Hacker News
points by sd9 1 day ago | 0 comments
I'm surprised by the comments defending this, I also think it's in poor taste. I wouldn't say cynical, in my opinion it's worse than that, it's too real.
[–] Grimburger 1 day ago
If it makes you feel any better tanks are almost useless now in modern war.

They can't at all compete with some off the shelf kids toy costing $30 with a HEAT round attached. The cost differential here with a 35 million euro tank is beyond pale.

[–] zeryx 1 day ago
It's art, it's supposed to make you feel uneasy. If this wakes you up by making a faraway concept suddenly seem real to you - I'd say the artist did a very good job.
[–] tokai 1 day ago
This kind of outrage takes away from things that are actually distasteful and cynical. Conflating unproblematic things with actual harmful things is a you problem. Policing tone, while people are actually dying out there, is more cynical that this game. The only outcome here is there you guys feel better about yourself.
[–] sd9 1 day ago
It's not really outrage, I just think it's in poor taste. Unproblematic is a matter of opinion, which we're each entitled to.
[–] 1shooner 1 day ago
Having a negative opinion is not policing. If you want to spend your free time simulating destruction, that is really your thing. It's common entertainment. It doesn't mean others can't share a different perspective on it.
[–] bemtevi 1 day ago
I don't think that quite makes sense. Sometimes it's useful to point out/shame unsettling things that happen in society, even if it doesn't directly cause harm.
[–] hlynurd 1 day ago
I both think this is allowed to exist in addition to finding this tasteless.
[–] brenschluss 1 day ago
It sounds like you yourself are outraged and policing how people feel about this game?
[–] OsrsNeedsf2P 1 day ago
You're on HN, where people celebrate YC companies that in "defense". The majority of people in our networks would bomb a house if it completed their next round. Let's not pretend that we're surprised people defend this.
[–] 0_____0 1 day ago
It's been jarring to see just how thin morality in engineering was all along. Turns out it's mostly downstream of whatever level of morality doesn't get VCs uninvited from cocktail parties.

Edit: typo

[–] nancyminusone 1 day ago
This game is only too real if after playing it, you suddenly have an urge to purchase a Komatsu D355A bulldozer
[–] thedellmonitor 1 day ago
NO FUN ALLOWED
[–] latexr 1 day ago
Fun is very much allowed. But people are also allowed to question if one person’s fun is another person’s pain.

Like, if a bunch of kids caught a stray cat, tied him up, and started shouting in his ears and laughing, would you stop them? And if they complained “no fun allowed”, would you think that was fair? What about if there was a video game in which you beat to a pulp deepfake representations of your friends and family? Do you not agree it would be reasonable for some people to find that in bad taste, including those who have suffered from domestic violence in real life?

You may say that this is just a game, but media affects people too. There are thousands of games where you can shoot at fictional infrastructure, is there really that much to gain from destroying representations of real buildings?

[–] ThrowawayR2 1 day ago
> "media affects people too"

The previous incarnations of that, like "videogames cause violence", "superhero comic books cause juvenile delinquency", "D&D causes satanism", "rock and roll caused a decline in youth morals", are nonsense that was discredited long ago.

[–] latexr 1 day ago
You completely misunderstood. I meant that media affects people emotionally. Have you ever seen a person cry watching a movie? Have you ever seen someone say “this story speaks to me on a personal level”? Have you ever seen someone say “I couldn’t finish the show, it reminded me too much of my own father and his struggle with the same disease”? That’s what I meant, not “booga booga, fear mongering”.

God damn, why must HN always assume the worst? Engage in good faith for once, stop assuming every argument is made by an imbecile and that you understand everything and are the lord of reason.

[–] croniev 1 day ago
Thank you for putting it elegantly, I think that was also was unsettles me. Not "media causes X" but rather how it can latch on to conceptual and emotional systems. Not saying it is a problem or should be forbidden, just calling into question what kind of meaning we are reinforcing.
[–] vrighter 1 day ago
if my playing a game hurts someonec it's not my problem. If The game were targeted directly at them i'd understand. But this "nobody should ever do anything because someone, somewhere, has had a bad experience that was vaguely related" just does not make sense
[–] latexr 22 hours ago
> "nobody should ever do anything because someone, somewhere, has had a bad experience that was vaguely related"

That’s not the argument. Instead of reading the words, you’re fabricating an argument in your head and fighting that. You saw an idea, by your own admission were unable to make sense of it, but instead of trying to steel man to understand it you chose the most fallacious wrong interpretation and attacked that. You’re not having a conversation, you’re arguing against a straw man of your own creation.

[–] vrighter 17 hours ago
"Just me or is this a bit cynical? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the gameplay is fun and everything. Just the concept makes me really uneasy, especially as I have a friend who's house was destroyed recently in war..." how is that not it?
[–] latexr 5 hours ago
I didn’t write the words you’re citing.
[–] hexagonsuns 1 day ago
Your premise makes no sense. We’re talking about a top down tank game where the buildings don’t even resemble their real life counterparts here.

If you’re offended by this, maybe you should just not engage with it. Why does the onus fall on the creator?

Take a look at Battlefield. Should we take that down because it simulates war? Maybe we should remove guns from ever appearing in media because people have died from guns. Should we remove color from media because it may be insensitive to the colorblind? Why don’t we just remove all words everywhere because someone has had their feelings hurt by words. Where do we draw the line?

[–] latexr 1 day ago
> If you’re offended by this

I’m not offended by it. I am in fact very politely and cordially inviting the commenter above to consider a different perspective, and my approach to this subject in this entire thread has been one of compassion and curiosity, which is easily verifiable. I recommend doing that before launching on tirades of bad faith argumentation.

It’s been my observation that people who accuse others of being offended are themselves the most easily offended. Very much like the people who call others “snowflakes” have the thinnest skins themselves.

> maybe you should just not engage with it.

Despite it not being my case, those who are offended can and should very much still engage. Suggesting otherwise is nonsensical and a tool of those who promote hate. There is no societal progress if those who see something wrong do not speak up.

> (…) Should we take that down because it simulates war? (…)

I said in my comment that we already have thousands of games like that. I didn’t say that was bad. You are arguing in profound bad faith and are not even doing a good job of hiding your repeated straw men. I recommend you learn to engage with the arguments, instead of making up new ones in your head and fighting those.

[–] ThrowawayR2 1 day ago
> "my approach to this subject in this entire thread has been one of compassion and curiosity, which is easily verifiable."

You were lambasting the HN community with various pejoratives like "blowhards" and "putrid" in a comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50390997 ) in this thread 5 hours ago? There is no good faith interpretation for that I'm afraid.

[–] latexr 1 day ago
My words were (emphasis added) “and my approach to this subject”. The section you quoted from another post is very clearly labeled as an edit (i.e. not part of the original text) and is concerned with the meta subject of how HN as a community has in general been sharply devolving into hatred. It is entirely orthogonal to the subject of the thread.

Furthermore, good faith does not mean positive sentiment. It is perfectly congruent to lament in good faith the bad state of a community.

Perhaps consider that if I invited you to read previous comments, I was aware of what I’d written.

[–] hexagonsuns 1 day ago
You don’t understand, he’s got basic human empathy man
[–] hexagonsuns 1 day ago
Calling me out for “straw manning” by creating your own straw man is very cool.

You misunderstand the entire premise of my original comment, presumably on purpose. Oh well, I guess that’s just how online discourse is now.

[–] croniev 1 day ago
Sorry but I am genuinely bewildered by what you are writing. I urge you to take a step back and compare your tone and argumentation to that of the other commenter involved. Clearly your parent argument is blatant slippery slope argumentation and besides any point that anyone was making here. If you are too ideologically blinded to attempt to see concerns others are trying to express, even if still in a pre-articaulated manner, then please don't pretend like you have a meaningful contribution. We have enough bots in the internet spewing empty words as it is. Saying 'premise' in every comment does not make you smarter btw, just lazy.
[–] hexagonsuns 1 day ago
>blatant slippery slope argumentation

Why are you framing that as a bad thing? Pretending that “slippery slopes” aren’t worth talking about is insane

>too ideologically blinded to attempt to see concerns others are trying to express

Hello pot, meet kettle.

Premise. Perchance.

[–] ErroneousBosh 1 day ago
> Like, if a bunch of kids caught a stray cat, tied him up, and started shouting in his ears and laughing, would you stop them? And if they complained “no fun allowed”, would you think that was fair?

You are talking about directly harming another living creature who cannot fight back.

> What about if there was a video game in which you beat to a pulp deepfake representations of your friends and family?

You are talking about "harming" a collection of north and south facing flips on a disk, a few ones and zeros in a RAM chip. Hell, we used to actually make Quake characters with our real faces on back in the day so you really could blast your real-life friends and family to pieces.

[–] latexr 1 day ago
> You are talking about "harming" a collection of north and south facing flips on a disk

No, you missed the point. It has nothing to do with the entities in the game, it’s about the player outside of it. Look, it’s all well and good to blast your friends in a game and call each other rude names and whatnot, have fun! But you understand that’s OK because you have consent, right?

Here’s a story for you. I have omitted unnecessary details because outing anyone isn’t the point. There was a guy who played a certain competitive game. He was a good person, but he had the habit of describing a big game loss as a “rape”. He wasn’t trying to be malicious, he described himself as having been raped too when he lost big. But he threw it around too casually, and one day he played against a rape victim. Now, can you put yourself in the other person’s shoes and understand how having a traumatic experience thrown back at you casually can make you feel? And even if you believe it wouldn’t bother you personally, can we agree that everyone is different and that we shouldn’t ignore how they feel their pain? That there are little things we can all do to make other people be comfortable, and in turn they may do the same for us?

That’s all I’m saying, that we should practice some empathy. I’m not even saying this game shouldn’t exist, I’m only asking that we recognise that it may affect some people in major ways most of us on this website can’t possibly understand (and we should be thankful for it, not derisive) and that we should take that into account. In short, remember other people exist and share the planet with you, and try to not be a dick to them.

[–] ErroneousBosh 1 day ago
It's quite a leap from using the word "rape" in that context, which no-one in their right mind would think is acceptable, to thinking that maybe possibly somebody somewhere could possibly be offended by a game that they might or might not have seen where you blow up cardboard box-like structures on a map.

Do you also believe that "cultural appropriation" is a thing? On a scale of 1 to Taylor Swift how white and suburban middle-class are you?

[–] latexr 21 hours ago
> to thinking that maybe possibly somebody somewhere could possibly be offended by a game that they might or might not have seen where you blow up cardboard box-like structures on a map.

That’s not the argument. Please don’t straw man.

> Do you also believe that "cultural appropriation" is a thing? On a scale of 1 to Taylor Swift how white and suburban middle-class are you?

Ah, there it is. Your absolute bias and contempt is shining right through. Instead of understanding the words and the nuance of the argument, you straight put people in wrong assumed boxes and then attack the group. By the way, not everyone lives in the USA, that was the most laughably ineffective attempt at an insult I read in years.