Iraq War Video Game-"Six Days in Fallujah" Too Realistic

Originally posted by eNumbra
I didn't insinuate your brother or anyone in the military was a thick-headed racist.

You insinuated that if the archetype was correct, if he wasn't just in the military because he couldn't get a job anywhere else, then the game should portray him as a racist jerk.

If Sgt. Jones had only joined the military because he couldn't find any other jobs he certainly shouldn't be depicted as the thick-headed racist American soldier character archetype just because it was convenient to the story; unless he really was a racist asshole

You strongly implied that the only reason a soldier wouldn't be a thick-headed racist ***** was if the military was his only option. I don't accept your deflection that the words "character archetype" excuse your remark. As you used it, all it means is that they shouldn't stereotype him as a racist unless he signed up for the military because he wanted to join it, thereby making him a real racist *****. I can see you have no intention of retracting your remark though, so I'll leave it at that. If this game were going to portray soldiers as either too stupid to get a job elsewhere or thick-headed racists, the families would have every right to demand it be pulled. Defamation is a very bad thing.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter


Once again, a hypothetical wherein a person is either portrayed as the person he really was, or as an archetype to fit a story. I insinuated neither; I laid out a scenario which you decided to rape with your own assumptions.

If Sgt. Jones had only joined the military because he couldn't find any other jobs

Where do I say he was too incompetent to find a job? There are areas of the U.S. currently facing high unemployment percentages, perhaps he lives there.

shouldn't be depicted as the thick-headed racist American soldier character archetype just because it was convenient to the story; unless he really was a racist asshole. Crying over a less than stellar yet indescribably accurate depiction of a person is offensive. Hiding the truth because one doesn't like what it represents is selfish.

This isn't about who is or who isn't a racist, this is about the truth, and depiction of such. There is no 'if then' statement of which soldiers are racist and which are not, you read something that was not there. I can't change what you gleaned from my writing, but you are the only one who seemed to have read it as such.

Originally posted by ngchunter
You strongly implied that the only reason a soldier wouldn't be a thick-headed racist ***** was if the military was his only option. I don't accept your deflection that the words "character archetype" excuse your remark.

I strongly implied #. You read what you read and interpreted what you wanted to.

As you used it, all it means is that they shouldn't stereotype him as a racist unless he signed up for the military because he wanted to join it, thereby making him a real racist *****.

As I used it, I stated someone should only be depicted as they really were.

I can see you have no intention of retracting your remark though, so I'll leave it at that.

Why would I ever retract something somebody misinterpreted?

If this game were going to portray soldiers as either too stupid to get a job elsewhere or thick-headed racists, the families would have every right to demand it be pulled.

If the select group of soldiers portrayed were in fact, in real life, the thick-headed racists, why shouldn't they be depicted as such?

and once again I find myself back at my original question... What of the demonization of everyone else in the games?

Originally posted by eNumbra
Where do I say he was too incompetent to find a job? There are areas of the U.S. currently facing high unemployment percentages, perhaps he lives there.

Was that generally the case in 2004? No. Don't mistake me for an idiot. I also don't see how even that excuse would change the fact that you presented it as "the" alternative to him being a racist *****.

There is no 'if then' statement of which soldiers are racist and which are not, you read something that was not there.

You presented it as if the only alternative was because he was in the military even though he didn't really want to be there. Your insinuation was loud and clear to me. You now pretend that insuation didn't exist, but it was pretty clear in your post.

If the select group of soldiers portrayed were in fact, in real life, the thick-headed racists, why shouldn't they be depicted as such?

Do you think this question makes it more clear or less clear what you really are inclined to think of most soldiers? It's called defamation and invasion of privacy, the things lawsuits are made of, not to mention common decency and respect for the dead, the very dead who gave you the right to insinuate them to be mostly racists (at least the willing ones, my brother included).

[edit on 29-4-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter
Was that generally the case in 2004? No. Don't mistake me for an idiot. I also don't see how even that excuse would change the fact that you presented it as "the" alternative to him being a racist *****.

Right, so next time I'll post every one of the 7 billion alternative reasons he would have been there. I posted two polar extremes to simplify it.

The reason he was really there, and a reason that everyone could identify as something they wouldn't want inaccurately portrayed.

You presented it as if the only alternative was because he was in the military even though he didn't really want to be there. Your insinuation was loud and clear to me. You now pretend that insuation didn't exist, but it was pretty clear in your post.

The insinuation only exists in your mind, if you don't see that read the above response in this post again. I didn't insinuate anything.

Do you think this question makes it more clear or less clear what you really are inclined to think of most soldiers?

Its obvious that you are either purposely trying to spin everything I write, or that you reading comprehension is terrible.

It's called defamation

Only in the case that it is untrue. Calling a pedophile a pedophile wouldn't be defamation.

and invasion of privacy, the things lawsuits are made of, not to mention common decency and respect for the dead, the very dead who gave you the right to insinuate them to be mostly racists (at least the willing ones, my brother included).

You do realize by continuing to accuse me of these supposed insinuation that you yourself are guilty of defamation right? Libel to be accurate.

[edit on 4/29/2009 by eNumbra]

Originally posted by eNumbra
The insinuation only exists in your mind, if you don't see that read the above response in this post again. I didn't insinuate anything.

I know what you originally said, it's crystal clear, and I'm done debating it with you. I find it unfortunate that you still refuse to retract your original statement, but it's not surprising.

Its obvious that you are either purposely trying to spin everything I write, or that you reading comprehension is terrible.

Thanks for not answering the question.

Only in the case that it is untrue. Calling a pedophile a pedophile wouldn't be defamation.

First of all, being a "thick-headed racist ****" isn't a crime, second of all, it's a subjective determination open to being twisted by people like yourself, making it quite likely that the accusation or insinuation of "racism" IS untrue. Lastly, invasion or privacy is still unethical and liable to lawsuit regardless of whether the claim is true or not.

You do realize by continuing to accuse me of these supposed insinuation that you yourself are guilty of defamation right? Libel to be accurate.

As you pointed out, defamation has to be based on a lie and must be a matter of fact, not opinion. Having a soldier say or do something blatantly racist in a game to portray them a certain way when they didn't say or do those things in real life is defamation (and even had they said those things it would still be invasion of privacy), stating that I think you insinuated something nasty is not a matter of fact but of opinion. Furthermore, to be defamation it must cause personal damage. I highly doubt you could prove that I actually harmed you with my opinion. Want to sue me? Go ahead, waste your time. Otherwise I'm done here. Had this game defamed or invaded the privacy of soldiers, it would not have been done so in a way addressed directly to them or their families.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by eNumbra


reply to post by ngchunter





I know you two are in the middle of a very important discussion but when you two are finished can we get back on topic?
Iraq War Video Game-"Six Days in Fallujah" Too Realistic

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Iraq War Video Game-"Six Days in Fallujah" Too Realistic

Nope I don't think it's too realistic.

Originally posted by ngchunter
I know what you originally said, it's crystal clear, and I'm done debating it with you. I find it unfortunate that you still refuse to retract your original statement, but it's not surprising.

You don't know what I originally said because you are making your own interpretation of it. I won't retract something you can't understand.

Originally posted by ngchunter
Lastly, invasion or privacy is still unethical and liable to lawsuit regardless of whether the claim is true or not.

Then they can take it to court, people still shouldn't be allowed to censor the truth. Can you actually cite an example of telling a story of a deceased person as an Invasion of Privacy?

Originally posted by ngchunter
As you pointed out, defamation has to be based on a lie and must be a matter of fact, not opinion. Having a soldier say or do something blatantly racist in a game to portray them a certain way when they didn't say or do those things in real life is defamation

So you agree that I'm right? That it isn't defamation if its true?

I never said it was this or wasn't that. This whole problem is the fact that you continue to misinterpret what I said and now you wish to run away with your fingers in your ears thinking yourself the better man because you "Walked away" after trying to paint me as a person who assumes all soldiers are racists.



[edit on 4/29/2009 by eNumbra]

Originally posted by eNumbra
So you agree that I'm right? That it isn't defamation if its true?

As I've said repeatedly, there are two possible categories in this example, defamation and invasion of privacy. Whether it's true or not, it will fall into one of the two liabilites. I can only hope the creators of this game had a better sense of common decency and didn't actually bad mouth the real soldiers who were there, and that the decision made to pull it wasn't just to avoid a lawsuit.

If it's just a matter of the game being too gory, then it's just a matter of common decency to not publish this game without the consent of the families of the soldiers depicted. I would have hoped they could use fictional characters though. Even in the movie Black Hawk Down, John Stebbins was replaced by a fictional soldier because the real Stebbins was a pedo who raped his own daughter - it wouldn't have been defamation to reveal he was a real person convicted of a real crime, but they still didn't go there. Using fictional but well-written characters avoids all the ethical and legal entaglements, so why not do that?

[edit on 29-4-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter
Using fictional but well-written characters avoids all the ethical and legal entaglements, so why not do that?

I feel it would all depend on the relevance of it; Stebbin's crimes wouldn't have been relevant to the narrative of the account of the Battle of Mogadishu.

If it were to be told as an account of Stebbin's psychology throughout the operation it may have had some relevance, but as it was told it wasn't.

My original objection may lie in the fact that so few characters these days are in fact "well-written" especially in action games.

I wish you two would have either opened up a thread dealing with your 'objections', or kept it a 'battle' with private messages, instead, you two ruined a perfectly good thread.. I was going to keep following it but 'thanks' to you two, that isn't necesary anymore I guess..

this thread is about a videogame which some people find too realistic.. not any real or imagined 'defamation'

unsubscribing from the thread now.. so I guess the playing field is all yours, feel free to argue untill Hell freezes over.. AS IF ANYBODY CARES!

edited for spelling

[edit on 30-4-2009 by Phatcat]

I find the whole issue of replicating real life horrific situations for "entertainment" and "fun" to be deeply sick and incredibly damaging to society, in which we have bred and are still breeding, generations who are trained to see ultra-realistic violence and gore as a "game", to the extent that they are unphased by real violence and brutality. These games appeal to and encourage the worst qualities in us and society is reaping, and will continue to reap the consequences at an exponential rate.

So I'm glad the game was pulled, I only wish more games like that were pulled. But they won't be, because there is too much money in peddling inhumanity and gore.

I can't wait for the ultra realistic and historically accurate "Columbine High: Schools Out" game to be released! Cooooooool!



[edit on 30-4-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Phatcat
unsubscribing from the thread now.. so I guess the playing field is all yours, feel free to argue untill Hell freezes over.. AS IF ANYBODY CARES!

As I told numbra, I'm done discussing it with him unless he actually wants to waste his time suing me. Personally though I think the way in which the game chooses to portray the real life soldiers it renders is a critical part to the question of whether it's "too realistic." From what I can see, the main controversy over the game's depiction seems to come from anti-war groups who insist that americans deployed chemical weapons on the civilians in fallujah, as well as veterans who think it's too soon since the war is still ongoing - it takes talent to upset diametrically opposed sides against you lol. My understanding though is that the developers still hope to find a new publisher, so we may yet get to play the game ourselves.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by Phatcat


Sorry to hear that, but I've actually got on topic posts in this thread and tried to keep relatively on point with my last post on the first page.

Besides, we barely hijacked it; I'm not sure you could actually qualify it as being ruined when it wouldn't be past 1 page otherwise. Not denying that the tangent would didn't negatively affect the thread, just that, in reality... it may have kept it from being buried by Swine Flu Mania.