Idle Thumbs 119: You, Fisher

[I Saw Dasein]

But to say a Supreme Court justice like Scalia is persuaded specifically on that intuition alone is a naive view of both belief and jurisprudence. A more likely scenario is he's disposed to adduce examples which fit his (necessarily ideological) legal opinions in response to government lawyers arguing that there is an imminent threat that allows the executive to strip normal legal rights and use some forms of torture that are deemed humane (Charlie Savage had spoken at length about how insiders in the Bush administration who are experts on interrogation who think these methods are ineffective were run over by executive branch lawyering )

Of course it would be naive to say that Scalia's views on torture were driven solely by 24. But at the very least 24 provided him with a convenient hypothetical that justifies torture. Effectively Scalia says that since Jack Bauer's use of torture is acceptable or admirable in 24, we should conclude that it is effective or admirable in real life. 

 

I'd also point out that the whole "ticking time bomb" scenario is a product of a fictional work: John Larteguy's The Centurions. It is a hypothetical that was originated in a fictional work (The Centurions), thrust into public consciousness through a fictional work (24), then used as a convenient trope by various political figures as a way of justifying torture (John Yoo, Michael Chertoff, and Justice Scalia all referenced 24 in justifying the use of torture). 

 

I'm not sure you really are arguing the same thing as anyone else, anyway. I don't think anyone is arguing that including torture in a game makes individuals more likely to be violent. I think people are arguing that fictional depictions of torture as effective and necessary when used by government makes people on aggregate more likely to tolerate torture by government. In other words, 24 and Conviction basically operate as pro-torture propaganda. 

 

E; Incidentally, here's a pretty good New Yorker article on how media depictions of torture have changed substantially since 9/11. 

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/02/19/070219fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=1

[feelthedarkness]

having an opinion isn't really a thing! 

 

Also, I'm not sure you can call "opposing torture" "opinionated in a way that is different from me" when torturing people, while totally ineffective, has bipartisan approval. 

[sclpls]

Timely Gamasutra piece on the topic of how games subtly influence us. 

 

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RohanHarris/20130816/198423/Developing_Ethical_Games.php

[Gormongous]

Yes it has been well received as far as I know. The Wikipedia page gives a false impression of legitimate criticism through false he-said-she-said balance. As to the specific question it presupposes some things about media consumption that I don't think is tenable and more likely a product of moral panic. Pinker's book goes on at great length about changes in attitudes flowing from the rights revolutions with data from surveys concomitant with the data showing reductions in violence. The idea that the (out of context) level of media violence figures here is not only contrary to the data regarding the reduction of violence but also the surveys of attitudes which flow from ideas about human (and animal) rights which makes the idea that there is some harm in unrealistic torture scenarios doubtful because we simply think it's wrong as a matter of human rights. These hypothetical harm scenarios tend to rely on a (formal or informal) passive model of consumption where mere exposure is enough to alter attitudes and "behavioral scripts" that are not only simplistic but also resting on blank slate assumptions about human nature.

 

Yeah, you completely talked around my point. If Pinker is right, and there is less violence per capita, but people perceive there being more violence, all because of an "(out of context) level of media violence," then using his book actually argues for the effect of media on people, rather than against it. That doesn't mean that people who play Splinter Cell: Conviction are going to go out and torture someone, but it does mean that they will see that kind of violence as more normal and normative than if they had never played the game. To argue otherwise ignores examples that people have presented to you over and over, like Justice Scalia citing a fictional media work in the course of justifying a real-life decision. If he didn't think it had relevance to the matter at hand, he wouldn't have brought it up. But he did, so it does.

 

Of course, the fact that you use "naive," "simplistic," and "opinionated in a way that is different from me" to dismiss multiple people who are questioning the depiction of torture in a video game, in addition to the two recent pop-philosophy books you've name-dropped out of nowhere, doesn't makes me optimistic that you're going to acknowledge anything I've said.

[anthonyRichard]

quidnunc is cherry-picking from Pinker (whose book isn't pop-philosophy by any stretch of the imagination, btw) to suit his own ends, and relying on people not to have read it. In the book he is referring to, Pinker lauds the reduction (and abolition in some nations) of torture. He also talks seriously about the effect fiction has on people and its role in changing social norms.
The whole thrust of the book is about the gradual changes in societal norms over time that has lead to individuals and societies being less willing to use violence than they once were. He specifically refers to fictions' role in this, by allowing us to explore the interiority of another persons experience, especially those unlike us, making it more difficult to think of them as 'other' and to demonize them.

quidnunc is using a book that lauds the use of fiction to allow us to feel empathy for a wider circle of people, to defend fiction that instead normalizes torture against others with only positive consequences. That is weird and gross.

Pinker on the role of fiction in changing societal norms (in this example, positively):

http://youtu.be/NLHkj450yds?t=1m38s

 

[Gormongous]

Thanks for clarifying, anthonyRichard. I didn't mean to denigrate Pinker's work, but whenever someone says, "This is one of my beliefs on human nature and it is totally corroborated by this book published in the past year," my reaction is that either the book is bunk or their use of it is. I'm glad to hear that the former's not the case, at least.

[thestalkinghead]

isn't batman and the batman games very much like the splinter cell conviction's "torture always works" thing? in fact threatening/touring people for information that is always correct is very common in games, maybe it is the brutal over the topness of conviction that makes this problem more clear, and even though it is unintentional, it does point out how wrong that is.

 

i need to think about it more so i can properly explain what i mean, but maybe over the top brutality and immorality is needed in fiction so we can look at it and say "that it is wrong".

i think if every piece of fiction was always ethical and moral it would be bad because it would be ignoring the fact that unethical and immoral things can/do happen, and i think that exploring and thinking about immoral and unethical things can have a positive effect of not wanting to emulate or reproduce those things, basically i mean violence in video games and other fiction can influence you to be less violent (i don't know if that is coherent) 

[Chris]

isn't batman and the batman games very much like the splinter cell conviction's "torture always works" thing? in fact threatening/touring people for information that is always correct is very common in games, maybe it is the brutal over the topness of conviction that makes this problem more clear, and even though it is unintentional, it does point out how wrong that is.

 

i need to think about it more so i can properly explain what i mean, but maybe over the top brutality and immorality is needed in fiction so we can look at it and say "that it is wrong".

i think if every piece of fiction was always ethical and moral it would be bad because it would be ignoring the fact that unethical and immoral things can/do happen, and i think that exploring and thinking about immoral and unethical things can have a positive effect of not wanting to emulate or reproduce those things, basically i mean violence in video games and other fiction can influence you to be less violent (i don't know if that is coherent) 

 

You can include instances of brutality and immorality without the work itself implicitly endorsing it, even in a thrilling context. It need not be didactically condemning and scolding. But surely it is more interesting and effective and honorable to make some kind of attempt to interrogate its implications rather than, generally, lazily but overwhelmingly endorse just one particular outcome, especially when the subject matter is so relevant to matters of considerable importance in our society.

[thestalkinghead]

yeah i guess it is always better if the intention is to make the reader empathise with the victims of the violence/unethical behaviour than that to only be revealed with critical afterthought 

[feelthedarkness]

I think that is better employed in Spec Ops, where as things get worse, he's exposed to and participates in more brutality, and Walker becomes more unhinged. His barks get cruel and melee attacks get more savage. 

[thestalkinghead]

I think that is better employed in Spec Ops, where as things get worse, he's exposed to and participates in more brutality, and Walker becomes more unhinged. His barks get cruel and melee attacks get more savage. 

 

i have heard mixed reviews of that game, some have said it sort of tricks you into doing things then later goes "ha, look you did bad things" i felt like that with dishonored, i killed lots of random NPC's (most of whom were doing bad things) but saved most of the people that had a story, there was one

where if you didn't kill them they had their tongue cut out and were forced to work in mines as a slave, so they were both bad options

but in the end i felt like i got a bad ending and it was blaming me for being evil but it was the game that made me do it, i know you can do a non-lethal playthrough but that just seemed really unnecessary and most of the NPC's were bad guys anyway

[TychoCelchuuu]

yeah i guess it is always better if the intention is to make the reader empathise with the victims of the violence/unethical behaviour than that to only be revealed with critical afterthought

That's not what Chris said, I think. Every example of torture doesn't have to say "TORTURE IS WRONG IT IS UNETHICAL FEEL FOR THE VICTIM YOU ARE A TERRIBLE PERSON." He's just saying the default treatment of torture in games doesn't need to be "Torture: It Just Works™" because that's bullshit for eight thousand reasons.

[Twig]

So, to preface, I'm rather ignorant on this topic, feel free to educate me.

 

(And this has nothing to do with media's portrayal, so feel free to tell me to shut up if it's unwanted discussion.)

 

But, if torture is in continued use to this day, in real life!! (I mean, it is, right?), surely it must work. Whether or not it's humane is a separate thing, and whether or not it works 100% of the time is also a separate thing. I'm curious. Is there some sort of study or historical evidence to show that torture is mostly ineffective? Again, NOT talking about whether it's humane or justified, just the effectiveness. Because I don't know shit about shit here. It just feels like if it's an active topic of discussion even today in 2013, there must be a reason for it even beyond media's constant portrayal of it.

[thestalkinghead]

That's not what Chris said, I think. Every example of torture doesn't have to say "TORTURE IS WRONG IT IS UNETHICAL FEEL FOR THE VICTIM YOU ARE A TERRIBLE PERSON." He's just saying the default treatment of torture in games doesn't need to be "Torture: It Just Works™" because that's bullshit for eight thousand reasons.

well i was talking about the broader subject of violence as well just torture, but you need to be able to empathise with the victim of torture to be able to understand why it wouldn't just work every time

[TychoCelchuuu]

well i was talking about the broader subject of violence as well just torture, but you need to be able to empathise with the victim of torture to be able to understand why it wouldn't just work every time

I'm not seeing why that would be necessary. You could, alternatively, just listen to the people who say torture does not work.

I think it's also pretty clear that Chris didn't say that violence in general needs to make you feel bad for a game to get it right - the Thumbs love tons of games, like Dishonored, where violence doesn't make you feel bad at all.

Twig: torture is of dubious effectiveness. See the sources linked here and here for instance. If you're confused as to why people would keep up a practice that doesn't produce the desired results, maybe you could ask people who pray, or who consult their horoscopes, or who do all sorts of things that don't work.

[Problem Machine]

But, if torture is in continued use to this day, in real life!! (I mean, it is, right?), surely it must work.

Are you claiming that any practice that endures past a certain amount of time is therefore definitely to some degree effective? Because kids still die due to faith healing...

[Twig]

Are you claiming that any practice that endures past a certain amount of time is therefore definitely to some degree effective? Because kids still die due to faith healing...

I believe I very specifically stated multiple times throughout that post my ignorance, so I appreciate your snarky response.

 

Tycho: thanks. Even though you're slightly snarky, too. But less so.

[Problem Machine]

Well, ignorance aside (I can't claim to have a huge knowledge base on the subject myself), the logic doesn't hold up. That's all I wanted to point out, and I don't believe that it's snarky to do so. I don't see why correcting you on the facts would be helpful and pointing out a logical fallacy on your part wouldn't be. Oh well.

[Twig]

I wasn't claiming anything. I was asking for more information. "Oh well."

 

Also, something like torture, which has very direct consequences in very important ways, is a far cry from praying or faith healing or horoscopes or, well, anything faith-related. With torture, there is a specific goal: get information. If it continuously does not work and the people in charge know about it, it's very strange that the trend would continue. With those other things, there is a vague wishy-washy hope that some magical force of nature or supernature will intervene or guide you down the right path. When that path then conveniently works out, it's very easy to give credit to that faith-related magic. Yes, you could argue there is an element of "faith" to hoping something like torture will work... but when it doesn't work time and time again, and people continue to use it... I blame it more on desperation and lack of other options/willingness to explore those options than I do on blind faith. People pray because they believe it works. People torture because they hope it works.

 

The two aren't really comparable. In my opinion!

 

And, yeah, it's not as clear-cut as that. Obviously there's some overlap. Some people pray when they're desperate. Some people might torture because they believe it works. But I'm just talkin' 'bout the big picture.

[Problem Machine]

Maybe not entirely. It is a good point that the results of torture are, at least hypothetically, much more measurable in terms of usable information vs unusable information: On the other hand, given unusable information, people will often try to use it anyway and blame failure on other factors. This is where the comparison the faith healing becomes at least a bit salient I think. More so than that, though, I just wanted to show that the logic didn't necessarily follow.

 

When it comes to torture... call me a pessimist, but I think even if we knew it didn't work, some people would want to do it anyway, for reasons ancient and dark and cruel. The urge to behave in this fashion predates interrogations, enhanced or otherwise, and timebombs, ticking or otherwise. That, more than anything else, is why I personally believe it has persisted as a practice, regardless of the justifications used.

[Twig]

Maybe not entirely. It is a good point that the results of torture are, at least hypothetically, much more measurable in terms of usable information vs unusable information: On the other hand, given unusable information, people will often try to use it anyway and blame failure on other factors. This is where the comparison the faith healing becomes at least a bit salient I think. More so than that, though, I just wanted to show that the logic didn't necessarily follow.

 

When it comes to torture... call me a pessimist, but I think even if we knew it didn't work, some people would want to do it anyway, for reasons ancient and dark and cruel. The urge to behave in this fashion predates interrogations, enhanced or otherwise, and timebombs, ticking or otherwise. That, more than anything else, is why I personally believe it has persisted as a practice, regardless of the justifications used.

Hah, I hadn't even considered that some people torture because they want to. Consciously or not. Gross. Gross because it's probably true, at least some of the time, maybe more than some.

[thestalkinghead]

I'm not seeing why that would be necessary. You could, alternatively, just listen to the people who say torture does not work.

I think it's also pretty clear that Chris didn't say that violence in general needs to make you feel bad for a game to get it right - the Thumbs love tons of games, like Dishonored, where violence doesn't make you feel bad at all.

Twig: torture is of dubious effectiveness. See the sources linked here and here for instance. If you're confused as to why people would keep up a practice that doesn't produce the desired results, maybe you could ask people who pray, or who consult their horoscopes, or who do all sorts of things that don't work.

 

empathy is about understanding (not just making you feel bad), and if you can understand that someone may say anything to stop pain or that someone may never talk or lie because of their beliefs and what has happened to them in their life you can understand why torture doesn't always work, sure you can just listen to someone say "torture doesn't work" and just take that as truth without thinking about it at all, but actually understanding why would be better.

 

"I think it's also pretty clear that Chris didn't say that violence in general needs to make you feel bad for a game to get it right - the Thumbs love tons of games, like Dishonored, where violence doesn't make you feel bad at all."

 

i didn't say he did, so I'm not sure if you are directing that part at me, but clearly the game would have been far more effective if you did feel bad about killing someone

[osmosisch]

Dishonored does make me feel bad for killing dudes by virtue of its horrific death animations. I cannot perform that sort of violence in a game and feel good about myself.

[clyde]

So, to preface, I'm rather ignorant on this topic, feel free to educate me.

(And this has nothing to do with media's portrayal, so feel free to tell me to shut up if it's unwanted discussion.)

But, if torture is in continued use to this day, in real life!! (I mean, it is, right?), surely it must work. Whether or not it's humane is a separate thing, and whether or not it works 100% of the time is also a separate thing. I'm curious. Is there some sort of study or historical evidence to show that torture is mostly ineffective? Again, NOT talking about whether it's humane or justified, just the effectiveness. Because I don't know shit about shit here. It just feels like if it's an active topic of discussion even today in 2013, there must be a reason for it even beyond media's constant portrayal of it.

Besides ethical considerations, I think that a lot of the argument about torture involves the perceptibility of results. Pro-torture can point out instances where torture has obtained information that was then corroborated for accuracy. This is much more easy to document and show as evidence than the evidence in favor of the anti-torture argument which depends on wider perception of national identities and the complexities of relationships over time. I get the impression that those who support torture have an inflated impatience and urgency involved in their arguments saying things like "We need results fast!", but they are ignoring a more systems-based view where more of the implications are considered such as public trust and symbolic reputations. From my perspective, when the State who claims moral high-ground as their agenda uses torture, the terrorists win.

If only there was an art-form that was based on procedural systems; we could make art that would begin to demonstrate the enormous web of cascading pros and cons involved with actions such as torture. I'd love this, because moral arguments are sloppy.

[CaptainFish]

With torture, there is a specific goal: get information.

Although this is the case we're discussing, this isn't always true. It doesn't necessarily have to be for any goal, just inflicting pain to a prisoner.  For example I read it occurs regularly in Pakistan, and at police stations often the goal is to convince the prisoner to bribe the police into a lesser punishment. That's to say nothing of the stuff that happens in their jails.

I found it really weird to read some of the comments under that interview Kirk Hamilton conducted. That part of the game is just taken as a feature, and some  people are mad that they won't get to cooperatively brutalize a defenseless person. Games.