Gaizokubanou Posted January 3, 2015 So on feminism thread Apple Cider and Merus said some interesting bits about the topic and I wanted to discuss it without going off topic so there it is, a thread about it IDK about how you guys grew up but as I grew up I actually grew quite fond of military hardware long before I ever played a wargame that handled the subject matter with any sort of resemblance that's even worth noting. I think I started to collect main battle tank models (1/48 scale I think?) around age 6 (1991, year of Terminator 2), and my past time reading ended up becoming almost exclusively about military related stuff. But it was a peculiar fandom because while I always LOVED tanks, I also always feared possibility of war and inevitable conscription (so I thought, but I ended up dodging it through power of immigration hahaha eat it South Korea military) so perhaps I should be TANKFUL (had to do it) that I didn't turn into some sort of evil fascist. So the reason I bring all that up is, I like military themed stuff, including video games. I must have spent 100+ hours into Operation Flashpoint in my high school years, loved battlefield franchise (for the ridiculous nonsense they are but wow are those fun or what) and recently spent 20+ hours into Wargame: Red Dragon after getting it during Steam sales. But having said that, there are few recent developments that I do find worrying and hence I want to discuss this topic more with other people smarter than I. So what bugged me when I just grew up loving all that stuff? Let's say I'm totally ok with Call of Duty as game but the live action ads for that series really rubs me the wrong way because it gives me this impression that they are trying to tell us that shooting gun is a fun, casual carefree activity... well it is in a video game, but the live action-ness of the ads seem to cross that safety line. So what do you people who are smarter than I think on this subject? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gamemore Posted January 3, 2015 Do you feel the same thing about non-ad live-action movies treating gun violence in a similarily light manner such as action comedies? Edit: Also, I doubt I am smarter than you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gaizokubanou Posted January 3, 2015 Do you feel the same thing about non-ad live-action movies treating gun violence in a similarily light manner such as action comedies? Edit: Also, I doubt I am smarter than you. Most of the times, no. I find action comedy to be funny but the deal is action comedies are often self-aware of their ridiculousness and that self-awareness is the humor (most of the times anyway). I didn't get that sense of self-awareness in the very first CoD live action ad (the one featuring that actor from new Clash of the Titans and Avatar). The second one with youtube personalities was definitely lot less abrasive as the focus seemed to be on the personalities in chain of out-doing the previous one via game mechanic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deadpan Posted January 3, 2015 The impact such games have on gun culture and their perceived coolness is definitely worth getting into, but where stuff like Call of Duty definitely crosses the line into gross territory for me is that - even outside of that one time one of these games did a tacky "Why not buy these guns for real?!" promotion - developers end up supporting gun companies by paying licensing fees in order to get to use real brands in their games. So while these oh-so innocent simulations are already worth criticizing on a level of representation and cultural impact, they also often indirectly subsidize the production of real guns. Something that I feel is rarely brought up, or maybe conveniently forgotten when it comes to the age of the modern military shooter. Edit: I tried chasing down where I last read about this (Parkin, of course), and turns out EA has reportedly stopped paying such licensing fees. Probably stil a couple of other devs who do? I dunno. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
James Posted January 3, 2015 Would that in some way make Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, with its futuristic and presumably entirely fictional weapons, a slightly less unethical purchase than games from the Modern Warfare series? It still has a bunch of problems about stuff like normalizing militarism and so on, but I guess it doesn't contribute materially to the actual production of weapons, unless they're using real brand names on fake firearms (I've played the game, but I neither pay enough attention to the weapon names nor know enough about manufacturers to be sure that they didn't do that). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
itsamoose Posted January 3, 2015 I actually came to a similar situation, although in a roundabout way. i was really into space as a kid, so I tended to like sci-fi stuff which inevitably lead me to military gear. I think I've always been fascinated with how things work, which has really been the impetus for my interest. I enjoy military fiction (for lack of a better term), but those kinds of things don't usually hold my interest long because they are more interested in special effects and lavishly praising soldiers than anything else. I think this doesn't bother me as much since I do like these things, but not for the reasons people typically do. I enjoy learning about the inner workings of crazy pseudo-scientific future weapons, even if that kind of thing is largely consequential to the actual game/movie/whatever, and something about high level strategies of war captures my interest as well. I enjoy learning thing such as how the Japanese kamikaze fighters weren't nearly as effective as I had been lead to believe in my high school history class, or how the cuban missile crisis was actually averted due to the failure of an incredibly powerful but as of yet untested submarine engine that was itself a relic of WW2.I'm in agreement when you point out the live action promos for call of duty being a little gross, and even for me the gamestop in-engine commercials where they say things like "nothing like a firefight to put a little spring in your step". I'm not sure if this is more an American perspective, but I think this feeds into the current Chickenhawk (meaning someone who is willing to go to war, as long as they don't have to be the one to go) foreign policy attitudes of many of my peers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
itsamoose Posted January 3, 2015 Would that in some way make Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, with its futuristic and presumably entirely fictional weapons, a slightly less unethical purchase than games from the Modern Warfare series? It still has a bunch of problems about stuff like normalizing militarism and so on, but I guess it doesn't contribute materially to the actual production of weapons, unless they're using real brand names on fake firearms (I've played the game, but I neither pay enough attention to the weapon names nor know enough about manufacturers to be sure that they didn't do that). You bring up a good point here, in that for one reason or another we tend to see fantastical violence as not really a big deal, which becomes a bit muddier when there is an explicit effort by the team to ground that fantasy in an all too familiar reality. I remember one level in I believe Modern Warfare 2 where you and a couple of kitted out soldiers cut your way through a favela presumably full of people who's only possession may be the rifle they are using. I couldn't help but feel as though I was taking the role of the oppresive government (a la the empire in star wars) which I think was ultimately the point. This seems to be happening in movies as well, although the violence there seems to be going more toward the fantastic. I saw Fury recently, and in that all the German guns shoot green lasers while all the American guns shoot red ones and there are a number of what could only be described as Mortal Kombat style fatalities throughout. I don't really know how to feel about all this other than to say that if I were one of the COD developers organizing a deal with an arms manufacturer I don't think I would be able to sleep well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperBiasedMan Posted January 3, 2015 I'm not sure if this is more an American perspective, but I think this feeds into the current Chickenhawk (meaning someone who is willing to go to war, as long as they don't have to be the one to go) foreign policy attitudes of many of my peers. I'm kind of curious about this too. I'm from Ireland where the police don't generally have guns, let alone citizens. But I've never been that big of a fan of shooters (for unrelated reasons I think. I enjoy movement based stuff way more, clicking on things to kill them doesn't engage me much) so I don't know if I can contribute much to the specific point but I'm curious to see what other Non-american thumbs might say. In general it does feel gross to me, I'm not keen on it. When it's more real that feels to me like it ties into and evokes actual conflict more, which can illicit a less detached reaction (to some people that might still be positive). But regardless of realism, I think people internalise the implicit narrative of things that go unquestioned in people's minds. In an old episode of the podcast, the Thumbs talked about the creators of a Splinter Cell game not realising there was a possibility to make their game have sections with torture that don't work as part of the narrative. To the game creators, when torture failing was suggested, they thought it would require a branching timeline, instead of just having the torture fail to get good information and making that part of the story. I've always remembered this because it's a perfect encapsulation of how you can limit the possibilities in someone's brain by constantly presenting a view of reality and never giving alternatives. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gaizokubanou Posted January 3, 2015 The impact such games have on gun culture and their perceived coolness is definitely worth getting into, but where stuff like Call of Duty definitely crosses the line into gross territory for me is that - even outside of that one time one of these games did a tacky "Why not buy these guns for real?!" promotion - developers end up supporting gun companies by paying licensing fees in order to get to use real brands in their games. So while these oh-so innocent simulations are already worth criticizing on a level of representation and cultural impact, they also often indirectly subsidize the production of real guns. Something that I feel is rarely brought up, or maybe conveniently forgotten when it comes to the age of the modern military shooter. Edit: I tried chasing down where I last read about this (Parkin, of course), and turns out EA has reportedly stopped paying such licensing fees. Probably stil a couple of other devs who do? I dunno. I actually don't see paying real weapons manufacturers licensing fees as problematic in and of itself because I don't find arms manufacturing ethically concerning by itself. I see all aspects of military, from weapons, strategy to culture, as vital necessity to civilization (both the game and real life). What grosses me about the recent development is the push to make light of what is one of the most serious aspects of our society (for most of us it will probably be indirect) without neither being a satire or trying to hint to the audience of its ridiculousness. To a degree this sort of glorifying war always existed in history (lot of World War I's problem stemmed from this, which was ironically a culture which tried to empower individuals), but I think it's safe to say that the degree of glorification has varied, and I worry that the current trend seems to be going up at least in the USA. I actually came to a similar situation, although in a roundabout way. i was really into space as a kid, so I tended to like sci-fi stuff which inevitably lead me to military gear. I think I've always been fascinated with how things work, which has really been the impetus for my interest. I enjoy military fiction (for lack of a better term), but those kinds of things don't usually hold my interest long because they are more interested in special effects and lavishly praising soldiers than anything else. I think this doesn't bother me as much since I do like these things, but not for the reasons people typically do. I enjoy learning about the inner workings of crazy pseudo-scientific future weapons, even if that kind of thing is largely consequential to the actual game/movie/whatever, and something about high level strategies of war captures my interest as well. I enjoy learning thing such as how the Japanese kamikaze fighters weren't nearly as effective as I had been lead to believe in my high school history class, or how the cuban missile crisis was actually averted due to the failure of an incredibly powerful but as of yet untested submarine engine that was itself a relic of WW2.I'm in agreement when you point out the live action promos for call of duty being a little gross, and even for me the gamestop in-engine commercials where they say things like "nothing like a firefight to put a little spring in your step". I'm not sure if this is more an American perspective, but I think this feeds into the current Chickenhawk (meaning someone who is willing to go to war, as long as they don't have to be the one to go) foreign policy attitudes of many of my peers. I love space theme too but that mostly stemmed out of Gundam so in a very limited sort of way. I think the perspective is definitely American because while I can only compare two cultures, in South Korea due to conscription, lot of 'mythic' qualities about military service is gone and people have easier time seeing it for what it really is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deadpan Posted January 3, 2015 Would that in some way make Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, with its futuristic and presumably entirely fictional weapons, a slightly less unethical purchase than games from the Modern Warfare series? It still has a bunch of problems about stuff like normalizing militarism and so on, but I guess it doesn't contribute materially to the actual production of weapons, unless they're using real brand names on fake firearms (I've played the game, but I neither pay enough attention to the weapon names nor know enough about manufacturers to be sure that they didn't do that). I'd say so, yeah. I haven't played Advanced Warfare, or any military shooter since the first Modern Warfare, really, so this conversation could probably use a bit more specificity (Where's Brendon Keogh when you need him), but in general I'd say that not only does not having these direct material ties to conflict and those interested in profiting from conflict make it less unethical, the further you go from real conflicts towards the fantastical, the more indirect and thus ineffectual its cultural implications might become. A game about a space age war in which you shoot purple humanoid aliens easily can (and probably will) take a racist attitude towards those aliens, but in my mind that's still a different can of beans than othering an existing group of human beings. To make war and violent in conflict on the whole appear heroic by way of some fantastical tale is still questionable to me, but perhaps less questionable than presenting a real conflict (or an obvious stand in) as grandiose and righteous, where that opinion-building might have impact on how the conflict continues. Continuing the war on terror relies in part on continually affirming to the public that the actions of your side are justified, whether as part of a conscious political effort or the way it's negotiated in media. I actually don't see paying real weapons manufacturers licensing fees as problematic in and of itself because I don't find arms manufacturing ethically concerning by itself. I see all aspects of military, from weapons, strategy to culture, as vital necessity to civilization (both the game and real life). What grosses me about the recent development is the push to make light of what is one of the most serious aspects of our society (for most of us it will probably be indirect) without neither being a satire or trying to hint to the audience of its ridiculousness. To a degree this sort of glorifying war always existed in history (lot of World War I's problem stemmed from this, which was ironically a culture which tried to empower individuals), but I think it's safe to say that the degree of glorification has varied, and I worry that the current trend seems to be going up at least in the USA. That's fine, I guess, I might not entirely agree with that, but that's probably just a conversation about how much importance we think should be placed on them. However, while arms manufacturing might not be ethically concerning in and of itself, I would posit that arms manufacturers are. I doubt that they would happily go out of business should utopia come to pass against all odds, and while I don't want to suggest some sort of PMC conspiracy bullshit (as these military shooters are actually wont to peddle), these companies probably do posess a non-negligible amount of political clout and lobbying power. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gaizokubanou Posted January 3, 2015 That's fine, I guess, I might not entirely agree with that, but that's probably just a conversation about how much importance we think should be placed on them. However, while arms manufacturing might not be ethically concerning in and of itself, I would posit that arms manufacturers are. I doubt that they would happily go out of business should utopia come to pass against all odds, and while I don't want to suggest some sort of PMC conspiracy bullshit (as these military shooters are actually wont to peddle), these companies probably do posess a non-negligible amount of political clout and lobbying power. Oh yeah, no doubt their interest are probably muddled at best. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
itsamoose Posted January 3, 2015 I'd say so, yeah. I haven't played Advanced Warfare, or any military shooter since the first Modern Warfare, really, so this conversation could probably use a bit more specificity (Where's Brendon Keogh when you need him), but in general I'd say that not only does not having these direct material ties to conflict and those interested in profiting from conflict make it less unethical, the further you go from real conflicts towards the fantastical, the more indirect and thus ineffectual its cultural implications might become. A game about a space age war in which you shoot purple humanoid aliens easily can (and probably will) take a racist attitude towards those aliens, but in my mind that's still a different can of beans than othering an existing group of human beings. To make war and violent in conflict on the whole appear heroic by way of some fantastical tale is still questionable to me, but perhaps less questionable than presenting a real conflict (or an obvious stand in) as grandiose and righteous, where that opinion-building might have impact on how the conflict continues. Continuing the war on terror relies in part on continually affirming to the public that the actions of your side are justified, whether as part of a conscious political effort or the way it's negotiated in media. I see the perspective, but I'm not sure this is necessarily a hard and fast rule. From the outside the Modern warfare series seems like something that is pro-war, but in playing through it you realize the game has a rather cynical opinion of it, and each time more soldiers get involved the overall conflict gets worse. In the end the conflict is ultimately resolved not by some final battle but by the politicians of the world and the soldiers the story follows generally only jeopardize or hinder their efforts. In fact: the final mission of MW3 takes place after the conflict has been resolved, and the protagonist makes it clear that his intentions are purely vengeful. Then once you take out the antagonist the main character, badly wounded at this point, pulls out a cigar, lights it, and the screen fades to black. I've also heard from a couple places that games taking place in the middle east are incredibly popular there and are seen as largely cathartic. On the topic of aliens representing a group vs. using the real world equivalent, this has always to me been a function of specificity. Take for example Oregon Trail, Unity of Command, or any other game set in a specific place and time. Now the two games I mentioned I don't think anyone would call unethical, but these are largely nonspecific games. Unity of Command has a pretty horrific setting, but the player never really sees the grisly reality of that due to the game's perspective. Splinter cell, on the other hand, seems to revel in tying itself to the kind of "ripped from the headlines" style thematic elements in a personal, visceral (weee!) way. Now Contrast both of those games with Spec Ops: The Line, which is about a fantastical conflict set in a specific real world place and time that, to some extent, is able to have it's cake and eat it too. As you make your way through the campaign the veneer of heroism and honor slowly falls away and all you are left with is violence seemingly for it's own sake. I think the reason you use aliens or some made up organization is so they can embody the particular traits you want to talk about or to combine a general philosophy into something more concrete, but in general I find this makes them a little one note. Take the Asari in Mass Effect for example. Bioware claims up and down they aren't all women or meant to represent women, but all Asari characters look like female supermodels, they are all voiced by women, the themes of many of their missions involve motherhood and nurturing, almost all the pole dancers are Asari, the head of their society is called a Matriarch, etc. I can't help but see this as the developers wanting to create a space to talk about women's issues, but not wanting to go so far as to invoke anyone's prejudice. I suppose this is nothing new, but I have a hard time seeing the explicit or exact representation of a real world conflict or group as more or less ethical. I suppose like anything else it's more in the way the conflict is represented, whether or not the game seeks to question the status quo vs. just paying lip service to the same. Personally I've always seen the fantastical elements of games as being less about the thematic elements and more related to creating a reasonable basis for it's mechanics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deadpan Posted January 4, 2015 I see the perspective, but I'm not sure this is necessarily a hard and fast rule. From the outside the Modern warfare series seems like something that is pro-war, but in playing through it you realize the game has a rather cynical opinion of it, and each time more soldiers get involved the overall conflict gets worse. In the end the conflict is ultimately resolved not by some final battle but by the politicians of the world and the soldiers the story follows generally only jeopardize or hinder their efforts. I've also heard from a couple places that games taking place in the middle east are incredibly popular there and are seen as largely cathartic. Well no, and maybe I shouldn't run my mouth so much seeing how the last such game I played is Modern Warfare one, which had very distinct anti-war undertones. I also mostly wanted to use it as an example of this kind of game, of which there are many more. I know recent Battlefield games for instance exacerbated tensions with Iran and China, respectively. However, I would say that the series role as a cultural artifact isn't defined primarily, but at the very least not entirely, by the content of its respective campaigns, simply because a lot of people play those once, and then spend hundreds of hours in multiplayer matches, where the focus naturally shifts from any narrative mediation of themes to the representational values inherent to making gameplay feel rewarding. So less time spent thinking about how you're maybe not the playing the good guy here, and more time spent thinking about how that new gun you unlocked is totally sick, presumably. More subversive reads of the campaign and the general action obviously exist, you could latch onto whatever amount of western incompetence takes place in the course of a game for instance, but that doesn't mean you automatically have that experience if you boot up the game. That said, my musings are a little uncomfortably speculative: the audience of the Modern Warfare series vastly outnumbers the amount of people who read game criticism, let alone the kind of game criticism that would talk about the glorification of war and conflict. So truthfully, I don't know what they think while playing, simply because we never hear from most of them. On the topic of aliens representing a group vs. using the real world equivalent, this has always to me been a function of specificity. Take for example Oregon Trail, Unity of Command, or any other game set in a specific place and time. Now the two games I mentioned I don't think anyone would call unethical, but these are largely nonspecific games. Unity of Command has a pretty horrific setting, but the player never really sees the grisly reality of that due to the game's perspective. Splinter cell, on the other hand, seems to revel in tying itself to the kind of "ripped from the headlines" style thematic elements in a personal, visceral (weee!) way. Now Contrast both of those games with Spec Ops: The Line, which is about a fantastical conflict set in a specific real world place and time that, to some extent, is able to have it's cake and eat it too. As you make your way through the campaign the veneer of heroism and honor slowly falls away and all you are left with is violence seemingly for it's own sake. I think the reason you use aliens or some made up organization is so they can embody the particular traits you want to talk about or to combine a general philosophy into something more concrete, but in general I find this makes them a little one note. Take the Asari in Mass Effect for example. Bioware claims up and down they aren't all women or meant to represent women, but all Asari characters look like female supermodels, they are all voiced by women, the themes of many of their missions involve motherhood and nurturing, almost all the pole dancers are Asari, the head of their society is called a Matriarch, etc. I can't help but see this as the developers wanting to create a space to talk about women's issues, but not wanting to go so far as to invoke anyone's prejudice. I suppose this is nothing new, but I have a hard time seeing the explicit or exact representation of a real world conflict or group as more or less ethical. I suppose like anything else it's more in the way the conflict is represented, whether or not the game seeks to question the status quo vs. just paying lip service to the same. Personally I've always seen the fantastical elements of games as being less about the thematic elements and more related to creating a reasonable basis for it's mechanics. I think we'll have to clear up what you mean by "specific," because I'm not sure what makes Unity of Command and Oregon Trail, both of which are rooted in real history, largely nonspecific to you (I assume because their content can deviate from real history?). What you say about Splinter Cell also suggests that maybe we're talking about different kinds of specificity here - specific to the real world, specific to the present, specific to me - and maybe there's a similar mix up with Spec Ops. I wouldn't call it fantastical - as in, pertaining to fantasy - just because its conflict is fictional: it's still tied to real locations, real political tensions, etc. It's made up, obviously, but it's clothed in the garb of present reality, opposite something like Mass Effect. Don't think what you're saying there is even opposed to my point, just perpendicular going in an entirely different direction. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
itsamoose Posted January 4, 2015 I think we'll have to clear up what you mean by "specific," because I'm not sure what makes Unity of Command and Oregon Trail, both of which are rooted in real history, largely nonspecific to you (I assume because their content can deviate from real history?). What you say about Splinter Cell also suggests that maybe we're talking about different kinds of specificity here - specific to the real world, specific to the present, specific to me - and maybe there's a similar mix up with Spec Ops. I wouldn't call it fantastical - as in, pertaining to fantasy - just because its conflict is fictional: it's still tied to real locations, real political tensions, etc. It's made up, obviously, but it's clothed in the garb of present reality, opposite something like Mass Effect. Don't think what you're saying there is even opposed to my point, just perpendicular going in an entirely different direction. Yeah that bit wasn't as clear as I would have liked. I see this as the difference between representing a circumstance vs representing an exact or particular series of events. So Unity of command is about the circumstance of the Russian army in WW2, whereas splinter cell tells the particular story of Sam Fisher. What I mean by specificity here is where the game lies on the spectrum of exact to applicable. For example Splinter cell isn't really interested in discussing the war on terror so much as they are interested in the story of Sam Fisher, whereas Unity of command isn't interested in the plight of the soldiers on the Eastern front in WW2, and no one battle is guaranteed to carry it's real world historical significance. By the same token Oregon trail isn't a story about a particular pioneer's journey west, it is about the circumstances people in that situation might encounter. I suppose this is more a function of the game design, where something with a narrative will naturally be more specific than something in a sandbox. What I liked about Spec Ops so much was that it was able to tell a specific story that was also a wonderful exploration of the effects of the war on society without making it about any particular group of people. I won't go into spoilers if you haven't played it yet, I will only say the game starts out with the player having some purpose to their actions but rapidly decays when faced with the grim reality of war. At the start you have a concrete goal, although It's not clear who you are fighting or why you are fighting (your team members have some dialogue asking who the group they just killed were). You are just fighting, and eventually the fact that you are fighting becomes to sole impetus to keep fighting. In case you have played it, the situation I am speaking about is: The second helicopter level where the main character says something to the effect of "we've already done this". At this point the game seems to lose all sense of time and place, even to the effect of appearing out of order or supernatural, until the final scene where some marines arrive to relieve you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gaizokubanou Posted January 4, 2015 Man Spec Ops is so good, glad you brought it up itsamoose. On Call of Duty series, yeah the stories are not pro war but I think the gameplay undermines that IMO because so much of the game is about hyping up you gunning your way through whatever conflict the game throws at you... and that undermining is really awkward at best, and gross at worst. Contrast that to say, Ace Combat series where even the story is about hyping up your combat prowess (outside of Ace Combat 4 I guess? Haven't played 1 2 and 3 though) but combine the aircraft combat (oppose to being an infantry) with lot of the story being bit zany (you always end up fighting some crazy vehicle and do some sort of death-star trench run at the end to save the world) actually makes it feel lot more palatable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tegan Posted January 6, 2015 There's something really unsettling about the way "geek culture" fetishizes violence and war. The classic example that comes to mind for me is That One Store In The Mall That Sells Fantasy Knives, but I feel like the modern iteration that popped up in the wake of stuff like Call of Duty is way worse: "ironic" tactical and military gear. haha yeah the zombie apocalypse right? so funny, right guys? check me out, ironically spending $230 on survivalist gear for the zombie apocalypse! isn't it hilarious how I have all of these fucking weapons for "zombie slaying"? I feel like the arguable worst is this stupid pen marketed specifically for people who want to be Jack Bauer and are more likely to be arrested. BUST CRIME WITH ONLY A PEN We've always had a thing for crime shows, especially the kind with lots of forensic science. Also, it may help when the scientist happens to be a tattooed goth girl that's on a constant sugar high. Just sayin'. Even if it's faux science done in blue-tinted labs, we love it. The thought of a criminal being brought to justice because they left an eyelash at the scene of the crime is just sweet. But we're also reminded that crime is real and you never know when the bad guys might strike.Are you expecting the unexpected? Does expecting the unexpected make the unexpected expected? Either way, the Uzi Tactical Pen turns a mere pen into a life saving tool. The crown also doubles as a glass breaker if you ever get trapped in your vehicle... If things get really bad, you can always rely on the hidden handcuff key inside the top of this pen. This badass writing utensil is made of high-grade aircraft aluminum and writes upside down or under water. If you can find a situation where you use all of this pen's features and live to tell the tale, we probably owe you some sort of prize. A handcuff key, for "busting crime." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deadpan Posted January 6, 2015 haha yeah the zombie apocalypse right? so funny, right guys? check me out, ironically spending $230 on survivalist gear for the zombie apocalypse! While I'm sure it's possible to do in a positive, non-creepy way, it seems to me a lot of people who are into that survival and doomsday prepping stuff just can't wait for everything to go to hell, and then they'll be the top dog for once, and they can get back at eeeeeeeveryone else. Like, I overheard my brother watching that show about it and the guy was talking about how many thousands of rounds he's got tucked away for self-defense and I'm like "You just can't wait until you get to shoot people without being put into jail, can you?" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted January 6, 2015 I actually know a few people who have bug out bags and they're not the kind of people who would shoot someone for fun. Honestly, it's not a totally bad idea to have one, although it is pretty paranoid. Not to say it ain't weird to get super into it though. 'Cause it is. Weird. Weirdo weirds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gaizokubanou Posted January 6, 2015 I think there is a fine distinction between bug out bags and zombie killing arsenal. But maybe that's because I really like building bug out bags/basic survival kit And no I don't think I'll ever use them. I see it more of a hobby to scratch that 'survivor' itch, right there along with hiking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pkirkner Posted January 6, 2015 There's something really unsettling about the way "geek culture" fetishizes violence and war. The classic example that comes to mind for me is That One Store In The Mall That Sells Fantasy Knives, but I feel like the modern iteration that popped up in the wake of stuff like Call of Duty is way worse: "ironic" tactical and military gear. Yeah, that's really apparent at the gun range. I get the exact same vibe from people with tricked-out AR-15's as I do from folks with tricked-out gaming PC's. Jon Stokes wrote a bit about it for Wired after Sandy Hook: “It’s something mechanical; it’s modular in fashion,” is how Jay Duncan, VP of Sales at Daniel Defense, begins when asked to describe the appeal of the AR-15. “Because it’s so modular you can build the firearm the way that you want it, and it can be like nobody else’s firearm. It’s about personalization.” As an early employee of one of the fastest-growing high-end AR-15 makers, Duncan has the perfect perch from which to observe the black rifle’s transition in shooting circles from a scary military oddity to the hottest item in the gun store. He — and everyone else I talked to — credit the gun’s flexibility for the surge in interest. Users can change calibers by swapping out barrels, bolts, and magazines; they can add and remove accessories like Trijicon optics, Surefire flashlights, or Crimson Trace laser sights; they can swap out the rail system on the gun’s fore-end to accommodate more or fewer accessories; they can change grip styles and stock sizes to tailor the gun to fit their own body; they can even theme the gun with special paints and decals (zombie apocalypse themes are popular, but I’ve also seen Hello Kitty). And they can do all of this by either ordering new parts and accessories from online or local shops, or by taking parts from different guns in their collection and mixing and matching them to produce something completely new. “I always tease that it’s like Legos for grown men,” Duncan elaborates, “because there’s plenty of guys that get one, two, six ARs. And they’re constantly tinkering with them — changing barrel lengths, changing optics, putting different sights on them. It’s the same reason that a guy gets into remote-controlled cars or fly tying. Because it’s a fun hobby, and it’s a distraction from reality sometimes.” Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deadpan Posted January 6, 2015 I think there is a fine distinction between bug out bags and zombie killing arsenal. There's definitely a line somewhere between having an emergency bag or using survival gear for outdoor/hiking stuff that you do already and building a bunker in the wilderness that you stuff full of guns. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gaizokubanou Posted January 7, 2015 I may be digging myself deeper into a hole (or is it a... foxhole? huehuehue) here but I like bunkers too, but kind of in a way that I like castles (both cool structures that represents engineering with certain specific goals). I guess the defense I have for myself is that I have no delusions about my need for any of those stuff (no I don't own a bunker or even guns, odd for USA person who likes guns but hey that's what happens when you live in NJ), and appreciate them for what they are-a strange hobby. Only dedicated weapon I own is few axes I use for lumberjacking to get some wood for fireplace on certain winter days when I want that extra seasonal feels. Now that I mention it, it's just odd how much I like guns, live in USA, yet do not own any... Apologies as this got little ranty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deadpan Posted January 7, 2015 I may be digging myself deeper into a hole here but I like bunkers too Sorry about that, I didn't want to make entirely sweeping condemnations anyway. There's always a non-creepy way of being into a thing, just seems like that becomes increasingly unlikely the more effort and commitment people put into it, at least in the case of something like this, where they invest a lot of money just to prepare for an eventuality. The more the focus of their lives shifts from what is actually happening to hypothetical events that could happen, the harder it is for me to accept that it's really "just in case" and they aren't looking forward, at least a little bit, to that case. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gaizokubanou Posted January 7, 2015 Sorry about that, I didn't want to make entirely sweeping condemnations anyway. There's always a non-creepy way of being into a thing, just seems like that becomes increasingly unlikely the more effort and commitment people put into it, at least in the case of something like this, where they invest a lot of money just to prepare for an eventuality. The more the focus of their lives shifts from what is actually happening to hypothetical events that could happen, the harder it is for me to accept that it's really "just in case" and they aren't looking forward, at least a little bit, to that case. You didn't come off as making such condemnation so no worries. I get what you are saying. Too often I was trolled into thinking that I'm having normal discussion about these stuff only to find out the other dudes are all about preparing for the coming of days. So I have totally witnessed such craziness and get what you guys are talking about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites