6 ms·

"For your actions in Panzer General will also lead to the deaths of millions, at only one more degree of remove at best." No, my actions won't lead to a single

"For your actions in Panzer General will also lead to the deaths of millions, at only one more degree of remove at best." No, my actions won't lead to a single death, no matter how many degrees you move away. It's just moving bits around in a computer. "Or am I hopelessly overthinking it? Is Panzer General just a piece of harmless entertainment that happens to play with a subset of the stuff of history?" The answer is an emphatic yes, you are really overthinking this.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
I feel like you have taken that argument out of context. This appears just before it: "What sorts of subject matter are appropriate for a game? Before you rush to answer, ask yourself how you would feel about, say, a version of Transport Tycoon where you have to move Jews from the cities where they live to the concentration camps where they will die." If one feels completely comfortable with that, then the argument afterward can be disregarded. However, the author makes that argument on the assumption that you will feel uncomfortable with the above (as I'm sure a lot of us would) and posits that Panzer General should make you equally uncomfortable. Further, I think it is unwise to brush aside any argument that the nature of the media we consume does not affect how we interact with the real world without consideration. Just because it turns out that old 90s arguments about DOOM turning us all into violent murderers was wrong doesn't mean that there aren't effects that might be harmful.
- RandomNick 6y ago
  That previous section doesn't alter the context and doesn't change the fact that nothing I or the author or any other player does in a game like this leads to a single death, let alone millions. If the author is uncomfortable taking on the role of a "German general goose-stepping and kowtowing to his Führer" then he should feel equally uncomfortable acting as a Soviet general goose-stepping for a dictator who imprisoned, tortured and starved millions of his own citizens. Or for that matter the U.S. or Britain. Forget anything based on ancient Greece or Rome as well. Might as well stick to Farmville or Mario Kart if you're going to continue down that road. "Further, I think it is unwise to brush aside any argument that the nature of the media we consume does not affect how we interact with the real world without consideration. Just because it turns out that old 90s arguments about DOOM turning us all into violent murderers was wrong doesn't mean that there aren't effects that might be harmful." I did not brush it aside, I read the entire rambling article, most of which had very little to do with any potential harmful effects and gave it a lot more consideration than it truly deserved. It was in no way compelling, nor did it contain any real insights. I stand by my earlier statement, he is really overthinking this.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    I'm interested in your ethical position here. Is there anything short of mass murder which you would feel morally opposed to? (And if not, why that? I mean, if you are only concerned with harmful effects, killing on a large scale has gotten us where we are now, right?) Is potential, practical, harmful effects the right dividing line? Is it a clear line; is there any issue you are unsure about? Would raising a toast, or a statue, to Stalin in the Ukraine raise some qualms, even though the act itself would hurt no one?
    - RandomNick 6y ago
      I am morally opposed to a lot of things. First and foremost, violence that is not in self-defense. So that covers wars, genocide, mass conscription, and taxation. Basically the modern state in general. But that is real life I'm talking about, which has nothing to do with what goes on within the confines of a video game. I'll go back to the original quote: "For your actions in Panzer General will also lead to the deaths of millions, at only one more degree of remove at best." Your actions, or the actions of anyone else in Panzer General will not lead to a single death, let alone millions. It makes no difference to anyone else but the person who is playing the game. If you enjoy playing the game, then great, have at it. If playing as a German General makes you uncomfortable then that's fine too. I really don't see any ethical issue here at all.
- qsort 6y ago
  No offense but this is only a slightly refurbished version the "videogames make us murderers" type of argument. Those are extraordinary claims, and as such require extraordinary proof, when in fact no correlation (let alone causation) exists. It's like claiming "it's unwise to brush aside any argument that reading HN makes your skin turn green", it's entirely baseless; I don't understand why the burden of proof should rest on me. There's an argument that some themes might be less palatable to some people, but that effectively comes down to personal preferences. For example, I personally hold the view that lotteries and similar games are unethical, but is it really fair of me to cast those who play such games as "objectively immoral"?
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    >It's like claiming "it's unwise to brush aside any argument that reading HN makes your skin turn green", it's entirely baseless; I don't understand why the burden of proof should rest on me. I agree, which is why I have provided several resources to engage with the philosophical (and by following references, psychological and sociological) literature on the topic of the intersection between violent video games, morality, and (more dubiously and controversially) real world behavior here[0]. The arguments go for and against, but no author to my knowledge has argued that video games and their players do not at least qualify for moral consideration. Furthermore, these arguments are sometimes agnostic regarding major meta-ethical positions. Is this the kind of base for the argument you're looking for? >For example, I personally hold the view that lotteries and similar games are unethical, but is it really fair of me to cast those who play such games as "objectively immoral"? There's some concept shuffling here which does not accurately get to the heart of morality and moral resposibility. The word 'morality' is generally used in a normative sense (consider war, vegetarianism, killing, advertising, the environment, etc. as topics we frequently speak of in the normative sense), but your usage of the concept in describing lotteries as unethical targets the descriptive sense - a code accepted by an individual or a community[1]. The normative sense, which I believe the article and GP targets, concerns a code that would be accepted and followed by all rational people given access to moral facts (and processes of deliberation). Those facts may be deducible a priori (but need not be). This is the same sense in which someone might say "you should not do X". Moral judgements may also imply moral responsibility - not only should you "not do X" as a rational person, but you are in some way responsible if you do do X. Moral responsibility pertaining to both meanings of morality is widely (but not unanimously) accepted by philosophers. Building on moral responsibility, we finally reach moral blameworthiness, which allows us to "cast those who play games" one way or the other, or reserve judgement. There are quate a few steps between [deducing that some video games, and indeed playing them, is morally significant] to [casting someone as 'objectively immoral']. Ask, however, that if there is an argument showing that torture is wrong, would we be justified in labelling a torturer with full mental and rational capacity and access to moral facts to be "objectively immoral"? If so, why wouldn't we be able to say the same if the papers I have cited make convincing arguments about video games and players of video games? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25187823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25187823 [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
- simion314 6y ago
  >Further, I think it is unwise to brush aside any argument that the nature of the media we consume does not affect how we interact with the real world without consideration. Just because it turns out that old 90s arguments about DOOM turning us all into violent murderers was wrong doesn't mean that there aren't effects that might be harmful. I think we should have learned our lesson and first gather some data before we ban war games, RPGs or Sims because some person has an hypothesis that maybe somewhere, someone would be "transformed" by the media into a criminal. I really don'w want some government or american christian dominated companies to start banning stuff.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    Who's saying anything about banning anything? Neither the author of the article, nor I, am making a case for that. I merely think the idea that the media we engage with has some effect on us is not one we should dismiss out of hand just because we all have bad memories of Jack Thompson's crusade.
    - simion314 6y ago
      Sure media has an effect, sometimes is used for propaganda like the patriotic movies. So now we both agree that media has an effect. What is the next step, we either find a scientific way to measure the effects and then create laws if the effects are bad. The alternative is to use media to propagate some outrage that the media we don't like maybe has some effects that we don't like. So do you have a proposal on how to measure the effects and who decides what should be allowed and what should not be allowed? I propose we look at the last decades, see that the number of gamers increased but there is no correlation with crime , but if you are soem student or scientist I invite you to find such correlation and prove there is some effect. I am not sure about this game but there could exist there in the world some games that are very immoral or unethical . but if there is no actual real life measurable bad effect we should focus on stuff that we can see the effects like lootboxes or social media/
      - mcguire 6y ago
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  > "Before you rush to answer, ask yourself how you would feel about, say, a version of Transport Tycoon where you have to move Jews from the cities where they live to the concentration camps where they will die."" Most people here have played Master of Orion. Recall that you can take over planets by either bombarding them with your ships, resulting in the death of the entire planetary population, or sending in troopships carrying your own population, resulting in the death of the some or all planetary population and/or some or all your own population committed to the assault. I'd be surprised if more than a handful of players ever even gave the act a moment's thought before ordering the attack and I don't recall the ethics ever being brought up in any review or analysis.
jayjader 6y ago
For the sake of discussion: > It's just moving bits around in a computer. Once it's dressed up as making Nazi Germany win the 2nd World War with as little tact as the author makes it out to have, it's no longer "just" moving bits around in a computer. It's also about the story we're telling about and through these bits. Are you claiming that a raw output of memory along with the concrete mathematical operations you can apply to it would suffice in satisfying your urge to play [Panzer General]? Does the visual & narrative dressing not play a role in your interest (or others') in the game? It's probably not harmful for most "well-adjusted" individuals (whatever that can mean); nonetheless I think it's important to talk about how much the piece of media encourages (or fails to encourage) mindfulness towards what it represents. Even more so for interactive media like video games. I further agree with the author that we can't look at an instance of this in the void; it is important to consider what's happening in the world at large. With all that has been said on the "Clean Wehrmact", consider what role this game might have had in further propagating that narrative in, for example, kids looking for a fun wargame to play without yet having knowledge of what happened in WW2.
kazagistar 6y ago
The fact that the consequences are cleansed away makes it not remotely historical. You aren't playing a subset of history, you are playing a subset of propaganda.
- feoren 6y ago
  You're not playing a subset of history nor a subset of propaganda: you're playing a simple tactical game about tanks.
3pt14159 6y ago
Eh. I get it. The nazis put my family through hell. Playing as them would make me feel shitty too.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

I feel like you have taken that argument out of context. This appears just before it: "What sorts of subject matter are appropriate for a game? Before you rush to answer, ask yourself how you would feel about, say, a version of Transport Tycoon where you have to move Jews from the cities where they live to the concentration camps where they will die." If one feels completely comfortable with that, then the argument afterward can be disregarded. However, the author makes that argument on the assumption that you will feel uncomfortable with the above (as I'm sure a lot of us would) and posits that Panzer General should make you equally uncomfortable. Further, I think it is unwise to brush aside any argument that the nature of the media we consume does not affect how we interact with the real world without consideration. Just because it turns out that old 90s arguments about DOOM turning us all into violent murderers was wrong doesn't mean that there aren't effects that might be harmful.

RandomNick 6y ago
That previous section doesn't alter the context and doesn't change the fact that nothing I or the author or any other player does in a game like this leads to a single death, let alone millions. If the author is uncomfortable taking on the role of a "German general goose-stepping and kowtowing to his Führer" then he should feel equally uncomfortable acting as a Soviet general goose-stepping for a dictator who imprisoned, tortured and starved millions of his own citizens. Or for that matter the U.S. or Britain. Forget anything based on ancient Greece or Rome as well. Might as well stick to Farmville or Mario Kart if you're going to continue down that road. "Further, I think it is unwise to brush aside any argument that the nature of the media we consume does not affect how we interact with the real world without consideration. Just because it turns out that old 90s arguments about DOOM turning us all into violent murderers was wrong doesn't mean that there aren't effects that might be harmful." I did not brush it aside, I read the entire rambling article, most of which had very little to do with any potential harmful effects and gave it a lot more consideration than it truly deserved. It was in no way compelling, nor did it contain any real insights. I stand by my earlier statement, he is really overthinking this.
- mcguire 6y ago
  I'm interested in your ethical position here. Is there anything short of mass murder which you would feel morally opposed to? (And if not, why that? I mean, if you are only concerned with harmful effects, killing on a large scale has gotten us where we are now, right?) Is potential, practical, harmful effects the right dividing line? Is it a clear line; is there any issue you are unsure about? Would raising a toast, or a statue, to Stalin in the Ukraine raise some qualms, even though the act itself would hurt no one?
  - RandomNick 6y ago
    I am morally opposed to a lot of things. First and foremost, violence that is not in self-defense. So that covers wars, genocide, mass conscription, and taxation. Basically the modern state in general. But that is real life I'm talking about, which has nothing to do with what goes on within the confines of a video game. I'll go back to the original quote: "For your actions in Panzer General will also lead to the deaths of millions, at only one more degree of remove at best." Your actions, or the actions of anyone else in Panzer General will not lead to a single death, let alone millions. It makes no difference to anyone else but the person who is playing the game. If you enjoy playing the game, then great, have at it. If playing as a German General makes you uncomfortable then that's fine too. I really don't see any ethical issue here at all.
qsort 6y ago
No offense but this is only a slightly refurbished version the "videogames make us murderers" type of argument. Those are extraordinary claims, and as such require extraordinary proof, when in fact no correlation (let alone causation) exists. It's like claiming "it's unwise to brush aside any argument that reading HN makes your skin turn green", it's entirely baseless; I don't understand why the burden of proof should rest on me. There's an argument that some themes might be less palatable to some people, but that effectively comes down to personal preferences. For example, I personally hold the view that lotteries and similar games are unethical, but is it really fair of me to cast those who play such games as "objectively immoral"?
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >It's like claiming "it's unwise to brush aside any argument that reading HN makes your skin turn green", it's entirely baseless; I don't understand why the burden of proof should rest on me. I agree, which is why I have provided several resources to engage with the philosophical (and by following references, psychological and sociological) literature on the topic of the intersection between violent video games, morality, and (more dubiously and controversially) real world behavior here[0]. The arguments go for and against, but no author to my knowledge has argued that video games and their players do not at least qualify for moral consideration. Furthermore, these arguments are sometimes agnostic regarding major meta-ethical positions. Is this the kind of base for the argument you're looking for? >For example, I personally hold the view that lotteries and similar games are unethical, but is it really fair of me to cast those who play such games as "objectively immoral"? There's some concept shuffling here which does not accurately get to the heart of morality and moral resposibility. The word 'morality' is generally used in a normative sense (consider war, vegetarianism, killing, advertising, the environment, etc. as topics we frequently speak of in the normative sense), but your usage of the concept in describing lotteries as unethical targets the descriptive sense - a code accepted by an individual or a community[1]. The normative sense, which I believe the article and GP targets, concerns a code that would be accepted and followed by all rational people given access to moral facts (and processes of deliberation). Those facts may be deducible a priori (but need not be). This is the same sense in which someone might say "you should not do X". Moral judgements may also imply moral responsibility - not only should you "not do X" as a rational person, but you are in some way responsible if you do do X. Moral responsibility pertaining to both meanings of morality is widely (but not unanimously) accepted by philosophers. Building on moral responsibility, we finally reach moral blameworthiness, which allows us to "cast those who play games" one way or the other, or reserve judgement. There are quate a few steps between [deducing that some video games, and indeed playing them, is morally significant] to [casting someone as 'objectively immoral']. Ask, however, that if there is an argument showing that torture is wrong, would we be justified in labelling a torturer with full mental and rational capacity and access to moral facts to be "objectively immoral"? If so, why wouldn't we be able to say the same if the papers I have cited make convincing arguments about video games and players of video games? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25187823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25187823 [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
simion314 6y ago
>Further, I think it is unwise to brush aside any argument that the nature of the media we consume does not affect how we interact with the real world without consideration. Just because it turns out that old 90s arguments about DOOM turning us all into violent murderers was wrong doesn't mean that there aren't effects that might be harmful. I think we should have learned our lesson and first gather some data before we ban war games, RPGs or Sims because some person has an hypothesis that maybe somewhere, someone would be "transformed" by the media into a criminal. I really don'w want some government or american christian dominated companies to start banning stuff.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  Who's saying anything about banning anything? Neither the author of the article, nor I, am making a case for that. I merely think the idea that the media we engage with has some effect on us is not one we should dismiss out of hand just because we all have bad memories of Jack Thompson's crusade.
  - simion314 6y ago
    Sure media has an effect, sometimes is used for propaganda like the patriotic movies. So now we both agree that media has an effect. What is the next step, we either find a scientific way to measure the effects and then create laws if the effects are bad. The alternative is to use media to propagate some outrage that the media we don't like maybe has some effects that we don't like. So do you have a proposal on how to measure the effects and who decides what should be allowed and what should not be allowed? I propose we look at the last decades, see that the number of gamers increased but there is no correlation with crime , but if you are soem student or scientist I invite you to find such correlation and prove there is some effect. I am not sure about this game but there could exist there in the world some games that are very immoral or unethical . but if there is no actual real life measurable bad effect we should focus on stuff that we can see the effects like lootboxes or social media/
    - mcguire 6y ago
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
> "Before you rush to answer, ask yourself how you would feel about, say, a version of Transport Tycoon where you have to move Jews from the cities where they live to the concentration camps where they will die."" Most people here have played Master of Orion. Recall that you can take over planets by either bombarding them with your ships, resulting in the death of the entire planetary population, or sending in troopships carrying your own population, resulting in the death of the some or all planetary population and/or some or all your own population committed to the assault. I'd be surprised if more than a handful of players ever even gave the act a moment's thought before ordering the attack and I don't recall the ethics ever being brought up in any review or analysis.

jayjader 6y ago

For the sake of discussion: > It's just moving bits around in a computer. Once it's dressed up as making Nazi Germany win the 2nd World War with as little tact as the author makes it out to have, it's no longer "just" moving bits around in a computer. It's also about the story we're telling about and through these bits. Are you claiming that a raw output of memory along with the concrete mathematical operations you can apply to it would suffice in satisfying your urge to play [Panzer General]? Does the visual & narrative dressing not play a role in your interest (or others') in the game? It's probably not harmful for most "well-adjusted" individuals (whatever that can mean); nonetheless I think it's important to talk about how much the piece of media encourages (or fails to encourage) mindfulness towards what it represents. Even more so for interactive media like video games. I further agree with the author that we can't look at an instance of this in the void; it is important to consider what's happening in the world at large. With all that has been said on the "Clean Wehrmact", consider what role this game might have had in further propagating that narrative in, for example, kids looking for a fun wargame to play without yet having knowledge of what happened in WW2.

kazagistar 6y ago

The fact that the consequences are cleansed away makes it not remotely historical. You aren't playing a subset of history, you are playing a subset of propaganda.

feoren 6y ago
You're not playing a subset of history nor a subset of propaganda: you're playing a simple tactical game about tanks.

3pt14159 6y ago

Eh. I get it. The nazis put my family through hell. Playing as them would make me feel shitty too.