BruceVC

Okay I believe you, but that has nothing to do with the point that hookers can and should be removed from the GTA game design ?

I watched the final episode of Sons of Anarchy...wow it was evocative and poignant but a fitting end to this great series Its definitely one of my best series of all time

Yes the sanctions will continue as Russia is still interfering in Ukraine. This is the expected and necessary course of action from the West I'm not sure if a requirement for the sanctions to end is Russia giving back Crimea to the legitimate government in Ukraine, I cant see this happening so there may have to be some sort of compromise around this

Let's take away your right to vote. Nothing else change! You can do so much in the world, voting is only a very, very small portion of your life. It;s insignificant. So you can still live your life and do everything you want. That is basically your line of argument. When you want to forcefully remove something it's never "only this" it's "THIS!" always. So, basically hookers are the same as ANY low payed job in the world. I never, ever met a person who would enjoy their job and say "I really like my job, its fulfilling and rewarding ". Nobody who have a normal boring job says that! Only a very small percentage of people who have exciting job with good salary say those things. Majority never. I don't see how removing your right to vote is the same as removing hookers from the GTA game? I don't see the similarity ? No the job and expectation of what a hooker does is not the same as any other low paid job, unless you have sex with your office cleaners or with the local waitress at your local restaurant and you pay them? I am surprised you are even trying to compare the types of jobs ?

I'm not sure I'm explaining my point properly, I try through a series of questions. Do you think hookers are victims of abuse in RL? As someone who is not a prostitute myself, nor do I closely know anyone who is a prostitute, I don't feel I can adequately make that judgement. I would guess that some are, maybe even many or most, but, unlike SJWs, I don't like to speak for other people and make assumptions for them. I can make guesses, but that's the best I can do. Just because it's possible to kill someone in a game doesn't mean you have to do it. Beyond the first hour or so of me playing GTA 3, way back in the day, and experimenting with the game to see how far the game would let you go, more out of curiosity than anything else, I've generally tried to avoid killing civilians, going so far as to drive carefully to not run people over unless it's a time sensitive mission and I am forced to drive like a maniac, and I certainly don't target specific varieties of civilians. If I wanted to, I could go around and only kill Hispanic looking people. I don't, but I could, the game allows for that. Similarly, if the game included children I could specifically go around and kill children. I wouldn't, but I would not have a problem with the option being there. GTA, while satire, attempts to portray a somewhat realistic society, touch on real issues, and do it in at least a somewhat realistic manner (as opposed to something like Saints Row which is almost as far removed from realistic as possible), in an effort to make social commentary. If you want to portray a somewhat realistic society and make social commentary you need to portray all of it. You can't shy away from the squeamish stuff or the distasteful stuff. Squeamish stuff and distasteful stuff exists in real life, it affects real people and is a part of real issues. GTA is a game, a sandbox, that allows you to play in a variety of ways. If you want to play as a savage psychopath, you can. You can also try to play as someone who is trying to do good and stay out of trouble, but gets dragged into situations where they have no choice but to do horrible things. That is your choice as a player. I also believe, and I'm not a developer on the game, so this is purely speculation on my part, grain of salt and all that, that Rockstar tries in its games to relay some of the horrors of crime in its games and speak about the sacrifices (whether in loved ones or ones own sanity) people make when they descend down the dark path of crime. (In this sense, I think Sleeping Dogs did a much better job of conveying the horrors of crime and the inner conflict of the person having to do horrible things to survive and move up in the hierarchy). Killing children is terrible, but it happens in real life too. How you react to killing children in a game is up to you. Would some people revel in it? Potentially yes. It could also serve to horrify the player and make them despair over the horrible thing that happened because of the crimes they've committed. If children were in the game, as they are in real life, then whether you go out and kill children in the game is up to you and how you react to it is dependent upon you. It's your choice. I'm pro-choice. Firstly I'm sorry, I can't respond to every single person who disagrees with me on the point I made which was " after reading that article I think killing of hookers in GTA should be removed" I'll try respond to some people but I would be typing all day if I responded to everyone. I want to make some general comments before I respond to Keyrock So firstly you wouldn't be able to just make the hookers " un-killable " because it would make the overall gaming experience unrealistic. GTA prides itself on the fact you can kill every single person so in fact I am suggesting they remove hookers from GTA. Yes that means you wont be able to have sex with them but is that such a big deal from a gameplay perspective? I can hear people now "look at these SJW wanting to change everything " ...but no this is not one of those examples. There is nothing else I can think of that would ever warrant been removed from the GTA world. So you can still play the game and go a killing sprees...nothing else would change Now the argument, " but GTA is a crime game, hookers are a realistic part of that world". Yes that is correct but is it really realistic as we don't see male prostitutes or children that can be killed. So for some reason Rockstar only allows you to kill female hookers? Doesn't this seem weird to you if it was suppose to be realistic crime game world? Now the question " are Hookers victims " , this was the question I asked Keyrock This is a question that is nuanced and can be complex. I have known in my life and do know several people who are hookers\escorts. When you chat to them outside there work environment none of them have ever said to me "I really like my job, its fulfilling and rewarding " People become hookers for several reasons, sometimes they are direct victims of trafficking. Sometimes they are victims of pimps, sometime they are drug users. Mostly its for the money and survival. But I have never met a hooker who is happy with her work. And all of them are victims in some way of society, they do it to survive. They are victims of there profession The hotdog man is not a victim, he has a normal job and can really enjoy his job if he wants So that's the obvious difference between a hooker and most other jobs @ Keyrock I'm glad you explained what you meant by killable children. I always consider you a reasonable person and I though your almost strange indifference to wanting to kill children in a game was out of character. But you have explained your point and I now understand what you meant

have you been to china or the middle east or are your horror stories from the "news?" Though to be clear, living in a world without the US is not something I want, I don't know if your ignorant dismissal of the rest of the world is the way I'd go about expressing it. Yes I have travelled extensively through the ME for work, its not a bad place but its not a Democracy. And that's my point, most Westerners would not want to live under such political system

This is actually a very good point and by my logic gangbangers should also be considered victims of a social construct Yet I don't feel that sorry for them..is this is wrong and I don't want them removed from games. Am I discriminating against gangbangers? Probably...but I never said I was perfect, I think you guys need to accept that, I'm not perfect

He actually makes a compelling argument and raises some cogent points Did you read the whole article because he answers your question, see below where he explains the difference between killing a hooker and killing other people "What I personally find repulsive about this game is the pleasure it offers in portraying the savaging of a class of people who are already victims, in real life. This is where GTA 5 shows a lack of judgment. I take issue with the portrayal of sex workers being abused and murdered, because sex workers are already victims, and it's just not right to take your fun in abusing victims. I know a lot of people desperately want to believe that killing a prostitute in GTA 5 is the same as killing any other character, but it's really not. Unlike gangsters or cops or business dudes or hot dog vendors, prostitutes, as a class, are despised, marginalized and abused in real life, all the time. This means that GTA 5 takes its pleasure in humiliating and abusing victims of humiliation and abuse. In what kind of world is that not worthy of debate, above and beyond the ignorant cry of "if you don't like it, don't buy it"? " He is basically advocating for Rockstar to remove the killing of hookers as they are already victims and it makes sense to me after reading that article. Its not unreasonable The game in no way encourages you to kill prostitutes any more than it does any other civilian. The "pleasure" the game offers for killing prostitutes is in the mind of the specific players deriving pleasure from killing virtual hookers. The game in no way indicates or encourages deriving any more or less pleasure from killing hookers than any other type of civilians. Some people may get off on killing virtual hookers, others may get off on killing virtual businessmen. The game does nothing to make that distinction, it is purely in the mind of the specific individual playing the game. The game is a crime satire. Criminals do nasty things, including killing people, thus the game allows you to kill people, anybody. Hookers exist in real life, thus they exist in the game. You suggestion to remove hookers from the game would, by definition, be discrimination. Same thing if you made them invulnerable. You would be treating them differently or excluding them altogether based solely on their profession. You may not find discriminating against people based solely on their profession to be unreasonable, I do. He is not suggesting you can't kill people, he is simply saying its in bad taste to kill groups of people who are already victims of society For example why not allow children to be killed? Okay. I don't. Don't put words in my mouth. How many male prostitutes are there compared to female prostitutes? I don't have any numbers to fall back upon, but I'm guessing the percentage of male prostitutes is minuscule compared to female prostitutes. So, if GTA wanted to do a relatively realistic portrayal of the real world and there are, say 200 female prostitutes in the game, there might be 1 or 2 male prostitutes. Hardly seems like it's worth making a male prostitute model that you're only ever going to use once or twice and is an insignificant civilian character. It comes down to it not making sense for the budget. (As an aside, Saints Row has male prostitutes. Score one for Volition) As for children. I would personally like to see them in the game. I imagine Rockstar and Take Two didn't include them because they already get enough flak for other stuff in the game, which is a shame. Here is the ridiculous vicious circle of the SJWs. Can't have group a in this game, they're already victims in real life. Outrage! Can't have group b in this game, it reflects poorly on them. Outrage! Why aren't games including group a and group b? This is discrimination! Outrage! I'm not sure I'm explaining my point properly, I try through a series of questions. Do you think hookers are victims of abuse in RL? Also I don't think we will ever agree on this point because you are fine, and would even like to see, children that can be killed in games. That type of perspective is just foreign to me and its hard to debate something when you can't really get why anyone would want that ?

I have feeling you are one needing psychologist if you think that NPC in game is real person... You funny Of course I know a NPC is not a real person but the principle of killing someone in a game is still relevant. Many games do represent a form of symbolism and can tell a RL story. So we need to sometimes consider the RL impact a game may or may not have

He actually makes a compelling argument and raises some cogent points Did you read the whole article because he answers your question, see below where he explains the difference between killing a hooker and killing other people "What I personally find repulsive about this game is the pleasure it offers in portraying the savaging of a class of people who are already victims, in real life. This is where GTA 5 shows a lack of judgment. I take issue with the portrayal of sex workers being abused and murdered, because sex workers are already victims, and it's just not right to take your fun in abusing victims. I know a lot of people desperately want to believe that killing a prostitute in GTA 5 is the same as killing any other character, but it's really not. Unlike gangsters or cops or business dudes or hot dog vendors, prostitutes, as a class, are despised, marginalized and abused in real life, all the time. This means that GTA 5 takes its pleasure in humiliating and abusing victims of humiliation and abuse. In what kind of world is that not worthy of debate, above and beyond the ignorant cry of "if you don't like it, don't buy it"? " He is basically advocating for Rockstar to remove the killing of hookers as they are already victims and it makes sense to me after reading that article. Its not unreasonable The game in no way encourages you to kill prostitutes any more than it does any other civilian. The "pleasure" the game offers for killing prostitutes is in the mind of the specific players deriving pleasure from killing virtual hookers. The game in no way indicates or encourages deriving any more or less pleasure from killing hookers than any other type of civilians. Some people may get off on killing virtual hookers, others may get off on killing virtual businessmen. The game does nothing to make that distinction, it is purely in the mind of the specific individual playing the game. The game is a crime satire. Criminals do nasty things, including killing people, thus the game allows you to kill people, anybody. Hookers exist in real life, thus they exist in the game. You suggestion to remove hookers from the game would, by definition, be discrimination. Same thing if you made them invulnerable. You would be treating them differently or excluding them altogether based solely on their profession. You may not find discriminating against people based solely on their profession to be unreasonable, I do. He is not suggesting you can't kill people, he is simply saying its in bad taste to kill groups of people who are already victims of society For example why not allow children to be killed? Now most of us wouldn't be happy with that for a variety of reasons. So you have this automatic moral objection to the killing of children but not hookers? If in RL a hooker and hotdog stand person were watching someone playing GTA5 and they saw someone going on a killing spree I can guarantee you the hotdog guy would watch people killing someone in his profession and just laugh about it but the hooker wouldn't be as impressed because in RL she is subjected to that kind of treatment and abuse. The hotdog guy isn't a victim of his profession And if you believe this game represents a real crime reality then where are male prostitutes and children that you can kill? Hell I love the GTA series and I have been on killing sprees and killed only hookers. And this does not suggest I would ever do this in RL but after reading that article this is something Rockstar can change and should as it wont dilute your gaming experience and is the right thing to do But you agree this can be removed from the game without it really impacting your experience? That's his point Same can be sad about - i dont know - riding a bike. Are you advocating that if someone have complain about riding a bike it should be removed because you know - you can still drive in car so it doesnt have impact on your experience? Beside who will decide what will impact MY experience and what not? Questions, Questions... A bike is not a real person, hookers are real people who have real emotions and feelings and many of them are victims of horrendous abuse Also if you really like playing GTA5 just so you can kill hookers that should raise some psychological questions that should concern you

But you agree this can be removed from the game without it really impacting your experience? That's his point

He actually makes a compelling argument and raises some cogent points Did you read the whole article because he answers your question, see below where he explains the difference between killing a hooker and killing other people "What I personally find repulsive about this game is the pleasure it offers in portraying the savaging of a class of people who are already victims, in real life. This is where GTA 5 shows a lack of judgment. I take issue with the portrayal of sex workers being abused and murdered, because sex workers are already victims, and it's just not right to take your fun in abusing victims. I know a lot of people desperately want to believe that killing a prostitute in GTA 5 is the same as killing any other character, but it's really not. Unlike gangsters or cops or business dudes or hot dog vendors, prostitutes, as a class, are despised, marginalized and abused in real life, all the time. This means that GTA 5 takes its pleasure in humiliating and abusing victims of humiliation and abuse. In what kind of world is that not worthy of debate, above and beyond the ignorant cry of "if you don't like it, don't buy it"? " He is basically advocating for Rockstar to remove the killing of hookers as they are already victims and it makes sense to me after reading that article. Its not unreasonable

Okay so lets talk the possible future and what troubles you The Netherlands was complicit with the CIA so in the last 7 years since this type of interrogation was used what laws have changed in your country that is a direct result of what the Netherlands did with the CIA ? Here's something for you Bruce, if you weren't already aware: There are numerous laws in the U.S. that make what the CIA did illegal on many levels. Violations of multiple parts of the U.S. Constitution itself, violations of various laws specifically outlawing torture, violations of various laws limiting what the CIA is allowed to do, violation of various treaties the U.S. has signed (though I myself don't think we should have signed most if not all of them), violations of statutes requiring the proper informing of Congress/President/etc, and more. Enough to put the folks behind this behind bars for a long long time if they weren't above the law and we actually prosecuted (something that isn't going to happen anytime soon but should). Heck, some of what they've done is very arguably treason, which can carry the death penalty here. Even if one accepts for a moment (I do not, but for the of argument I will) that what the CIA did to the various people it detained was perfectly fine in a war time situation, the implications of allowing them to break all the laws they have and get away with it are huge. On an international scale, perhaps not so much (though I do think Rostere is generally right that things like this are used by some as an argument against republics/democracy/capitalism, because some in fact do), but internally the situation is ultimately dire for it's evidence the U.S. has fallen far from what it once was, has become something that most of the people who founded and ran this nation for the first 100+ years would have fought against, and ultimately all of this completely undermines law, order, justice, and the rights of the individual within the U.S.. Now, people who support what the CIA did of course generally do not see that dire on the horizon, or the evidence of it that's already manifested, or they don't care. These people are for the most part by and large pure evil, ignorant, or just plain stupid as they lack the ability to perceive cause and effect along with an appreciation of the basic sentiments of many of those around them. This is not a popular thing within the U.S. at all, and many of the people who have a problem with what the CIA has done and a number of other egregious assaults on what this nation was and is supposed to be (because this CIA torture thing is not the sole egregious assault, not even close sadly) are buying guns, ammo, and stockpiling resources, and that's no joke though I'm sure many here will brush off the various implications of that. It is not just your imagined tin foil hat wearing people, country bumkins, and doomsday prophets doing this. Many Average Joes, along with many of those in the military itself has been doing this for while now.... It's not going to be China, India, or anyone else that brings the day of reckoning home to the U.S as some this thread are thinking, it's going to be people within the U.S. itself. This is a very insightful post, you have created some doubt in my original perspective and that's rare I can at least empathize and understand more of why people are unhappy with the contents of the report

Okay so lets talk the possible future and what troubles you The Netherlands was complicit with the CIA so in the last 7 years since this type of interrogation was used what laws have changed in your country that is a direct result of what the Netherlands did with the CIA ?

That's exactly how I imagined your dogs would look, big and friendly

No Jaded I beg you don't get jaded about the future of Western Democracies, you know how sensitive you are and you will just unnecessarily upset yourself Please read what I am about to say. Of course in wartime there will be exceptions to what governments will normally do and what the average citizen thinks is acceptable. After 9/11 this happened but it was necessary and that is why certain governments agreed to house CIA black sites. Despite what many people on these forums will tell you the "War on Terror " is real but its more a war on Islamic fundamentalism and many countries have been victims of attacks by Islamic extremists. So when 9/11 occurred the level of concern about this type of terrorism was heightened to an unprecedented level..and it was perfectly justified due to the power and effectiveness of Al-Qaeda at the time The people who were subjected to this type of "torture " were people Khaled sheikh Mohammed, you know who he was right? One of the primary architects of 9/11, a man who personally planned and celebrated the deaths of thousands. And you expect me to feel sorry for him because he had water splashed on his face. No he gets no pity from me , So now you understand why many countries agreed to help the CIA. It doesn't reflect on the country or the government, it was a wartime decision and these things happen and will continue to happen because they are necessary at times. It not like your government is going now start waterboarding its own citizens. So don't read too much into this program and the tacit support Europe gave it

Aaaahh...how can anyone not like cats when you see pictures like this

You know what you're really good at Bruce? Empty statements. Empty statements that don't mean a damned. "She made good points." "This is a good post, everyone should read it." "Very good points!" "I'm impressed!" You never seem to address anything specific. Ever. Perhaps if you realize this, you would realize why I have such a difficult time believing or putting any value into a word you say. Because quite frankly, you can fully remove all of your posts from a discussion and the only thing that changes is there's a lot less "excellent post!" comments. So having said that, if you don't mind I would like to see an ACTUAL comment and point made; I would like to know why it doesn't absolutely infuriate you to realize that many of the most significant anti-GG proponents take offense to sex-positive women, sex-positive characters and sex-positive ideals, when as we all just saw, we have been given an example of a woman who is just that and - quite frankly - we all seem to be more or less in agreement that she has been one of the best speakers involved in the discussion of GamerGate thusfar. It's infuriating to me because as I said, it presents a message of "this is a person of extreme value, but let's discredit them ENTIRELY because cleavage." The very same philosophy is being provided to video games. Maybe you think video games are harmless and don't care if something like GTA V disappears off shelves because of this attitude....but what happens when it results in a speaker not being taken seriously, or not being heard out? That's just one of the reasons I support GG, and yet here you stand with an anti-GG stance acknowledging this brilliant woman, and yet you still stand in support of a side that would like her to shutup and put a shirt on, and would like any real women or games with sex-positive female characters to kindly go away or keep quiet. Why? We are clearly holding back our potential in game creation and our potential in meaningful discussion by doing so, so why do you turn a blind eye to it? Well the anti-GG side isn't some monolithic group that is united on all it views. So you would have people who would dismiss someone like Mercedes automatically and that's wrong but that's not justification to now distance myself from the criticism levelled towards GG. But I will say that GG really seems to evolving to a more acceptable social movement and that is good news Also I don't care if she has nice cleavage, I care about what she has to say when it comes to these types of debates . I also don't judge people on how they chose to earn money and that includes hookers, stripper and any other possibly morally questionable profession. I believe you shouldn't judge anyone until you have walked in there shoes.

The difference is GG is more of a political consideration than a moral one I imagine for an group like Able gamers, don't get me wrong its silly to refuse money from a group or people associated with GG. But this just highlights how polarizing it has become.

Oh god....brace yourselves everyone, I'm about to go off again. You know what is bitterly, BITTERLY ironic here Bruce? The very reason Mercedes acknowledged me and we had a brief chat (which ended in her welcoming me to message her on twitter, which I damned well might make a twitter account for), you know why it was...? Well you can hunt the Youtube comments on that vid yourself and just Cntrl + F and search for "Longknife," or if you're too lazy for that, I'll tell you: It's because I commented on how tragic I found it that she's so wonderfully capable, intelligent, charitable and charming, and yet I fear a large portion of the community will not bother to give her the time of day and listen to her because she's a porn star with her boobs out. I had never heard of Mercedes before this event, and I was pleasantly surprised to see the exact kind of person I love to hang out with and try to surround myself with. And sure enough she actually replied to me, as if there was some level of understanding when I expressed that concern. I also commented on my own personal theory that the very people who would argue a woman with her boobs out cannot be taken seriously are probably the very people who will NOT take her seriously, because I sure as hell "enjoy the view" and yet I enjoy her insights and her take on things even more. I might get in touch with her not out of some perverse desire to be like "OMG YEAH I CHATTING WITH A HOTTIE MAYBE I'LL SEE HER BOOBS" (which wtf I could google for), but because I'm genuinely interested in chatting with her, if she's open to it. Just because I like a woman who sexualizes herself does not mean I cannot appreciate other aspects of her, but this seems to be a part of the SJW argument (at least in regards to what we've heard from Polygon or Anita or the like) that sexualizing women is a problem. It dismisses sex-positive women as a problem and as something that sets women back, so I suspect those very same people would not give Mercedes the time of day or bother to hear her out. And here you are dismissing the interview, not acknowledging it or commenting on it, because she's a porn star and you "already watch enough porn." You wanna talk sexist? That statement was sexist. You basically just dismissed her interview as just an extension of porn and that it would add nothing to the debate or discussion or to the reasons you come here. And I can hear it now: "Gee Longknife I was just joking!" Yeah, the very same way you're not convinced Volourn isn't homophobic? I'm not convinced that's nothing more than an excuse, and that you don't WANT to watch the video, because the video displays THE most elegant speaker on the matter we've seen thusfar, and she just so happens to be a pro-GG Porn star with an Engineering degree who experienced absolutely zero sexism in her work with the sciences (amidst the community responsible for Shirtgate) and recently had her own charitable work denied because of her GG stance. But no, she has her boobs out, so what could she possibly add...? Please get off your soapbox for a second, I was just joking. I have just watched the video now and its excellent She is articulate, interesting, intelligent, attractive and she is into porn ...she is my ideal girlfriend actually I also like how committed she is to helping disabled gamers I find it problematic that so many charities refuse donations from porn stars. It must be disheartening to want to help organisations but they refuse your generosity because of a moral issue with your work...its like your money isn't good enough She raises some valid criticisms about the behaviour of pro and anti-GG people The one thing you guys won't like to hear though is her donation to Able gamers was refused because of her association to GG and her being an outspoken supporter, they wanted to remain GG neutral. So you could say that GG was responsible for the Able gamers not accepting her donation But once again I'm very impressed with her overall message and the way she makes her points

Okay I'll watch it

Okay its good to see you dismiss the view that you are homophobic, I'm not completely convinced because you seem to bring up the inclusivity part of Bioware's strategy fairly regularly as if its a big part of there game design when in fact you hardly notice it when playing there games unless you partake in it Also I haven't watched that porn star video because I watch enough porn as it is and I like to do other things when I visit these forums...unless you are referring to other videos?

I think I heard you slurping and moaning something like "braaaains!" If Volourn was a zombie he'd be like, "Why are these people not giving me their brains? It's nazi like and EVIL!" And BruceVC would go on a crusade against those oppressing masses that persecute and discriminate the poor zombie. You right to a certain degree. Us SJW try to not discriminate against any group but defending the rights of zombies might be a bit hard to justify

It sounds like Bioware's decision to be inclusive does actually bother you despite what you claim, remember Volo gay people are just like you and me..there is nothing to be scared or worried about. And yes Bioware has become an important player in the gaming space around inclusivity and are recognised as such by most. I respect them immensely for what they have done around appealing to the whole fanbase