3 ms·

> "I do not blame Valve nor Steam, the blame is on the UK government and authorities that are pissed off by a video game," Nijm said. "On their flawed logic, th

> "I do not blame Valve nor Steam, the blame is on the UK government and authorities that are pissed off by a video game," Nijm said. "On their flawed logic, the most recent Call of Duty Black Ops 6 should be banned as well. As you play as an American soldier and go to Iraq to kill Iraqi people. What I can say is that we see clearly the double standards." Love him or hate him, he does make a principled point.

riiii 2y ago
The UK ban is taking care of UK interestst. I don't think anyone would be surprised if Iraq would request a ban on BO6 in Iraq.
- rimeice 2y ago
  Yeh, not really double standards. If you banned a game because anyone got killed in it, there wouldn’t be many video games…
- talldayo 2y ago
  Britain hasn't had a sovereign interest in the Levant for over a century. Their citizens deserve access to uncensored media to form their own opinions, even if the media is satire that would make Matt Stone and Trey Parker blush.
  - whenc 2y ago
    Pedantry: Cyprus is in the levant, and the UK has two sovereign areas there.
  - ethernot 2y ago
    I think we can probably make do without a game that glorifies the 7th of October massacre. Or any as a matter of fact. I mean I pretty much made my mind up about that one already. It didn’t take a lot of effort.
    - pessimizer 2y ago
      We can make do without any games. Or any books.
    - amarcheschi 2y ago
      "I think we can probably make do without a game that glorifies the 7th of October massacre. Or any as a matter of fact." The developer of the game is complaining about a double standard. Given the fact that we have shooter games glorifying some abhorrent us activities, and we are okay with that, we do have a double standard. We could discuss for ages whether it's wrong or right, but we can't hide behind "oh no it's a terrible thing" because we have been representing terrible things since decades, but this time apparently it's bad because it's not our faction doing the funny (it's not so funny anymore, isn't it?)
      - ethernot 2y ago
        Double standards happen in international politics. Things are regional and promoting certain events are considered a security threat as it’s not exactly as if there isn’t a problem with terrorism from radicalised Islam in the UK. Also worth noting that the content of this is considered distasteful among the Muslim community here as well. It makes them look bad too. Stuff like this sows the seeds of division between the communities.
- throw310822 2y ago
  Sure, if you admit that the information and the entertainment available in one's country should align with that country "interests", then there is no doubt about it. However the West markets itself exactly as the place where such thing doesn't happen, so that's where the problem lies.
  - ralph84 2y ago
    Not the West, just the US. Free speech outside of the US isn’t really a thing. The UK in particular has been very aggressive in censoring speech recently.
  - ethernot 2y ago
    The marketing and the reality are somewhat different. Ignoring the fact that “the west” isn’t one political regime, it is about balance. While the US prides itself in allowing people to run around cosplaying as nazis under the guise of freedom, other countries consider that to be offensive and would legislate against it. It’s a wide spectrum. Any extreme of censorship and a complete lack of censorship and control will quickly lead to the decline of society. Nuance is where everything is. No absolutes.
  - wiseowise 2y ago
    Oh, Here we go again. “How can West call itself freedom of speech if I can’t even spew nazi crap, dress as a terrorist or offend women and minorities?!”
  - riiii 2y ago
    I think the terrorist organisation Hamas shouldn't have a platform anywhere.
- wds 2y ago
  So, should the UK be considered to be on the same level as Iraq for freedom of expression now, or?
  - elmerfud 2y ago
    Have you taken a look at some of the draconian speech laws that the UK has passed? They are definitely on the same level as Iraq or even Iran.
    - louthy 2y ago
      This is utter hyperbole. The kind of rhetoric stirred up by Musk et al, but not even remotely true.
    - ethernot 2y ago
      Might want to get your information from somewhere credible.
    - wiseowise 2y ago
      Such as?
      - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
        Well they recently arrested a jewish son of holocaust survivors for hate speech after he denounced Israel as behaving in a genocidal manner: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-police-arrest-israeli-academic-haim-bresheeth-speech-pro-palestine-demonstration https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-police-arrest-israeli-...
        louthy 2y ago
        As I understand it, he was making a pro-Hamas speech (not pro-Palestine). Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK. The UK had a particular problem with preacher Anjem Choudary [1] indoctrinating followers to be militant islamists. He is reckoned to the be linked to up to 40% of terrorist incidents in the UK (including the 7/7 attacks in London). Following this period the anti-terror laws were made stronger and "inviting support for a proscribed organisation" became illegal. Presumably that means recruiting either directly or indirectly through speeches. So, I can understand how this happened. But your summary really only belies your bias I'm afraid, this: "arrested a jewish son of holocaust survivors for hate speech after he denounced Israel as behaving in a genocidal manner" isn't true. Even the article you link states that he was arrested for inviting support for a proscribed organisation. He wasn't arrested for denouncing Israel as behaving in a genocidal manner. The issue is very emotive and charged. I am not taking sides. But it's often the case that whenever anyone falls foul of laws, that have been designed to protect the people of the UK, either directly from abuse because of who they are, or indirectly via terror, then those affected complain about a lack of freedom of expression. It seems they didn't charge him, so maybe the police overreached in this instance. I haven't seen the speech, so I can't comment, and certainly I wouldn't defend the UK police as they could certainly do with some reform. But, it's also possible that this was quite a difficult tightrope for the police to walk in terms of the law. Some of these laws may seem draconian, but the people of this country who are not racially abusing people, or targeting people because of their sexual orientation, or gender, or inviting support for a proscribed terrorist organisation (which is 99.999% of us), will never fall foul of this legislation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary
ipaddr 2y ago
A principle point would be going after the Brazilian army but that would get him arrested. Safe principled point?
amarcheschi 2y ago
Also, call of duty had and has ties with the army that sees is as a potential recruitment tool. [1] Furthermore, in one call of duty a real event was narrated - although if in a fictional scenario - as if it was made by Russians [2], while in real life it was a us led attack on civilians, prisoners, and non fighting combatants. Google highway of death Another article that has a broader view on the history of how defense and entertainment sector have ties [3] [1] https://gamerant.com/call-duty-modern-warfare-recruitment-tool/ https://gamerant.com/call-duty-modern-warfare-recruitment-to... [2] https://www.newsweek.com/call-duty-modern-warfare-highway-death-russia-gulf-war-1468207 https://www.newsweek.com/call-duty-modern-warfare-highway-de... [3] https://www.thenation.com/article/society/call-of-duty-pentagon-ops-2/ https://www.thenation.com/article/society/call-of-duty-penta...
- guardiangod 2y ago
  I literally played the 'Highway of Death' CoD:MW 2019 mission last night (before it crashed and I called it a night). That game has no self-awareness at all. US good, Russians bad, must kill bearded brown people.
  - switch007 2y ago
    See also the last 25 years of cop/crime shows
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- talldayo 2y ago
  > while in real life it was a us led attack on civilians, prisoners, and non fighting combatants. Google highway of death What COD did to this scene was reprehensible, but it's also important to understand the context for the real attack. The Highway of Death that happened in real life was a targeted strike on Saddam Hussein's retreating forces, most of whom were legitimate targets of war. At the time, Iraq sponsored the 4th largest military in the world, was being bombed in Baghdad, and most of their allies were starting to turn on them over outstanding debts. This pressure pushed Saddam to invade Kuwait, and Saddam's actions pushed the US to destroy as much Iraqi materiel as they could possibly damage. The attack did happen on a civilian road, but only after the locals became aware that the highway was being used by Saddam's forces. The controversy mostly stems from attacks on a retreating force and the scale of the destruction, both of which are still up for debate on their effectiveness.
tdeck 2y ago
From what I can tell in the screenshots all the targets in this game are military. I'd be curious if that's indeed the case.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- amarcheschi 2y ago
  According to the steam description, only soldiers are killed. It's clear they would have had to use children and not soldiers, had they made this about an Israeli soldier and not a Palestinian one (/s)

riiii 2y ago

The UK ban is taking care of UK interestst. I don't think anyone would be surprised if Iraq would request a ban on BO6 in Iraq.

rimeice 2y ago
Yeh, not really double standards. If you banned a game because anyone got killed in it, there wouldn’t be many video games…
talldayo 2y ago
Britain hasn't had a sovereign interest in the Levant for over a century. Their citizens deserve access to uncensored media to form their own opinions, even if the media is satire that would make Matt Stone and Trey Parker blush.
- whenc 2y ago
  Pedantry: Cyprus is in the levant, and the UK has two sovereign areas there.
- ethernot 2y ago
  I think we can probably make do without a game that glorifies the 7th of October massacre. Or any as a matter of fact. I mean I pretty much made my mind up about that one already. It didn’t take a lot of effort.
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    We can make do without any games. Or any books.
  - amarcheschi 2y ago
    "I think we can probably make do without a game that glorifies the 7th of October massacre. Or any as a matter of fact." The developer of the game is complaining about a double standard. Given the fact that we have shooter games glorifying some abhorrent us activities, and we are okay with that, we do have a double standard. We could discuss for ages whether it's wrong or right, but we can't hide behind "oh no it's a terrible thing" because we have been representing terrible things since decades, but this time apparently it's bad because it's not our faction doing the funny (it's not so funny anymore, isn't it?)
    - ethernot 2y ago
      Double standards happen in international politics. Things are regional and promoting certain events are considered a security threat as it’s not exactly as if there isn’t a problem with terrorism from radicalised Islam in the UK. Also worth noting that the content of this is considered distasteful among the Muslim community here as well. It makes them look bad too. Stuff like this sows the seeds of division between the communities.
throw310822 2y ago
Sure, if you admit that the information and the entertainment available in one's country should align with that country "interests", then there is no doubt about it. However the West markets itself exactly as the place where such thing doesn't happen, so that's where the problem lies.
- ralph84 2y ago
  Not the West, just the US. Free speech outside of the US isn’t really a thing. The UK in particular has been very aggressive in censoring speech recently.
- ethernot 2y ago
  The marketing and the reality are somewhat different. Ignoring the fact that “the west” isn’t one political regime, it is about balance. While the US prides itself in allowing people to run around cosplaying as nazis under the guise of freedom, other countries consider that to be offensive and would legislate against it. It’s a wide spectrum. Any extreme of censorship and a complete lack of censorship and control will quickly lead to the decline of society. Nuance is where everything is. No absolutes.
- wiseowise 2y ago
  Oh, Here we go again. “How can West call itself freedom of speech if I can’t even spew nazi crap, dress as a terrorist or offend women and minorities?!”
- riiii 2y ago
  I think the terrorist organisation Hamas shouldn't have a platform anywhere.
wds 2y ago
So, should the UK be considered to be on the same level as Iraq for freedom of expression now, or?
- elmerfud 2y ago
  Have you taken a look at some of the draconian speech laws that the UK has passed? They are definitely on the same level as Iraq or even Iran.
  - louthy 2y ago
    This is utter hyperbole. The kind of rhetoric stirred up by Musk et al, but not even remotely true.
  - ethernot 2y ago
    Might want to get your information from somewhere credible.
  - wiseowise 2y ago
    Such as?
    - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
      Well they recently arrested a jewish son of holocaust survivors for hate speech after he denounced Israel as behaving in a genocidal manner: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-police-arrest-israeli-academic-haim-bresheeth-speech-pro-palestine-demonstration https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-police-arrest-israeli-...
      - louthy 2y ago
        As I understand it, he was making a pro-Hamas speech (not pro-Palestine). Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK. The UK had a particular problem with preacher Anjem Choudary [1] indoctrinating followers to be militant islamists. He is reckoned to the be linked to up to 40% of terrorist incidents in the UK (including the 7/7 attacks in London). Following this period the anti-terror laws were made stronger and "inviting support for a proscribed organisation" became illegal. Presumably that means recruiting either directly or indirectly through speeches. So, I can understand how this happened. But your summary really only belies your bias I'm afraid, this: "arrested a jewish son of holocaust survivors for hate speech after he denounced Israel as behaving in a genocidal manner" isn't true. Even the article you link states that he was arrested for inviting support for a proscribed organisation. He wasn't arrested for denouncing Israel as behaving in a genocidal manner. The issue is very emotive and charged. I am not taking sides. But it's often the case that whenever anyone falls foul of laws, that have been designed to protect the people of the UK, either directly from abuse because of who they are, or indirectly via terror, then those affected complain about a lack of freedom of expression. It seems they didn't charge him, so maybe the police overreached in this instance. I haven't seen the speech, so I can't comment, and certainly I wouldn't defend the UK police as they could certainly do with some reform. But, it's also possible that this was quite a difficult tightrope for the police to walk in terms of the law. Some of these laws may seem draconian, but the people of this country who are not racially abusing people, or targeting people because of their sexual orientation, or gender, or inviting support for a proscribed terrorist organisation (which is 99.999% of us), will never fall foul of this legislation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary

ipaddr 2y ago

A principle point would be going after the Brazilian army but that would get him arrested. Safe principled point?

amarcheschi 2y ago

Also, call of duty had and has ties with the army that sees is as a potential recruitment tool. [1] Furthermore, in one call of duty a real event was narrated - although if in a fictional scenario - as if it was made by Russians [2], while in real life it was a us led attack on civilians, prisoners, and non fighting combatants. Google highway of death Another article that has a broader view on the history of how defense and entertainment sector have ties [3] [1] https://gamerant.com/call-duty-modern-warfare-recruitment-tool/ https://gamerant.com/call-duty-modern-warfare-recruitment-to... [2] https://www.newsweek.com/call-duty-modern-warfare-highway-death-russia-gulf-war-1468207 https://www.newsweek.com/call-duty-modern-warfare-highway-de... [3] https://www.thenation.com/article/society/call-of-duty-pentagon-ops-2/ https://www.thenation.com/article/society/call-of-duty-penta...

guardiangod 2y ago
I literally played the 'Highway of Death' CoD:MW 2019 mission last night (before it crashed and I called it a night). That game has no self-awareness at all. US good, Russians bad, must kill bearded brown people.
- switch007 2y ago
  See also the last 25 years of cop/crime shows
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
talldayo 2y ago
> while in real life it was a us led attack on civilians, prisoners, and non fighting combatants. Google highway of death What COD did to this scene was reprehensible, but it's also important to understand the context for the real attack. The Highway of Death that happened in real life was a targeted strike on Saddam Hussein's retreating forces, most of whom were legitimate targets of war. At the time, Iraq sponsored the 4th largest military in the world, was being bombed in Baghdad, and most of their allies were starting to turn on them over outstanding debts. This pressure pushed Saddam to invade Kuwait, and Saddam's actions pushed the US to destroy as much Iraqi materiel as they could possibly damage. The attack did happen on a civilian road, but only after the locals became aware that the highway was being used by Saddam's forces. The controversy mostly stems from attacks on a retreating force and the scale of the destruction, both of which are still up for debate on their effectiveness.

tdeck 2y ago

From what I can tell in the screenshots all the targets in this game are military. I'd be curious if that's indeed the case.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
amarcheschi 2y ago
According to the steam description, only soldiers are killed. It's clear they would have had to use children and not soldiers, had they made this about an Israeli soldier and not a Palestinian one (/s)