This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.

Author Topic: The Social Acceptability of Shocking Fantasies  (Read 7635 times)

John Morrow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6254
    • View Profile
The Social Acceptability of Shocking Fantasies
« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2008, 02:19:58 am »
Quote from: JimLotFP
So? I don't care if there is a 1:1 correspondence, the monitoring and attempted censorship of thought is always more evil than any thought that can be had. I believe that intellectual freedom must be absolute.


Do you believe that teachers and professors should have the freedom to lie to their students to deceive them?  Do you believe that activists should have the freedom to incite others to violence?  Do you believe that people should have the right to slander and libel other people without repercussions?  Do you honestly believe that it should be absolute, with no boundaries?

Quote from: JimLotFP
Were they the same ones running the place?


No.  They were the people living nearby who often insisted that they had no idea what was going on in the camps.

Quote from: JimLotFP
Being upset over interracial marriage strikes me as being more sensible than being upset over a video game. At least it's real. And to be clear - I have no problem with interracial relationships whatsoever.


The people upset about violence in video games believe that the connection between the games and real violence is real.  That's every bit as real as the basis upon which many people opposed "miscongenation".  All of these things generally seem rational in some way to the people who support them.

Quote from: JimLotFP
I've disassociated myself from people for sillier reasons than that. People don't have any obligation to get along and be friendly.


So you believe in individual shunning but not any official legislation, then?

Quote from: JimLotFP
This isn't the same thing at all - these people are physically impaired.


Why is the physical impairment relevant?

Quote from: JimLotFP
I do believe that people learn their morality. And we shouldn't be indifferent, and we should express our opinions about what is right and wrong, but the bottom line is you can't have freedom and liberty without the ability to think of and express even the most revolting thoughts.


I suppose I should point out that I think that freedom and liberty are means to and end rather than an end and that freedom and liberty are never absolute.  Once you prohibit people from hurting each other, stealing from each other, trespassing, verbally sexually harassing their employees and so on you've stepped onto the slippery slope of limiting liberty and freedom and have turned it from a discussion of absolutes to a discussion of what grounds freedom and liberty can legitimately be limited.  

Quote from: JimLotFP
I really don't care what happens in people's brains. I mean, it's interesting, but it's completely irrelevant to the topic.


It's not irrelevant because it helps illustrate how morality works and why.

Quote from: JimLotFP
So where was this common moral foundation for the thousands of years in history when women were politically inferior and slave-holding was the norm?


Take a good look at the history of women and slavery (and infanticide and pillaging, and so on) and what contemporaries said about it.  The way to condone doing horrible things to others is to (A) emotionally distance them, (B) dehumanize them (an extreme form of emotional distancing), (C) clouding the issue with other strong emotions (e.g., using envy and revenge to deaden empathy), or (D) providing an unavoidable pragmatic incentive (e.g., threatening to kill a soldier as a traitor if he refuses to kill enemy civilians).  And estimates suggest that 4% of the modern population are psychopaths and we have no way of knowing if that's always been true, since they aren't entirely sure if it's caused by nature or nurture (thus the use of psychopath and sociopath almost interchangeably).

You can certainly make people do all sorts of terrible things that should conflict with common morality.  But the reason why the treatment of slaves and women was often moderated and not as awful as it could have been was that the core moral foundation can only be stretched so far.  It's also why people are able to make moral arguments that can change the ideas and behavior of people.

For example, if you have three people and each one gives you a dollar and you give two of them a piece of bread and the third one a cake, the two who got the piece of bread are going to feel cheated.  You can do the same study with chimpanzees and get the same result.  This is not a rational reaction and game theorists have long been confused about why people will choose nothing over an unfair deal that nets them some small benefit or why they will seek revenge even at a net loss to themselves in response to unfairness or being cheated and the reason is that it's a visceral reaction that even chimpanzees seem to experience.  

This is why the brain studies are relevant.

Quote from: JimLotFP
Really, I have no idea. You can feed the same input into different people and get different results. People are different. When we figure out why we're different, and come up with effective ways to influence that on an internal, immutable level (genetic engineering?), then being human will be meaningless and being free will be impossible.


What do you think free will is?

Here is another article about studies on how human brains make decisions:

   The experiments with monkeys and MRI technology have largely evolved from the clinical observations in the 1990s by a single neurologist, Antonio Damasio of the University of Iowa. By studying people who suffered damage to parts of the brain, Damasio found that feelings can be a shortcut message system, drawing on our lifetime of experiences to prod us in a direction before the slower process of reasoning produces an answer. Fear, delight, dread and other emotions arise as what Damasio terms "somatic markers" that grab our attention. They are often felt as a physical sensation—that hollow feeling in the pit of the stomach that signals dread based on our many experiences. They help whittle down the range of choices we face when making a decision.

Good illustrations of this process abound in daily life. Did you jump checkout lines at the supermarket because the cashier in your line seemed too chatty? Why do we give erratic drivers on the freeway extra room to merge? Why do we go back and doublecheck whether we locked our front doors?

To back up his hypothesis, Damasio showed how people who suffered damage to the feeling centers of the brain—areas such as the amygdala and prefrontal cortices, which are near the brain stem—found it difficult, if not impossible, to make even the simplest choices. Without access to somatic markers, setting the time for a doctor's appointment or choosing a restaurant for dinner became a torturous process.

Quote from: JimLotFP
Maybe he enjoys pissing people off. Who cares? I think it's pretty dodgy myself, but there's a world of difference in saying "Well that's pretty icky" and engaging in a crusade to make sure everyone else thinks it's icky too and convince people that Something Should Be Done.


The problem is that if you look at the discussion of pedophilia here as well as the discussion of Poison'd on RPGnet, people are being told that they are wrong for saying that certain things are icky saying that they think it reflects badly on the person doing the icky thing.  In other words, the crusaders here are just as often those that try to convince everyone else that these things aren't really icky and that nothing should be done about it, not even criticism.
Robin Laws' Game Styles Quiz Results:
Method Actor 100%, Butt-Kicker 75%, Tactician 42%, Storyteller 33%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 33%, Specialist 17%

John Morrow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6254
    • View Profile
The Social Acceptability of Shocking Fantasies
« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2008, 02:26:31 am »
Quote from: TonyLB
I'm pretty sure that John is telling me that I'm morally forbidden to talk about such things.  It would be suspect, and permitting discussion of suspect material will let the Nazis come back.


I suspect that if you have violent fantasies about your boss and talked about them with your co-workers and it got back to your boss, it would have an impact on your employment of some sort.  Do you think it's OK for a boss to do something if they find out that one of their employees is sharing violent or sexual fantasies about them with co-workers?

Quote from: TonyLB
Which is to say:  John, you've officially hit the "unless and until you take it further" point I discussed earlier.  I have gone from agreeing with your original posting (squicky subjects make people feel squicky) to thinking that your extension of it into a push for the moral necessity of conformity and self-censoring is complete ass.


Well, what do you think is a legitimate response to something that makes you feel squicky?  

Quote from: TonyLB
Can't you just leave it at "If you squick people out then they won't want to hang around with you" without saying "It is a SIN to squick people out"?  Is that honestly so hard?


I never said it was a sin.  My main problem is that there are people who seem to want to argue that it's illegitimate to judge people by the fantasies that they have.  Do you agree that it's legitimate to judge people by the fantasies that they have and share with others or not?  If you do (and it sounds like you do), why do you think it's OK?
Robin Laws' Game Styles Quiz Results:
Method Actor 100%, Butt-Kicker 75%, Tactician 42%, Storyteller 33%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 33%, Specialist 17%

John Morrow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6254
    • View Profile
The Social Acceptability of Shocking Fantasies
« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2008, 02:34:37 am »
Quote from: Serious Paul
I do not believe in morality as innate or objective thing. You, quite obviously, do.


I believe that it's a combination of nature and nurture.  The nature forms the common foundation (which is what's broken in psychopaths) and the nurture can determine how elements are interpreted by that foundation.  

Quote from: Serious Paul
However in the end we're debating about something that is subjective, and there will be no real concrete conclusion.


There are numerous articles out there on psychopaths and law enforcement.  If you are still involved in law enforcement, you should probably take a look at them.  Psychopaths don't respond to normal police techniques and there is some evidence that conventional programs to reform criminals actually make psychopaths more likely to commit more crimes.

Quote from: Serious Paul
If you do care about how other people act, then yes you do have to be concerned about what they are exposed to and why. I don't think anyone here is arguing for, or pushing for a society devoid of limits-but I think JimLotFP would agree with me that some of us don't think all of the limits are in the right spots for the right reasons. (Does that make sense?)


I think many people would like to draw the line at when something causes actual harm to another person, and that makes a certain amount of sense.  The reason why I brought up drunk driving is that it illustrates why society might want to do something before someone actually gets hurt.  I think there is a valid interest in preventing people from hurting other people rather than punishing them after the fact.  But of course that has to be balanced against other interests, with anarchy at one end of the spectrum and Big Brother at the other.  Somewhere between those extremes, we need to sort out a reasonable balance.
Robin Laws' Game Styles Quiz Results:
Method Actor 100%, Butt-Kicker 75%, Tactician 42%, Storyteller 33%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 33%, Specialist 17%

John Morrow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6254
    • View Profile
The Social Acceptability of Shocking Fantasies
« Reply #18 on: May 19, 2008, 03:00:21 am »
Quote from: -E.
I'm probably missing some. These are all very different answers for me. My answers would be that I apply a couple of principles, most of which deal with intent (which cannot necessarily be known, but can be inferred):

  • Do I think they morally endorse hurting other people?
  • Do I think they intend to incite others take harmful action?
  • Do I think they are planning to take harmful action (E.g. the fantasies they are indulging in are an ideation stage for actual, real-world harm)?

I think that's a pretty good list.  

Quote from: -E.
If I think the answer is 'yes' to any of these then I would consider it a sever moral and possibly psychological character defect on the part of the writer, I would advise caution in dealing with them personally.

And that's where I think the problem is.  Often, we don't know if the fantasy is a harmless thought exercise or an expression of actual beliefs that a person might act on.  So my question is this.  Should we err on the side of assuming that the fantasies are harmless or should we err on the side of caution and assume that they aren't?  Especially when we are dealing with relative strangers on the Internet?

Quote from: -E.
I stop short of thinking people should be locked up for having nasty fantasies -- although in some cases it might be indicated (where the fantasy is, essentially, a threat).

How do you tell?

Quote from: -E.
Now, this has very little to do with subject matter -- A Clockwork Orange is full of violence and degradation but I don't think less of Anthony Burgess. My assessment is based on my subjective reaction to the work in question.

A Clockwork Orange ultimately doesn't glorify violence.  It illustrates the horrors of it, though it also makes a statement in favor of free moral agency.

Quote from: -E.
Now, I don't think the Poison'd Actual Play falls into any of those categories. I don't know about the pedo stuff (I didn't read it) but it might. Things like the Turner Diaries or RaHoWa probably does.

I think the way that the Poison'd Actual Play was introduced on RPGnet was problematic.  It's like talking to someone who starts telling you about how cool the rape scenes are in A Clockwork Orange but leaves out their impressions of the parts where Alex is abused or the overall theme.  

It's like the people in theaters who laughed about Edward II's gay lover being tossed out of the window by Edward I in Braveheart.  Laughing at the deadpan approach of Edward I and the stunned pathetic response from his son, or laughing about a gay man being murdered?  If you know the person who laughed, you might know the answer to that but how to you judge a stranger who laughs?

Quote from: -E.
If the work doesn't fall into the above categories, but appears to be transgressive for shock value and without other redeeming qualities I would probably think a bit less of the writer (this is where I find the Poison'd AP falling), but I wouldn't necessarily call it a serious moral failing.

It's just... not-classy.

OK.  So how is it legitimate to react to something that's not classy?  And like having a neighbor that leaves a half-assembled car on the front lawn, and old couch on their porch, and never cuts their lawn isn't classy, what does it do to the quality of the environment for those around them?  This comes back to RPGPundit's point about lawn crapping, despite the fact that he spends a lot of time on his lawn with his pants around his knees himself.

Quote from: -E.
Transgressive, with redeeming quality (in my opinion) is fine, and would encompass some works I really dig.

What's a redeeming quality of a transgressive work?

For example, Paul Czege wrote in this blog's replies section:

   But the thing about ritual is that it taps way into the human reptilian brain, and makes you feel comfortable when you're not. If I ritualized Bacchanal I could temporarily make players feel comfortable about entering seriously transgressive territory. But they'd wake from it the next day, and regret having revealed their innermost secrets, or of betraying illicit desires.

Do you think that sort of thing is good or bad?

Quote from: -E.
I'm a bit disappointed in highly judgmental folks who think it's wrong to judge others based on the content of the work they publish. It seems, if not hypocritical, then at least philosophically asymmetric.

Beyond the fairness issue (fairness being one of those innate moral concepts), I also want to know why people don't think its legitimate to judge people by the content of their ideas and expressions of those ideas when so clearly people find it legitimate to do so in other areas of life.
Robin Laws' Game Styles Quiz Results:
Method Actor 100%, Butt-Kicker 75%, Tactician 42%, Storyteller 33%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 33%, Specialist 17%

Kyle Aaron

  • high-minded hack
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8907
  • high-minded hack
    • View Profile
    • The Viking Hat GM
The Social Acceptability of Shocking Fantasies
« Reply #19 on: May 19, 2008, 03:57:01 am »
I don't think we need a detailed philosophical or psychological analysis to know that some shit is just stinky.
Rules for effective DMing:
1. Bring snacks.
2. The dice are always right.
3. I master the game, the game does not master me.
4. Momentum over perfection.
5. The game must go on!
https://vikinghatgm.blogspot.com

riprock

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • r
  • Posts: 350
    • View Profile
The Social Acceptability of Shocking Fantasies
« Reply #20 on: May 19, 2008, 06:22:55 am »
Quote from: Kyle Aaron
I don't think we need a detailed philosophical or psychological analysis to know that some shit is just stinky.


No, but you might need a detailed criminological analysis to determine the best method in which to clean up aforesaid offal.
"By their way of thinking, gold and experience goes[sic] much further when divided by one. Such shortsighted individuals are quick to stab their fellow players in the back if they think it puts them ahead. They see the game solely as a contest between themselves and their fellow players.  How sad.  Clearly the game is a contest between the players and the GM.  Any contest against your fellow party members is secondary." Hackmaster Player's Handbook

riprock

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • r
  • Posts: 350
    • View Profile
The Social Acceptability of Shocking Fantasies
« Reply #21 on: May 19, 2008, 06:35:39 am »
Quote from: JimLotFP
This just seems so... thought police to me. And just because there's a consensus of what the bad behavior is now, in this instance, doesn't mean this is a good way to approach things.


I'll see your "thought police" and raise you a "power corrupts."

If thought police - or any police -- could be kept incorruptible, fewer people would object to them.

But power attracts the corruptible, and absolute power is absolutely delightful to the absolutely corruptible.
"By their way of thinking, gold and experience goes[sic] much further when divided by one. Such shortsighted individuals are quick to stab their fellow players in the back if they think it puts them ahead. They see the game solely as a contest between themselves and their fellow players.  How sad.  Clearly the game is a contest between the players and the GM.  Any contest against your fellow party members is secondary." Hackmaster Player's Handbook

riprock

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • r
  • Posts: 350
    • View Profile
The Social Acceptability of Shocking Fantasies
« Reply #22 on: May 19, 2008, 06:38:33 am »
Quote from: John Morrow
Are you honestly telling me that if a person told you he had fantasies of driving around at night murdering homosexuals or raping little children that you wouldn't have concerns about that or consider them suspect?  


What about the people who know for a fact that some homosexuals *are* child molesters?  Do they have a right to fantasize about killing the child molesters?  Do they have the right to actually kill in order to prevent more children from being molested?  Are such rights to be regulated by the state, or only by God?

These are really productive questions, when debated with a team of professional ethics professors.  

An Internet forum is not likely to rise to the required level of professionalism.
"By their way of thinking, gold and experience goes[sic] much further when divided by one. Such shortsighted individuals are quick to stab their fellow players in the back if they think it puts them ahead. They see the game solely as a contest between themselves and their fellow players.  How sad.  Clearly the game is a contest between the players and the GM.  Any contest against your fellow party members is secondary." Hackmaster Player's Handbook

Ned the Lonely Donkey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • N
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
The Social Acceptability of Shocking Fantasies
« Reply #23 on: May 19, 2008, 07:44:22 am »
IMO, people can think what they like. Once they start disseminating their fantasies, though, then society at large is permitted to intervene. If you talk about that shit with me, I will ask you to shut up. If you produce and disseminate "Child Sex Murder Weekly", then it's the right of society at large to say, through the courts, usually, "You know what? Please don't produce and sell that crap. It's horrible."

Now, of course, the fantasy fiddler has options open to them to claim, eg, artistic rights or that their kink is harmless or some such, and if - after due consideration - society expresses its opinions (through the courts again) that - you know? - they've got a point, then fair enough, the rest of us have to put up with it. However, the right of society at large to say "Uh, no thanks." is an important one.

This is how this dialogue has been going on for the last century or so, and it seems to have worked so far. The good stuff survives (Lolita, Naked Lunch, Ulysses etc), relatively harmless stuff continues to appear (99.9% of porn, eg, and likely the enormous majority of crap that Nambla peddles) and occasional sick shit gets hit with the ban stick. I'm more or less happy with the situation as it stands.

I've course I'm not a professional ethics professor, so I'm sure that lacks the required level of professionalism.

Ned
Do not offer sympathy to the mentally ill. Tell them firmly, "I am not paid to listen to this drivel. You are a terminal fool." - William S Burroughs, Words of Advice For Young People.

TonyLB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • T
  • Posts: 2274
    • View Profile
The Social Acceptability of Shocking Fantasies
« Reply #24 on: May 19, 2008, 09:02:46 am »
Quote from: John Morrow
I suspect that if you have violent fantasies about your boss and talked about them with your co-workers and it got back to your boss, it would have an impact on your employment of some sort.  Do you think it's OK for a boss to do something if they find out that one of their employees is sharing violent or sexual fantasies about them with co-workers?
Of course it's alright for them to do something.  Dude.  At what point did I ever say "You're not allowed to react to being squicked out"?

Quote from: John Morrow
Well, what do you think is a legitimate response to something that makes you feel squicky?
There's all sorts of legitimate responses.  You can throw up on their shoes.  You can refuse to associate with them ever again.  EDIT:  You can even say, loudly, that they're morally reprehensible for doing such a thing.  I'd disagree with you, but saying it is a legitimate response.

Under the law, you cannot (for instance) hit them in the face or burn down their My Little Pony collection.  But any legal and ethical thing you can do?  Sure.  Whatever.  I might think you're over-reacting, but that's your prerogative.

There's this whole rich field of human behavior that has nothing to do with who is right, and who is wrong ... yeah?

Quote from: John Morrow
I never said it was a sin.  My main problem is that there are people who seem to want to argue that it's illegitimate to judge people by the fantasies that they have.
I get the feeling that you're using a different sense of the word "judge" than I am.  'cuz your sentence above sorta reads like this:  "I never said it was wrong to do X, I just have a problem when people argue that it's not legitimate to say that it's wrong to do X."  I suppose that's technically correct, but you're saying it in a really odd way.

If you're using "judge" as "I judge that Malcolm is a gross, tasteless person" then we're back to agreement.  But I don't think that's honestly what you're trying to get across.  I judge that you're being disingenuous, because you're doing every damn thing in your power to walk right up to the edge of "This is morally wrong" with your rhetoric.

Really, man, you aren't comparing this kind of suspect discussion to (say) dead-baby jokes or MILF emails ... you're comparing to queer-bashing, school-killings and the holocaust.  Godwin's law is there for a reason:  Using this kind of emotionally loaded material in an argument shows a bias that people will judge you upon :D
Superheroes with heart:  Capes!

John Morrow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6254
    • View Profile
The Social Acceptability of Shocking Fantasies
« Reply #25 on: May 19, 2008, 09:03:57 am »
Quote from: riprock
What about the people who know for a fact that some homosexuals *are* child molesters?  Do they have a right to fantasize about killing the child molesters?


I think there is a distinct difference between having fantasies about killing the bad guys to stop them from doing horrible things to good people or the avenge the bad things that they've done and fantasies about being the bad guys doing horrible things to good people.

Quote from: riprock
Do they have the right to actually kill in order to prevent more children from being molested?  Are such rights to be regulated by the state, or only by God?


I think that's a bit off the topic, though you can start another thread about vigilante justice, if you want.  Being vigilantes is a common theme in role-playing games and the related genres that they cover so it might be worth a look.

Quote from: riprock
An Internet forum is not likely to rise to the required level of professionalism.


I think we're doing pretty good so far.
Robin Laws' Game Styles Quiz Results:
Method Actor 100%, Butt-Kicker 75%, Tactician 42%, Storyteller 33%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 33%, Specialist 17%

JimLotFP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
    • View Profile
    • http://lotfp.blogspot.com/
The Social Acceptability of Shocking Fantasies
« Reply #26 on: May 19, 2008, 09:06:33 am »
Quote from: John Morrow
I think there is a distinct difference between having fantasies about killing the bad guys to stop them from doing horrible things to good people or the avenge the bad things that they've done and fantasies about being the bad guys doing horrible things to good people.


Creatively, don't you have to do the latter before you can do the former?

Kyle Aaron

  • high-minded hack
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8907
  • high-minded hack
    • View Profile
    • The Viking Hat GM
The Social Acceptability of Shocking Fantasies
« Reply #27 on: May 19, 2008, 09:42:07 am »
Quote from: riprock
These are really productive questions, when debated with a team of professional ethics professors.  

An Internet forum is not likely to rise to the required level of professionalism.
So we should only discuss things if we have a professorship in it? Otherwise we must be silent and simply accept the wisdom of our betters?

While it's an idea that I'm sure has great appeal to professors of all kinds, my considered response to that would be, "fuck off, you stupid git."
Rules for effective DMing:
1. Bring snacks.
2. The dice are always right.
3. I master the game, the game does not master me.
4. Momentum over perfection.
5. The game must go on!
https://vikinghatgm.blogspot.com

John Morrow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6254
    • View Profile
The Social Acceptability of Shocking Fantasies
« Reply #28 on: May 19, 2008, 09:54:27 am »
Quote from: TonyLB
Of course it's alright for them to do something.  Dude.  At what point did I ever say "You're not allowed to react to being squicked out"?


Do you think a boss can react by firing an employee for fantasizing about killing them or having sex with them and then sharing it with co-workers?  If so, isn't that fairly punitive?  Would it be OK for them to get a restraining order?  How about filing harassment charges in court?  I'm looking for some detail on what you consider a legitimate response vs. an illegitimate response.

Quote from: TonyLB
There's this whole rich field of human behavior that has nothing to do with who is right, and who is wrong ... yeah?


Correct, but I'm not sure that field is as expansive as some people argue that it is.

Quote from: TonyLB
I get the feeling that you're using a different sense of the word "judge" than I am.  'cuz your sentence above sorta reads like this:  "I never said it was wrong to do X, I just have a problem when people argue that it's not legitimate to say that it's wrong to do X."


I think that's part of the problem, yes.

Quote from: TonyLB
If you're using "judge" as "I judge that Malcolm is a gross, tasteless person" then we're back to agreement.  But I don't think that's honestly what you're trying to get across.  I judge that you're being disingenuous, because you're doing every damn thing in your power to walk right up to the edge of "This is morally wrong" with your rhetoric.


Well, that's the edge I want to explore -- why people react to certain ideas as moral wrongs and whether that's legitimate or not.  I would agree that aesthetics are simply matters of personal opinion (at least part of what you refer to above as a "whole rich field of human behavior that has nothing to do with who is right, and who is wrong") but I think there are legitimate reasons why large numbers of people react to certain ideas and fantasies as moral wrongs and I think there are legitimate reasons for that reaction.  

People react to certain ideas with varying degrees of disgust, there is a pattern to it that scientists are starting to understand, and there is likely a good reason why that behavior is built into the human psyche (whether via evolution or deity).  And the question of what happens when a human being lacks that visceral moral response is not merely academic.  We can see the sorts of behavior it produces in psychopaths who do, in fact, lack those responses.  A lot of the parts of the human psyche that we take for granted such as empathy, fear, and so on are visceral, not rational, and we can know what happens if a person is lacking many of those visceral responses because we often can find examples of such people (e.g., there is a small number of people who lack a sense of fear and don't viscerally know that it's dangerous to step out in front of a moving car -- they need to think through the likely result if they do so).  So I don't think it's a good idea to totally ignore those visceral feelings, though moderation might be warranted.

But beyond that, the arguments used in defense gross and tasteless ideas are often the same sorts of arguments that psychopaths use to rationalize their behavior and to argue that they should be left to do what they want.  As such, I wonder if society embracing the morality of a psychopath doesn't encourage society to move in a direction that leads no place good.  

The natural back-pressure against gross, tasteless, and disturbing ideas is social pressure through shunning.  In such an environment, normal people are discouraged to express such ideas through disincentive and the psychopaths stick out like a sore thumb.  But by arguing that such ideas should never be condemned or controlled and protecting their encroachment in the public space, the encourage of such liberty can actually lead to it being taken away legally, because that's what happens when the liberty of a few becomes a liability for the many.  I think moderation is in everyone's best interest because extremes lead to extremes.

Quote from: TonyLB
Really, man, you aren't comparing this kind of suspect discussion to (say) dead-baby jokes or MILF emails ... you're comparing to queer-bashing, school-killings and the holocaust.  Godwin's law is there for a reason:  Using this kind of emotionally loaded material in an argument shows a bias that people will judge you upon :D


Part of why I'm using emotionally loaded material to point out that the sort of emotional detachment that people seem to call for as a matter of principle has limits.  The reason why a person might want to ban a violent video game is because they believe it has the potential to trigger real violence, which is at a root  level the same reason why another person might want to ban verbal  bashing of gays and lesbians.  If you really believe that the free expression of ideas is absolute, then it should cover verbally insulting gays and lesbians and making sexually crass comments about members of a particular sex or even talking about torturing and killing people that they don't like to their face.  But as with yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, I doubt most people are the free speech absolutists that they claim to be.  And once we get past simplistic statements of principle to the more pragmatic issue of how we separate the dead baby jokes from sexual harassment, then I think we can have a discussion about what the real principles at work are.

But I'm also not talking about actual violence but talking about it.  Not beating up gays and lesbians, killing others at school, or perpetuating a holocaust but about talking about beating up or killing gays and lesbians, talking about killing your teachers and or classmates in a school, or denying the Holocaust or arguing that there should be another one.  This is not simple idle speculation or straw men on my part.  These are very real areas where people are not only regularly judged on moral grounds for what they say but where policies and even legislation have been passed to punish the expression of those ideas.

Casually fantasize about the killing of gays and lesbians with your co-workers and I don't think anyone would be surprised if you were fired, which is far more punitive than simply shunning a person.  Casually fantasize about murdering your teachers or other students at school and you might not only be expelled but might wind up being arrested.  Deny the Holocaust in many countries and you can be censored or even arrested.  

And for all the talk about free speech absolutism on the Internet, there are plenty of limits on it in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere that few people seem very interested in.  Look at the case of Oriana Fallaci in Italy, France, and Switzerland or Mark Steyn in Canada, for example.  Or if you want someone less defensible, how about British historian David Irving being arrested in Austria, where it's illegal to deny the Holocaust or glorify and identify with the German Nazi Party?  Why do the Austrians (among others) feel it's necessary to make Holocaust denial a crime?  How exactly did the Nazis win elections and take control of Germany?  Godwin aside, I think that's a legitimate issue when discussing free speech.
Robin Laws' Game Styles Quiz Results:
Method Actor 100%, Butt-Kicker 75%, Tactician 42%, Storyteller 33%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 33%, Specialist 17%

John Morrow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6254
    • View Profile
The Social Acceptability of Shocking Fantasies
« Reply #29 on: May 19, 2008, 10:03:48 am »
Quote from: JimLotFP
Creatively, don't you have to do the latter before you can do the former?


I think that's a legitimate point, and part of the reason why I found the articles on psychopaths was trying to understand how and why a person can be casually evil so I could better emulate it in my games.  But I think the level of identification is often different.  I don't build villains in my game hoping that they'll win or to share their joy if they succeed the way I might for a PC or a good guy NPC.  And when I've created characters with moral flaws (e.g., bigotry), it's generally to have the character grow beyond it during play or to let it play out as a tragedy, not to cheer it on.
Robin Laws' Game Styles Quiz Results:
Method Actor 100%, Butt-Kicker 75%, Tactician 42%, Storyteller 33%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 33%, Specialist 17%