pushed upon you by the media you may only observe.

But would this professor call for the censorship of news and TV series? I rather doubt it.

misoramensenpai t1_iwccecr wrote on November 14, 2022 at 4:25 PM

Some of the examples used in the article, such as the RDR2 controversy, are in the realm of that "deliberate statement to others who will observe this." So I'm not sure what you say about it being better than films or media is always true.

Anyway. Problem with the article doesn't end with what you've pointed out, the problem also is that it's really superficial. 1. There's no real attempt to differentiate between the two levels of the proposed "experiment" (as you point out: private acts and nonprivate acts). 2. No attempt explain why the private acts, even the grossest ones, like playing Battle Raper, are actually immoral. 3 No differentiation between indulgent violence and violence designed to be uncomfortable (this applies to films etc as well). 4. No real attempt to discover if all video game violence is wrong on some level, or if it's just extreme examples that are wrong and that some forms of video game violence are justified. And 5. If it's the latter, why is this the case, and if it's the former, why does the author play smash bros and fantasy RPGs?

All in all, basically reads like an article someone wrote on the toilet lmao. So par for the course for this sub.