On one hand, the lawsuit seems nonsensical. OTOH, if a jury decided to side with individuals suing a major companies like Activision regardless of the specifics of the case, I certainly wouldn’t blame them.
I admire your optimism, but that kind of case wouldn’t go the way you hope. Specifics are important. These people are using a tragedy to advance an unrelated agenda.
This isn’t “the enemy of my enemy”. It wouldn’t at all be a reflection on capitalism… it would instead be used entirely in opposition to free speech, gun control and general common sense.
COD has had creepy right wing ideology sewn into it at least as far back as Ghosts (which also featured – I hear – amazing dog levels) but yes, even recent one had messages more about _are you willing to make the tough choices [and commit atrocities] in the name of national security. That’s pretty right-wing.
But that doesnt qualify as incitement to action (at least not in US law) because it isn’t specific (e.g. Justice Thomas must be killed before he does any further damage to our civil rights )
Freedom of speech allows us to paint groups as bad guys in art, and it’s up to our critics and curators to highlight these and other problematic features.
The lengths that gamers will go to to defend games that are literal murder simulators and military recuitment tools is delusional, and sad. We’re not talking about Legend of Zelda, or Gran Turismo. CoD is modeled on real world weapons, some of which can be bought by the public RIGHT FUCKING NOW.
If that pisses you off, I don’t care. If you’re such a narcissistic little bitch that you think I’m speaking about you specifically, grow the fuck up and go see a pychiatrist. Your hobby isn’t worth the lives of children because some psycho was desensitized to guns by a fucking murder simulator.
Disclosure: I don’t play CoD anymore (I also think the series is overrated) and would like to see Activision/Blizzard burn.
You are, unfortunately, partially misperceiving and/or mischaracterizing the game and genre. Most are not murder simulators. Some certainly are (ex. Hitman and the skippable single player bits of one of the CoD games is) but those are the minority - the plots are generally revolving around military conflicts (whether military conflicts are by definition murder or not is another thing altogether though I would personally say that they are in the same ethical place) and the multiplayer is basically technological sports. Since the early-2000s at least, they have been propaganda supporting imperialism and normalizing military conflict, though GenZ seems to have wised up on that.
For the “real world guns” thing, they aren’t anymore with limited exceptions where a firearms company explicitly partners with them.
Additionally, the correlation between individuals playing violent video games and taking part on violence just does not exist in any research that has been conducted. Violent video games, in fact, allow people to work out aggression and frustration in healthy, non-destructive ways. Your anger is pointed in the wrong direction. If you want to target something that will have an actual impact, dedicate some energy to pushing fixes for wealth inequality and poverty. Yes, that’s harder to pin down but most things worth doing aren’t easy.
In a civilized society, the cure for radicalizing speech is more speech, particularly discourse. Besides which we already have plenty of evidence that violent video games don’t radicalize. (Though, to be fair, terrorist operatives find pre-radicalized people and point them towards targets via social engineering.)
Someone who is already dangerous may play violent video games to help cope. But withholding them doesn’t address the problem, just as withholding porn doesn’t make people less sexually frustrated.
Then there’s the matter that drone operators recognize and feel the effects of having killed, and get PTSD and burnout in ways that video game players killing shadows do not. The high turnover and mentalmhealth crisis of drone operators demonstrates to us simulations don’t cross that critical line.
COD is modeled (more or less) on war settings, but so are the Tom Clancy games, So is Six Days in Fallujah and Spec Ops: The Line which are distinctly anti war. And as Penn and Teller brutally demonstrated, there is a huge visceral and emotional difference between shooting guns in games, and engaging with the real thing.
We know how to address amuck killers. We know reducing rampage killers is not just in addressing gun culture, but also addressing precarity. But neither of are political parties is willing to take that step. One is, indeed, banking on War Boys voting them into power, sight unseen, but then signing up as brownshirt goons by the legion.
Turning your ire on video games is quaint and misguided and plays right into their hands.
This is insane. The new default in civil suits is just to go after whoever is tangentially related to the situation at hand who also happens to have money. Neither the manufacturer of the weapon nor Activision is liable. They sell legal products.
What would be more just, is a mechanism for pilfering the shooters organs and selling them on the open market, collecting his life insurance, and then dividing that combined spoil among the victims.
is a mechanism for pilfering the shooters organs and selling them on the open market
I understand the sentiment (not that I agree), but this has myriad practical issues. For one, there is no open market for organs, and creating one would make the healthcare system extremely fucked for poor people. Secondly, harvesting organs basically requires the person to die in the hospital. Preferably not full of bullet holes.
collecting his life insurance
My main issue with this is that you screw over the beneficiary of the insurance, who may not have any responsibility for the shooting but could very well be harmed by not having the financial support. Imagine a shooter with a newborn child as beneficiary of the insurance policy; would it be just to take that money from the child?
And a societal structure that both does very little to catch piss poor parenting while also guaranteeing that a minimum amount of poor parenting can have large and devastating consequences.
Sorry, wrong target. Sue the cops who didn’t act. Oh, wait. They’re basically untouchable. Well, I guess sue yourselves for having children in America. That’s about the only case you might win.
The fact that CoD doesn’t even use real guns/manufacturers anymore makes me think this suit has zero chance. Video games do not cause violence, certainly not more than any other media!
Yeah, without evidence that Activision/CoD were intentionally in cahoots with arms manufacturers, this is pretty flimsy.
I do think the case against Daniel Defense is stronger, though. I can see a legitimate argument being made that guns should not be advertised directly at teenagers and young men, and that firearms shouldn’t be advertised on social media in general.
I’m not so sure Walmart sells guns any more. They don’t in my area and I live in a very gun friendly area. They just seem to sell air rifles and hunting accessories.
Add comment