Up for an example of muddle thinking, moral relativism, and inability to make a decent comparison if one's life depended upon it?
Here you go.
A terrorist could ask for no better ally and future victim. They'll side with them as long as they're alive and die without a whimper when it's their turn in the Terrorist target circle.
For my part, I'll point people towards the excellent Force on Force series of games from Ambush Alley Games. It doesn't have the cards that our muddled witch friend dislikes so much, but it's perhaps the best wargame I've encountered since the turn of the century.
And I'll certainly make up some cards for it. Some might even be terrorist witches, after all Paco Garcia Jaen can't seem to tell the difference.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
It's always easier to dismiss the other guy's problem.
A witch gets bent out of shape over a game that makes light of burning witches, a history buff gets bent out of shape over games that mess with historical figures and facts.
Everyone has their own set of blind spots and biases.
Except it wasn't a game about witches, it was about terrorists.
Did you read his post? Or are you just going for misdirection?
The specifics don't actually matter.
Comedy is you falling down the stairs and breaking your neck. Tragedy is me getting a papercut.
Everyone has their own set of blind spots and biases.
This isn't a blind spot, it's clear to anyone willing to look.
Claiming otherwise and protecting terrorists from being called terrorists (and thus from being targeted in a wargame about terrorism) is the act of a moral coward, a fool, or both.
How does this jive with your belief that historical figures ought not be included in games? Someday these people will just be names in history books too.
Its an interesting example of moral relativism, particularly as it allows one to examine the process that allows a person to equivalate sovereign wartime actions to vigilantism against civilians.
One of the things that stands out to me immediately is the amount of assumption cherry picking going on. For example, the witches are stated to be casting spells on innocent people, but the tone implies the assumption that the spells are either harmless, legal, or otherwise. Then, that assumption is transferred to the Terrorists, implying that they are similarly not engaged in any sort of harmful endeavor, but just regular dudes trying to live their life, drive their kids to soccer, and make it to the PTA meetings.
As you start clarifying assumptions, the morality becomes much less ambiguous, and the transference between parties much more/less plausible.
For a fair comparison, the Witches would have to be operating internationally as well as domestically. Their spells would have to be extremely lethal and used frequently to enforce pagan ideals in both the private and political arenas. They would also have to be somewhat sanctioned by the US government (tacitly, if nothing else), and be public about their actions, their targets, and their goals. Then, the people chosen to be put on the face cards would have to come directly from that list of witches who have publicly taken credit for specific and lethal spells cast. Furthermore, the Players would have to take on the roll of Government-sanctioned agents, backed by a multinational coalition attempting to protect their own citizens, and given specific targets and rules of engagement -- not simply vigilantes out for street justice.
At that point, you could argue they are about the same, morally.
(Ironically, if you wanted to make a game about on par with the Witch Killing scenario described in the article, you most likely fit into the roll of a Terrorist -- violent, ideological vigilantes targeting members of the community for not complying with local mores and standards, who rely on murder and torture to enforce compliance.)
But it is interesting, from an academic point of view, to see an example of how morale equivocating works. It would be interesting to move beyond the anecdotal and into something statistically valid to prove the concept.
Matthew: I'm fine with people appearing in wargames in the role they had historically.
Thus Jeb Stuart can appear in a Civil War wargame. And he can be a valid target in said game, worth victory points.
But he shouldn't appear in someone's RPG as a cross-dressing Mommy's Boy who supports the Union just because the GM finds that funny.
Roeguard: Well said.
It's a pity that Paco Garcia Jaen didn't put anywhere near that much thought into the subject.
He had but one thought- that the US (or likely any *western* nation) has no right to kill anybody for any cause. Thus the wargame shouldn't exist.
Period. End further thinking.
That's where he starts and end because that's all he's been taught for his entire life. He's not interested in a true moral decision, it's easier to fall back upon the Kindergarten rule "don't hit'.
And he's upset that adults have a different view.
Fair enough about the game/rpg distinction, though it does raise issues about levels of abstraction. Is it bad to make tactical choices a general did not, producing counter-factual results? Is it ok to use the character in an rpg if you try to portray them accurately?
I think your blind spot is preventing you from seeing the actual point he was making. He's not defending or empathizing with terrorists, as a matter of fact, he explicitly denounces them.
He's saying that to make a game that involves real people - any people - where it's ok to kill them because you've labeled them as enemies, that's problematic. I can't figure out what game he's talking about, so I can't actually research the people it's labeling as terrorists.
What if it's some piece of underground Taliban propaganda where the terrorists are "Donald Rumsfeld" and "George Bush?" What if it's a Greenpeace game and the terrorists are the CEO of BP and Exxon? Are you still ok with those games?
What if most of the terrorists are the usual suspects, but in addition to Osama and his cronies, they put King Abdullah and President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad in there too? Who gets to make the list of terrorists?
What if they didn't use any real people at all, but instead just picked a bunch of Arabic-sounding names out of a phone book? Is it ok to use any Arab as a stand in for a terrorist?
What if the game isn't about killing terrorists, but instead, it's about humiliating people and uses real names? For instance, turning a guy named Gleichman into a vicious poodle? Is that ok?
I know - that's a lot of what-ifs, but the point is that labels are relative and open to abuse. Once upon a time, "witch" was an unambiguously bad label and you could call someone a "witch" and get them killed for it for real - not just in a game. People should remember that.
@ Matthew:
This is why we have the 1st Amendment -- these issues get very complicated very quickly. It probably makes sense to apply the same rigor that would be applied to any other form of media. As I understand it (I am not a legal expert on first amendment applications), those rules are roughly:
1) Public Figures are fair game. Private citizens generally are not. Historical figures would definitely qualify as Public figures.
2) You can say anything you want, in a sincere fashion, if you can back it up at all. You can also say literally anything you want, if its an obvious satire.
3) You can say anything you want, so long as your comments would not be misconstrued by a reasonable person as inciting violence against the person directly by private citizens.
4) You can say anything you want publicly, so long as it doesn't violate public decency laws. (i.e. you might not be able to say it while nekkid in front of the local elementary school).
Those basic guidelines are a good starting point -- they tell you what you can LEGALLY do. But that doesn't mean that everything within LEGAL bounds are equivalent morally. And its good that we don't legislate morality to that degree of granularity.
Its a grave mistake, though, to think legality defines morality. In fact, they often work at cross-purposes.
(To pick on some recent demons, the Enron guys, technically, didn't break any laws -- they had some amazing accountants, and worked the hell out of account loopholes (all of which exist for good reasons).
But their behavior was hella immoral. Fortunately, in accounting at least, following the law isn't enough -- whether or not you go to prison in accounting scandals has little to do with whether you followed the laws; accounting is one of the few (if not only) areas where you go to prison almost exclusively on your intent, not your actions.)
Matthew:
Lots of questions there, are you really interested in the answers?
Is it bad to make tactical choices a general did not, producing counter-factual results?
Yes. It's sort of the point of wargaming, i.e. to explore other tactical choices.
Is it ok to use the character in an rpg if you try to portray them accurately?
A good faith effort is acceptable especially if its short or passing, but really there is little need IMO to risk getting things wrong.
Much like a Captain America movie doesn't need to name real American soldiers during the WWII for its tales.
He's saying that to make a game that involves real people - any people - where it's ok to kill them because you've labeled them as enemies, that's problematic.
He's wrong.
What if it's some piece of underground Taliban propaganda where the terrorists are "Donald Rumsfeld" and "George Bush?"
Such a game should be judged on its merits. Since I consider such a label to be morally corrupt- I would reject the game on those merits much as I would reject a game for stoning raped women.
Removing the terrorist label however, a really open ended 'War on Terror' game would have them be valid targets for the Taliban/Terrorist side.
Who gets to make the list of terrorists?
The designer of the game. I will judge the work based upon his decisions.
Is it ok to use any Arab as a stand in for a terrorist?
Fictional names are a long accepted practice in just about everything.
For instance, turning a guy named Gleichman into a vicious poodle? Is that ok?
This was the subject (if different target) of my original objection you've referenced.
In general, yes- it's wrong, cowardly, self-centered and childish.
In the specific example of my own name being used for a war poodle- I'm amused, especially by the fact that he became such a important part of the campaign.
I know - that's a lot of what-ifs, but the point is that labels are relative and open to abuse.
Labels are not relative. A terrorist is a specific type of person who undertakes specific acts. The definition is clear.
Rather there are people who willing lie in their labeling, and those who claim that labels are relative.Both seek to cloud issues and make excuses for their actions (or the lack thereof).
Simply because you are unable to see or find out the truth doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It only means you didn't find it.
Most of the time now days, it's because you didn't even try.
I don't think it's possible to have a real discussion with someone who believes himself to be the final arbiter of truth and morality. That's the mother of all blind spots. Since we have nothing factual left to work out, I think I'll bow out of this before it gets ugly.
I'm not the final arbiter of truth and morality- God is. I merely do the best I can and make a decision.
Your way is to avoid any moral choice at all expect to attack those who do. There is nothing more disgusting and cowardly.
If I read the linked article correctly, the issue at hand is that off hatred. Our Wiccan friend argues that hatting people is wrong, and any game that spreads hated is despicable, regardless of what someone has done. I have a hard time disagreeing with this, as it was Jesus who said, "love your neighbor as yourself." Unfortunately, we cannot turn that call down, especially for someone whose primarily falling is accepting that "God hates."
TL;DR teaching people to hate is bad. We shouldn't do it. Not even for people who may deserve it
I'm not interested in pacifist beliefs that I feel is shoehorned into Christianity.
There is a long Christian tradition of Just War. War kills people. War games teach about war.
And that's end of this religious debate.
Marty, I don't see how a game with terrorists - or for that matter heads of state - as targets teaches people to hate. If one plays the Axis side in a WWII game, that doesn't mean that one agrees with fascist philosophy.
Reading the linked post, it strikes me as odd not to see a mention that the law of witchcraft - "harm none" - makes them a rather inapropos comparison for terrorists, which are all about harm. You'd think that a wiccan would know that.
Leaving the straying arguments between Gleichman and Matthew aside, I think Roeguard nailed it in the fifth post.
The original article is stupid on the face of it's blatently bad comparison. To get all worked up over this card game, our wiccan companion has failed yet to acurately articulate .. why? His argument and comparison are rediculous but he is clearly all worked up. This leaves us to speculate at the root cause of his actual objection. I think Gleichman nailed it. Killing people is wrong. Sure killing orcs and evil agents who aren't real at a table top may be ok, after all that is what I've been doing for 20+ years, but how dare you give them real names! Simply rediculous.
As to the religious argument, as one with a Biblical Studies degree and years of unused Ethics and Philosophy credits under my belt, let me assure you that Gleichman, all though simplistic, is mainly correct. Christianity is not Pacivism. My "neighbor" is the person being killed as well as the killer, as far as terrorists are concerned, and God has a history dispensing justice through mankind. This includes the ultimate punishment.
Now let's assume that we allow others to embrace otherwise. That we aren't to kill every for any reason. So be it. Make your case. But realize two things.
1) Stop playing table top games (video games, going to movies, etc.) that are as offensive to your sensibilities as real life war is.
2) Don't argue with Gleichman when he says you are exactly what the terrorists want you to be and your philosophy, if embraced by everyone else, would get you killed along with everyone else.
Hahahaa... oh... now God is the final arbiter of truth and justice?! Really? Sounds familiar... erm... oh wait... PLEASE think before you post Gleichman...
Where do people get off thinking that ONLY when you believe in a God is your frame of reference, ill or good, a MORAL one? There are more "morals and ethics" in the arguments of "godless" hellbound atheists than anybody subscribing to any sort of God these days.
Anonymous posters are always something of a joy for me.
Unwilling to make a public stand and put even something as safe as an internet handle behind their ranting (they never do thoughtful posts).
It's always fitting when they show up to comment on article on the lack of moral courage such as this one- for they prove my point.
Post a Comment