The R-Word

George Carlin had a famous routine about “The Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television” (cover your ears, kids): “Shit, fuck, piss, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.” This was the 1970’s, but even today, despite the advent of HBO, Showtime, and presidential comments about “shithole countries” and grabbing women by the pussy, these words are still pretty much verboten on broadcast television.

I was thinking about this while playing Boggle online—one of my regular timewasters. Three of Carlin’s forbidden words—shit, piss, and tits—are perfectly acceptable—albeit not particularly high-scoring, worth a measly six, seven, and four points, respectively (which seems unfair to poor little tits). The other four are still off limits.

The administrators of online Boggle, though, have lately begun displaying a strange and arbitrary prudishness. About three months ago, I noticed that I could no longer play the word “ass”—a previously unexceptionable source of three points. Thus, while “shit” remained acceptable, the place from whence it springs—a donkey, that is; what did you think I meant—was suddenly beyond the pale. Even stranger, “asses” is still OK. One donkey is bad, but two or more are. . .adorable, I guess.

And just this week, I noticed that another word seems to have been removed from the active lexicon: “rape.”

Now rape, of course, is horrible, but the word is . . .just a word. Do the game administrators somehow believe that allowing a player to collect seven points for identifying r, a, p, and e tiles in proximity to each other is somehow promoting sexual violence? Are they concerned that the word is “triggering”? Remember, the only person who “sees” the word is the player who types it in: If someone is traumatized by the word, then not allowing the word won’t obviate someone’s ability to “see” it. If “rape” is censored, why not “murder,” “molest,” “torture”?

I confess, I am somewhat uncomfortable about this whole discussion. I feel like one of those bigots complaining about not being allowed to use the N-word: “But, they call each other ‘N——‘! Why can’t I say it?!?” Obviously, I’ll get over the trauma of not being able to use “rape” in an online game of Boggle. But any form of arbitrary censorship—no matter how trivial—should be questioned. Why is it happening? What’s the reasoning?

What’s next?

It's Enough to Make a Liberal Scream "Big Government!"

Studies have revealed a new element in the "digital divide": While more and more children from lower socio-economic backgrounds have access to technology, researchers have found that these children spend more online hours on "time-wasting" activities than children in more affluent households.  Leaving aside the value-laden judgment of what constitutes "wasted time" (if I don't download pornography, all those buxom women will have been exploited for nothing!), I was struck by the following:

The new divide is such a cause of concern for the Federal Communications Commission that it is considering a proposal to spend $200 million to create a digital literacy corps. This group of hundreds, even thousands, of trainers would fan out to schools and libraries to teach productive uses of computers for parents, students and job seekers.

Hm.

Today, the Times reported that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to enact a proposal to ban the sale of large (over 16 ounce) sodas in movie theaters, restaurants, and many other venues throughout the city.  This is Mayor Bloomberg's latest attempt to improve the health of New Yorkers; previous efforts have included widespread smoking bans and restrictions on foods containing trans fats.

Ah, progressive public servants!  What else can I say, but. . .  ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!  These are precisely the kind of big-government, nanny-state programs that drive conservatives up a wall, and, frankly, they have a point. 

The fact that low-income kids are "wasting" too much time on non-productive online activities--assuming that even IS a fact--is not a government problem; it's a parenting one.  And between you and me, I'm fairly certain that plenty of one-percenter children spend what could only be considered excessive amounts of time playing Angry Words with Diablo II.

So, there, I just solved THAT problem: Can I have $200 million?  Tell you what, just give me 100 grand and we'll call it square.

(DIGRESSION: In "Angry Birds," why do you need a slingshot to shoot the birds at the pigs?  Can't birds fly?  Or is that why they're angry?  EOD)

As for Bloomberg's ban on large sodas: Really Mike?

Look, smoking ban? Good idea: Non-smokers shouldn't have to inhale second-hand smoke.  Trans-fat legislation kinda makes sense, too: Restaurant patrons have no real control (or often knowledge) of what ingredients are being used.  Requiring city restaurants to eliminate trans fats reduces citizens' exposure to a dangerous substance and levels the playing field so that no restaurant is being unduly penalized.

But what, exactly, is this ban on large sodas supposed to accomplish?  All these places that sell large sodas already sell sodas in smaller sizes: People simply choose to buy the large drinks because they want more soda.  And as Bloomberg even points out himself, nothing will stop people from buying more than one soda.  In fact, someone who currently buys a 20 ounce drink may actually end up drinking MORE soda under the new policy: If  a 16 ounce drink doesn't satisfy, this person will have no choice but to buy ANOTHER 12-16 ounce drink to quench his 20-ounce thirst.

If the Mayor really thinks soda is so dangerous, he should just be honest and ban it altogether.  (Actually, I probably shouldn't give him ideas.)

I am a firm believer in a strong and, frankly, activist government.  But I would ask the government to focus on big-picture problems like unemployment and poverty.  Until those are taken care of, for God's sake, let people drink Dr. Pepper and play Halo!

A Bit of Misplaced Hostility to Start the Weekend Right

Another open letter, this time to my Words-with-Friends-playing friends:

I've never taken sides in the "Coke vs. Pepsi" debate: Whatever's brown and bubbly works for me.  Honestly, I'm more of a diet root beer kind of guy altogether.  Paper or plastic?  Same thing.  I don't care, as long as you're not one of those self-righteous, tree-hugging envirobots with the reusable cloth carry-all, acting oh-so-superior as you waddle about in your handmade hemp overalls, driving your chicken-fat powered go-kart to the Whole Foods and recycling your own urine for hot-water bottles on cold winter nights, GOD YOU ALL MAKE ME SICK!  I JUST WANT TO--

Sorry, where was I?  Oh, yeah.

While you can embrace neutrality on any number of subjects, some things are either/or, black or white.  Like "black" and "white," for instance.  You're either PC or Mac, Mets or Yankees, toilet paper or twigs--not "either" and NEVER "both."

So it is with Scrabble and Words with Friends.  I am a Scrabble man.  I care not for the bells and whistles and dancing pandas of Words With Friends.  Call me old-fashioned, call me an online version of crossword-based board-games purist, call me irresponsible, just call me!  But don't call me to play Words with Friends.  I will not accept the invitation.  I will not play.

Understand, friends, it's nothing personal.  I will gladly play Scrabble with you any time.  It's certainly not that I don't consider you "Friends."  I simply consider you idiots.

Love,

Solipsist

XBox Not X-Rated

The Supreme Court ruled against a California law that banned the sale of overly violent video games to children. We think the majority got the ruling right but the reasoning wrong.

At any rate, the majority opinion, written by Antonin Scalia, relied on a correspondence between video games and other forms of media, such as books, movies, songs, etc. Scalia noted that the government has never previously regulated depictions of violence, so video games should not be subject to such regulation.

Now, when it comes to personal, privacy-of-one's-own-home issues, the Solipsist is pretty libertarian. If kids want to play ultra-violent video games, and their parents are OK with them doing so, who are we to judge? Unless of course we're judges. Like on the Supreme Court. . . . Wait, we just confused ourselves.

Scalia says violent video games shouldn't be regulated by the government because depictions of violence never have been regulated by the government. But just because something never has been done doesn't automatically mean it should never be done, especially if there is some compelling societal reason for doing it. Prior to last Friday, government officials in New York had never conferred legitimacy on same-sex marriage, but that, thankfully, didn't stop them from taking such action. And we suppose a case could be made that the government has a legitimate role to play in preventing children's exposure to insanely violent stimuli, especially if, as some fear, such games encourage children to behave violently.

We had different objections to the legislation.

For one thing, it's utterly pointless. The fact that a store can't sell violent video games to children will hardly prevent children from getting them. Again, if parents don't object to their children having such games, then parents could simply buy the games for them.

The more important problem with the legislation is its lack of specificity. The law in question

defined violent games as those “in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being” in a way that was “patently offensive,” appealed to minors’ “deviant or morbid interests” and lacked “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

Who decides what is "offensive"? How does one know which of minor's interests are being appealed to? How "serious" does the literary, artistic, political, or scientific value need to be? These are terms that we would reject in a student's topic sentence. We strongly object to their presence as legal benchmarks.

We realize this puts us into agreement with Justice Samuel Alito, who suggested that a more carefully worded law might withstand judicial scrutiny. Rest assures, we are as troubled by this as you are. But even a paleoconservative clock is right once a Supreme Court term.

English teachers of the world unite! No vaguely worded statutes!

And Pac-Man Now Has Lowfat Monsters

The upcoming version of John Madden's football video game franchise, Madden NFL 12, will continue the series' attempts at ever-greater verisimilitude by "removing" "players" from the "game" when they suffer "concussions." When virtual players suffer crushing hits and leave the field of play, a play-by-play announcer may relay the news that the player has suffered a concussion and will not return. NFL executives and others applauded Madden's move as a way to increase awareness of the dangers football players face:

“'It’s a great approach to teach kids in a way that no one else can reach,' said Chris Nowinski, the co-director of the Sports Legacy Institute and a former Harvard football player, who speaks at schools and summer camps about the seriousness of concussions."

The Solipsist reached MVP quarterback Tom Brady for comment. After a profanity-laced tirade (we probably shouldn't have called at 3:00 am), Brady acknowledged that the changes would probably have positive impact. "Now, when these pasty, flabby 15-year-olds come crawling out of their parents' basements to play real football, they'll think twice before leading with the helmet." While players generally approve the changes, their avatars expressed less enthusiasm. "Look," said Avatar Tom Brady, "I don't want some algorithm deciding when I've been hit too hard to keep playing. And if the virtual New England Patriots lose even one game because of a hasty decision, I don't think it's worth it." "They're talking about 'neurological damage,'" complained Avatar Reggie Bush. "I don't even have a central nervous system! I'm not real! Let me play!" Meanwhile, other video game franchises have announced plans to follow Madden's lead, including the Major League Baseball game "The Show." On fly balls to the outfield, action will stop while players explain how trigonometric principles allow them to track the ball's path. In the "Halo" franchise, gamers will now have to participate in a lengthy diplomatic negotiating session with representatives of "the Flood." Only when negotiations have failed will players proceed to the battle sequences or "fun parts." ******BREAKING NEWS******* John Madden has just announced that game programmers have locked out the avatars for their refusal to cooperate in the new injury-prevention guidelines. The avatars responded by decertifying their union and disaggregating their pixels. No further negotiations are scheduled at this time. Solipsistography "Madden Puts Concussions in New Light in His Game"

Being Sam Keller

A few years back, a fantasy baseball league sued Major League Baseball. Fantasy leagues allow average joes to play general manager by assembling teams of professional athletes. The fantasy-leaguers earn points (or something--we don't play ourselves, so this is purely uninformed speculation) based on how well the various players on their virtual teams perform in the real world. Back in 2005, MLB wanted, in effect to corner the market in fantasy baseball for itself and restrict competing leagues from using the statistics of major-league players--essentially putting these competitors out of business. The courts correctly ruled against Major League Baseball, finding that statistics are public information and that no corporation could claim ownership of those facts.

MLB overreached, but they based their argument on a more accepted principle: the right of people to control the use of their image, particularly in commercial ventures. While fantasy leagues have the right to use public information like player stats, they presumably would not have the right to use pictures of actual players in promoting their product--at least without compensating the players. A question, though: What happens when the statistics ARE the image?

Last year, a former college football quarterback, Sam Keller, sued the video game publisher Electronic Arts, claiming that they misappropriated his image for an NCAA Football video game. The catch is that, technically, EA can claim that they didn't. NCAA rules, you see, prohibit the game developers from using players' names, so strictly speaking the "athlete" portrayed in NCAA Football was not "Sam Keller"--it was just an avatar wearing his jersey number, with his height, weight, stats, and playing style. In effect, EA could claim that all they did was utilize the public information, statistics, to program a player for use in its game.

Where that argument would fail, we think, is in the fact that so much "incidental" information went into the avatar's programming: things like Keller's jersey number and hometown, for example. We wonder, though, what would happen if the game's developers had created a virtual player that looked nothing like Keller, but that was programmed with Keller's stats? Theoretically, there would be no lawsuit. At the same time, there would be less interest in the game.

Part of the appeal of these hyper-realistic sports video games lies in the fact that you get to "play" as your favorite player. A video game that incorporated all the actual statistics but displayed generic-looking athletes would presumably not find as much popularity as one that utilized player likenesses--even if you could play as a really cool avatar like. . . well, like those avatars from "Avatar." And you know James Cameron would take a piece of that action.

Let's not keep pretending that college sports is anything other than big business and that college athletes--particularly in the big-money sports like football and basketball--are in any meaningful way different from the professional athletes they hope one day to be. If a game company's business model derives profit from the use of these folks' images, they should be compensated just like anyone else.

(Image from Fansided.com)

Of Mice and Zombies

Coming soon to a game store near you: "Dante's 'Inferno,'" the video game. This is not a joke. A tie-in edition of the medieval classic features the game's scythe-wielding avatar on the cover. Virgil better watch his punk-ass.

In what seems an unnecessary bit of curmudgeonry (curmudgeonitude?), Rob Bricken of ToplessRobot.com decries the tie-in edition's cover as "a gross misrepresentation of the original work." He continues, "They're not interested in getting kids into literature--they're not looking to do anything except sell some books to dumb kids" ("Abandon All Poetry, But Enter Hell with an Attitude").

Mr. Bricken is right, of course. But should we really complain about kids being suckered into picking up Dante?

More to the point, we wonder what's next for Electronic Arts, the makers of the Inferno video game?

"Quixote! The Curse of La Mancha": In this steampunk-style first-person shooter, the evil Windmill Corporation is extending its baleful influence throughout medieval Spain. Don Alonso "El Falcon" Quijano is called out of retirement to defend the realm. By killing zombies.

"The Albertine Conspiracy: A Remembrance of Things Past": The year is 2546. The invalid Marcel is given "the madeleine," an experimental regenerative medication. The drug not only rejuvenates his body, but also stimulates a flood of repressed memories, leading him on a quest to right the wrongs of his past. And kill zombies.

"Jean-Paul Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness'": Hell is other people. . . especially when they're zombies!

(While the above is meant as satire, WOS points out that SOMEBODY will probably think these are good ideas. We're fine with that. We just ask for credit. . . and 10% of gross earnings.)

(Image from Amazon.com)

WOS Update (A Brief Post)

Funny story, true story.

(OK, maybe: Sad story, true story. You decide.)

WOS is a "gamer." She's been playing video games since well before we met, and her latest enthusiasm is the wildly popular MMORPGMPORRGGMP (WOS, when do I stop?)--whatever, it's "World of Warcraft." Indeed, if any Sloppists are fans of the game, feel free to "group" with WOS: She goes by "Maklu" or "Spincycle" on the Shadowsong server. (There's a sentence we never could have anticipated typing. Or understanding.) Just greet her with a "Hail, mage WOS." That's the password.

So anyway, yesterday, we were sitting around whittling soap, and WOS was WOW-ing. Suddenly, she bursts into hysterical laughter:

WOS: BWAAAAAA-HA-HA-HA! BWAAAAA-HA-HA-HA!

SOLIPSIST: What? What's funny?

WOS: BWAAAAAAA-HA-HA! Oh, God. . . Oh, God. . . Hahahahahahahaha. . . .

SOLIPSIST: (Chuckling now, too) What? Come on, what's so funny?

WOS: Oh! Oh, God. . . .OK. . . . This friend of mine? Hehehe. . . . He's. . .Oh!. . .He's a Mage? And he. . . he. . . .Hahahahahhaha

SOLIPSIST: Yeah? He what?

WOS: He. . .HE GAVE HIMSELF A WARLOCK NAME! BWAAA-HA-HA-HA!

SOLIPSIST: . . .?

WOS: (Looks at SOLIPSIST) Ahahaha. . . ha.. . .heh. . .Oh. Um. . . . BWAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen: We married a nerd.

Those Who Can. . .

From the "Now We've Seen Everything" Department:

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, teach gym. Time was, that was the end of the line. You can't teach gym, you're out of luck. Now, however, even those for whom Phys. Ed. is daunting can experience the thrills of pedagogy. We refer to "Dreamer Series: Teacher" for the Nintendo DS. (NOTE: Please cross-reference this entry under "This Is Not a Joke.")

The "Dreamer Series" allows players to explore careers. As "Dreamer" implies, these are careers that might be considered "dream jobs." Two titles in the series, for example, are "Pop Star" and "Top Model." Other titles include "Horse Trainer," "Puppy Trainer," and "Zoo Keeper." Obviously, these are not as apparently unattainable or anorexia-inducing as pop stardom or supermodeling, but we still see the appeal of these games: Who doesn't like to play with animals--especially virtual animals that one doesn't have to clean up after?

Then there's the third tier of titles--games that give girls (yes, girls--more on this later) the opportunity to virtually experience things that, frankly, they could probably experience more rewardingly in reality: "Shop Owner," "Babysitter," and, as mentioned above, "Teacher." You may object that they may not WANT to do these things in reality. Fair enough, but then why in God's name would they want to be virtual teachers?

Of what would a teaching video game consist anyway? As a teacher, the Solipsist can assure you that the thrills are few and far between. Do you mark up student essays? Do you earn bonus points for catching grammar errors? If the objective is to get your students to "love" you (as suggested by the copy on the game itself), isn't the easiest thing simply not to assign homework and give everyone A's? That's what we do in our classes. (Perhaps we've said too much.)

And about the "girls" thing mentioned above: All these games feature cover pictures of clean-cut, adorable young women, probably in their late teens. Their target audience, in other words, is clear. Now, we know that all girls (and ONLY girls) get goopy over horses, but we have a problem with the implication that teaching (or for that matter pop-stardom) is a strictly female aspiration. And even if the vast majority of babysitting jobs are held by young women, isn't this all the more reason to encourage a more unisex approach in the gaming world?

Actually, the babysitting game is not a bad idea. For parents, that is. Before hiring a babysitter, hand them a DS with "Dreamer Series: Babysitter." If the young lady's (or man's) initial instinct is to press "shake" when the baby starts screaming, you should look elsewhere for domestic help.

Look, bottom line: There is NOTHING exciting about teaching. Frankly, if you're looking for video-game excitement, stick with "Halo." Or even "Dreamer Series: Accountant."

(Image from Amazon.com)