I think racism is pretty cool.  Gives me something to do.

Who cares?

People are too fucking sensitive.  But lets look at things objectively...


I don't understand what you guys mean when you say black Africans.  As opposed to any other kind?  First of all, black is not an ethnicity.  Africa is a continent made up of 53 countries, each one with a unique breakdown of ethnicities.  

Secondly, there are many countries within Africa that are nearly all black.  If there's 1000 zombies in the game and there's one single white zombie, statistically that Zombie could over represent the white population depending where in Africa.  So if we follow PC logic,  if I find a single white Zombie should I be offended?  See the absurdity in this?

And since when do we care about this shit in the first place?  Game developers have never busted their balls to represent the true ethnicity of a given setting.  Usually Balck people are excluded.  Probably the only time ethnicity is ever close to being accurate is in games with a Japanese setting. 

And why stop with human beings?  What makes humans so special?  I demand an accurate representation of every species of animals in a given setting.  I guess a game would contain billions of animals.  Lets not forget vegetation. 

In fact ethnicity is impossible to define with 100% accuracy.  Just to be on the safe side we should use real individuals.  I want every atom to be accounted for.  I want every atom and entire Genome to be modeled and rendered in real-time.  If you miss something the game is offensive.  

But agent why are the main characters white?  Because this is a series and the main Characters have always been America/European.  Now fuck off.

Remember, only white people can be racist.  This is 100% fact and cannot be disputed.  This is why the law says that shooting white zombies is OK but you must get your panties in a wad if you shoot a black zombie.

Joe Redifer


Remember, only white people can be racist.

Whats sad is a vast majority of people really do believe that.

It's  not letting me quote Choulo, but Africa isn't a good place to live. Look at the White Genocide in South Africa by their democratically elected black man. I'm not getting onto this discussion, but do your own research. Sticking up for a country that has one of the most mineral rich continents on the earth, and whom is incapable of excelling off of it and actually making money, is just stupid. I have nothing else to say.

Why do black people always want what the white man create?
Lets teach these nigge...I mean blacks a lesson.

I think people are right to observe that the scene with the blonde shouldn't be blown out of proportion - trouble is, things get even stickier in chapter 3. I'm not going to say why, partly because Capcom has asked us not to spoil the plot, and partly because I'm still trying to work out how I feel about things. Turn a blind eye to the imagery I mention and this is a (surprisingly) good game - it would be a shame to see it mired in controversy.

Still, this stuff needs to be noted and discussed - not in order to get the game banned or censored (the BBFC has rated it 18 with no cuts, incidentally) but because we're adults, and dissecting prejudices rather than swallowing them unquestioningly is part of being adult.

There's a thin line between justifiable sensitivity to these issues and hand-wringing PC bullshit, as Agent points out. All the more need, then, for a little clarification and debate :)

/patronising git mode off

Ta for the plaudit, choupolo.

Well I'll admit that I haven't played the game or kept tabs on the contraversy but it would take a lot for me to categorize something as truly offensive. 

I'm an individualist.  I have a hard time understanding anyone who derives their self identity over physical markers.  I can't think of any single words that describes me as a human being.  If I were to try; "white", "Canadian", "male" or even "Atheist" would all be very far from my short list.

You could say that I have never been a victim of racial segregation, and you'd be right.  However, I refuse to believe that every racist has been victims of overt racism.  If a black person playing a game can be offended by how other black people are portrayed they can only be offended if they identify themselves with all black people.  They made that choice before the fictional character was even created.  This is group think.  This is the type of shit that starts wars. 

In this same token I consider racism to be the exact same type of behaviour as patriotism.  You might notice that very racist individuals are often the ones with big fucking flags hanging on their walls.  I feel fortunate to live in Canada for practical reasons but do I think this means I'm entitled to anything special, no.  I'm no more important that the staving kids in Africa. 

What people don't realize is that pride of any kind is essentially self segregation.  It's a natural survival tactic, but it is the basis of racism.   

If you want to be proud of anything, how about pride in being alive?  Not only are we alive but we're the most intelligent species in the known Universe.  Isn't that special enough?  The odds of each of us occurring is infinitely small.  In all of time and space each of us is completely unique. 

I feel a kinship with anyone who can appreciate this sentiment, at the same time I feel a kinship with no one.  

Here's a great article that are somewhat related:
http://www.reasonforliberty.com/random/freedom-of-speech-a-joke-or-tyranny.aspx


I just found this site and I'm loving it.

Agent, I think the idea of individualism is great. Regarding people's merits on a person to person basis without profiling or grouping them together under gender, race, or religious hats is a fantastic world view and one I ascribe to.

There is however a little problem with it. I can do it, you can do it, and yes in theory the rest of the world can do it too but problems arise when you make the assumption that they will do it. Remember kids, communism works great on paper but not always in practice. I live in the the heart of a metropolitan area with a lot of diversity. I went to school where I was the minority and I can tell you this, no matter how much you value yourself as a person and disconnect yourself from the groupthink, having someone actively prohibit you from doing something because of there prejudices in relation to your race or gender is infuriating.

In respect to the game and that scene in particular I am actually really glad its there. Even if it exists for no other reason that to bring about a controversy and arouse discussion on the inherent bigotry of the medium towards different ethnicities, demographics, and genders. We stand at the infancy of games as a storytelling medium and we are seeing the pulp novels of this new art form. This is, however, the modern world and as such brash tales of machismo aren't exactly the at the peak of interest for most people. If we aren't allowing ourselves to be offended by weak scripting and laughably achatypal characterization then how can we expect to receive anything else or have the medium progress?

I'm having a real lolwut moment here. What happened to the game being based in Haiti?

Hello watchmaker, always nice to see a new face :)

Good points in the last couple of posts. I'm also quite keen on the individualism thing, but I would say that "groupthink" as you guys put it isn't without its benefits - assessing people on a person-by-person basis might rid us of the conflicts which arise from the division of a populace into colour-coded blocks, true, but wouldn't you also lose any ground for, say, the banning of child labour or sexual harrassment, predicated as these measures are on the idea that we all share certain needs and characteristics?

If we aren't allowing ourselves to be offended by weak scripting and laughably achatypal characterization then how can we expect to receive anything else or have the medium progress?

Absolutely right. One of the more frequent responses to my and other peoples' articles on this subject has been "Oh, but you didn't criticise Game XYZ for racism, you're guilty of double standards." My retort is: fine, let's have a look at Game XYZ. Let's take advantage of all the buzz over this particular title to discuss prejudice in games in general.

mastachefbkw


I'm having a real lolwut moment here. What happened to the game being based in Haiti?

I know right??
I was way more excited when it was first said that the game setting would be in Haiti..  But once that changed to Africa I became a little disappointed.

Edwin


I think people are right to observe that the scene with the blonde shouldn't be blown out of proportion - trouble is, things get even stickier in chapter 3. I'm not going to say why, partly because Capcom has asked us not to spoil the plot, and partly because I'm still trying to work out how I feel about things. Turn a blind eye to the imagery I mention and this is a (surprisingly) good game - it would be a shame to see it mired in controversy.

Still, this stuff needs to be noted and discussed - not in order to get the game banned or censored (the BBFC has rated it 18 with no cuts, incidentally) but because we're adults, and dissecting prejudices rather than swallowing them unquestioningly is part of being adult.

There's a thin line between justifiable sensitivity to these issues and hand-wringing PC bullshit, as Agent points out. All the more need, then, for a little clarification and debate :)

/patronising git mode off

Ta for the plaudit, choupolo.

Capcom didn't say that you couldn't spoil the plot via private messages did they?
I NEED to be spoiled.

What's up Watchmaker? Welcome to Kikizo.

We're your crazy ex-girlfriend of a videogame forum. If you leave us, Edwin will be rooting through your trash at three in the morning with a pair of your discarded underthings in between his teeth.

...Just warning you.

but wouldn't you also lose any ground for, say, the banning of child labour or sexual harrassment, predicated as these measures are on the idea that we all share certain needs and characteristics?

Well if we're going to talk about individualism we can't do it without talking about Ayn Rand.  It's funny because Dan mentioned her not too long ago.  Watchmen hinted at this (MassX?).  Ayn Rand lived during the Soviet scare.  She had a fist hand accounts of what communism can do.  This obviously shaped her views on individualism.  Reading her stuff in College crystallized many thoughts I've had for a long time.  Especially recently after going back and thinking about this stuff in greater depth. 

What makes Ayn Rand a notable proponent for individualism because there are many.  Is the fact that she is one of the few maybe one of the first that talk about altruism and morality. 

Her argument was that Altuism is what feeds this sort of dangerous group think.  She made a very convincing case that altuism is immoral and that for superior morality to prevail you have to make moral decisions with a self centered mindset.  That is not the whole argument, it's just the outline of those ideas.  I still can't find a flaw in this logic. 

I would go one step further and state outright that it is absalutely impossible to make altruistic moral decisions.  I beleive that every decision we make is based on logic or based on emotions that are selfishly engineered by nature.  The closest thing to altruism is logic and reason.  Emotional responses are the furthest, even if you have altruistic intentions.

If we're going to define altuism we need to define morality.  First some backstory: From the age of 5 years old my mom decided to put me in a Catholic school.  I didn't know what religion was but the views that I would be indoctrinated with were already waiting for me.  By the third grade I've seen enough of Christianity in "religion" class (it made me sick), I'm only ten years old and I'm already understanding how this shit warps minds.  I had to battle my mom to be taken out of "religion" class.  Finally in ended with me throwing out all my school supplies and throwing out any papers any of my teachers would give me.  This game lasted less than a week before my mom caved.  I don't know how things work in the UK but in Elementary school where I live the alternative to "Religion" class is "Moral" class. I didnt even know what "moral" class was but at first it was a breath of fresh air.  After years of taking Moral classes and seeing the subject being butchered by unequiped teachers, by the time I'm in HS I felt like I was replacing one religion with another one, albeit much less retarded and dishonest.   

I feel like the concept of morality is bullshit.  Here's why:  The idea of morality to me has always been to idea of building logic and reason in order to have a system ready to help one predict the favoralbe outcomes over the less favorable outcomes.  The idea of evil vs. good is exactely the same as saying favorable vs. not favorable.  Of course these are subjective ideas.  The things that I find favorable are not what you may find favorable.  This in itself is not the problem I have with morality.  The problem I have with morality is that human being have a terrible capacity to predict the consequences of our actions.  This is a problem with intellect more than intention.  And the fact that in every moral class i've been tought about good intention as opposed to critical thinking shows just how misunderstood the concept of morality realy is.

Some things are obvious in the very short term.  But the consequences of our actions do not stop as far as we can predict.  For all I know the pizza I just ate will cause a car accident.  Maybe the lady whom I bought a drink for the other night was an alcoholic stuggling to quit.  Maybe the kid that was bullied in High School grows up to be a millionaire.

The fact is there is no way to predict even 1% of the consequences of our actions.  I have zero reason to believe that a good action is more likely than a bad action to have favorable consquences, and vice versa.  I can't even be sure of what others consider favorable. 

The final blow to morality is when the concept of free will comes in to play (or should i say lack of freewill).  I would like very much if someone could show evidence of this idea.  I'm a materialist, freewill does not fit in a natural Universe.  But that's a whole other can of worms...

Someone who wants to promote the idea of good morality should look towards promoting individuality and reason.  If these two things prevail people will see the benefit of the favorable laws such as protecting children against child porn.  The reason is that we have a natural instinct to protect children.  People with children have an especially vested interest in promoting laws to protect laws.  Not to mention the fact that we were all children once.

Every "moral" decision is a compromise.  There is no ideal solution otherwise it wouldn't be a dilema in the first place.   

Lets apply this to speed limits.  On one hand we have the favorable idea of preventing deaths.  We achieve this by lowering the speed limit.  On the other hand we have individua freedoms (which is valuable in itself) and things like the economy and the value of personal time of the other hand. 

Now if we over valued lives we would lower the speed limit on the highway to 20KM/h.  Lets assume you didn't have mass rioting and everyone played along, all of a sudden your 20,000 automobile deaths each yeatr would shrink to say 1,000.  This however is not a favorable solution.  No one wants highways with 20KM/h speedlimits.  The economy would slow down, it would hurt many people and quality of life would decline.  It might even cost lives.  Having a generous speed limit is the middle gound.  The other extreme would be to have a high minimum speed.  that would cost more accidents which may even slow down traffic.  The question isn't what should the speed limit be, it's how do we prevent accidents without changing the speed limit?  Automated vehicles might be the inevitable solution.  But even here the compromise will be the cost of implementing such a system.  Of course it will pay for itself in the long run.  Traffic would speed up and accidents will drop significantly.  Logic is the only sane approach to moral questions.







  

Only if you use  only logic,  some advancement will slow, as logic will always take the safest route to its goals.

Their destabilization is due to anti-imperialism, most of those countries should have remained under foreign control.

emofag


Their destabilization is due to anti-imperialism, most of those countries should have remained under foreign control.

Also due to racism. For example: Zimbabwae (or however you spell it) under dutch control produced enough crops to feed themselves and export large amounts. Mugabe takes over and makes it illegal for any white person to own a farm, and the country is now starving. Logic wouldve dictated that whoever could run a farm correctly should be allowed to.

Do you two have some proof for those claims besides a cartoon?

In any case, Zimbabwe isn't Africa.

The tale of racism in RE5 is about to take yet another twist - keep your eyes on the front page...

Eddie_the_Hated


What's up Watchmaker? Welcome to Kikizo.

We're your crazy ex-girlfriend of a videogame forum. If you leave us, Edwin will be rooting through your trash at three in the morning with a pair of your discarded underthings in between his teeth.

...Just warning you.

Indeed. Though I'll send you some crazed death threats first. To break the ice, as it were.