Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
EOM
Yes, it is ridiculous to compare what I am doing to protestors who truly put their lives on the line - just as it is truly absurd to think this game gives kids any real sense of the experience of warfare. That the immediate audience is limited is meaningless. How many diners were in the restaurant when a few blacks decided to sit down? How many were there witnessing the Boston Tea party? You get my point - the idea of the act is often of larger significance than the act itself. Getting press becomes part of the work and is a typical strategy of every activist organization under the sun.
The above considered, I would, however, make a strong defense of using Internet based environments for protest activities. As the web takes on further significance as a focus for human social interaction - (similar to the local shopping mall in the sense that this is the only place in most cities you still find large groups of people out of their cars) if you will - it is valid to consider such an arena as the Internet and computer games as new types of public spaces.
Granted, although one takes about as much risk protesting in a pretend game as on does killing or being killed, conducting this protest/memorial has very real risks (on the lower end of the scale I have been flamed viciously on various blogs, on the more frightening end of things I have been threatened with violence).
Finally, of interest to me is the complete anonymity of gamers, bloggers and letter writers to Salon alike. Quite curious - I have intentionally used my full name, provide a link to my website in this type of context. Are we having a real debate if all is anonymous? Perhaps off subject although if you are questioning my protest because it is online and on some level fake and/or cowardly - what does this say about what we are engaged in using this forum?
As others have pointed out, gamers are against what DeLappe is doing. Or better to say that gamers think this is stupid and pointless as a form of protest whether they agree with the sentiment or not. But this does not matter. Mark Prokop and others have pointed out that this should not have been an article worthy of publishing. The reasons are:
1. Its not affecting anything other than a few blog sites. This “media art” is only known within a small, mostly sympathetic online community.
2. The gamer community which this “media artist” (whatever that means) is targeting his message to does not care about this message in its current form (online video game protest…not saying they care or not care about the Iraq war itself or the broader issues involved). Furthermore, only about 16 – 32 people might be able to see his message every 15 minutes or so. Said gamers might not even be American. They may not be of military service age. They could be any gamer playing anywhere in the world. Including American Soldiers playing in Iraq.
3. The video game in question – America’s Army – has been around for 4 years. The fact that the Pentagon spent money on this and uses it as a recruiting tool was news…four years ago.
In another sense, DeLappe has become more news-worth for doing something not news-worth., simply by being the subject of this article.
Sorry, that is "covner", not "povner". My mistake
joseph
I think you are failing to understand the point.
I'm sympathetic to your protest. I think it's important that we are reminded that people are dying in Iraq, and I have friends and relatives at risk there.
We stations pull reports because someone is going to read off the names of those who died, that's worthy of protest, that's newsworthy.
It's important that such protests also be treated with respect and dignity, because you are talking about the death of someones child, brother, sister or parent. Many of these people do not support and kind of protest, much less one that is seen as undignified.
You are protesting in a game. Sure, it may have a connection to the actual US Army, but the fact is it is still a game, and posting anyone's personal information, including death notices in a game is in poor taste.
I think this is nothing but another sad example of just how cluelessly harmless the 'Left' has become. The mere fact that what the 'media artist' does with this video game is completely legal indicates that the Powers That Be ain't losing much sleep over it. And if they ain't losing sleep over it, that's a pretty good indication that he ain't making much headway in the paradigm shift department. Also, newsflash: you could show the actual DEATHS of these soldiers whose names he memorializes, IN the game, and not only would that not make these gamers see things his way---they'd think it was COOL. Know your target demo, dude. We are now several product-generations down the road from Columbine.
I believe these virtual column inches should have gone to some Protester or Heretic or Gadfly or Radical Pain in the Ass or whatever who is such a threat to the system that you have to use a pseudonym to report on her/him. Know what I mean? Are you telling me that dissent in America is now so effing toothless that you can't scrape up ONE 'radical' whose image you can only show in silhouette, or with a pixilated face, or with a black bar across the eyes?
There really IS no dissent worth reporting in this country nowadays, probably. You've either got your types who go along with the program on roller skates, or you've got the ones who mope along with the program kinda grumbling all the way, like suburban kids pissed that Dad has grounded 'em on the eve of a wild party. And the latter group is what's left of what we used to call The Left, I guess.
Mr. Patterson,
I have friends who think as you do, in fact, they are the majority of people in my personal life. Really, good friends. Some would call them "peaceniks" or "moonbats" or worse, but I know them as sincere, caring, thoughtful people.
They offered to hit me with their car to wound me a little so I would not have to go to Iraq, to break my arm, to drive me to Canada. It is a strange expression of love, but there it was just the same.
They protested the war, plastered anti-Bush stickers on their car, and still sent me care packages and wrote letters and email encouraging me and my well being while I was over there. They could distinguish between the war and the soldiers called to serve there. I would suggest you might find a way to do that as well, rather than holding every individual participant fully accountable for the sum entirety of the ills of the war. We are not all Rambo. Who is it again that has the cartoon cliche version of the military in this discussion?
I believe that is what is called, "Supporting the soldiers, without supporting the war." The conservatives say it is impossible to do both (I disagree), and they point to people such as yourself as proof of that (you are their pawn), and a great many people believe their argument, and that is why people who think as you do seem to not get their candidates elected to the majority; you speak only to the people who already agree with you, and alienate those who might be persuaded to move to your point of view with a less extremist argument. Your disconnection with observable reality turns off a great many, in the majority, and the wheels of our representative democracy, with all its flaws, churn, and the outcome is elected leaders who I am sure horrify you.
While you might be surprised that your viewpoints are really not that far from my own, you bring it to a place I cannot go. I am inspired by the leadership principles of a man named Lt. Col Joshua Chamberlain. You should study him. He fought in the U.S. Civil War for the Union. It was a war that a lot of people showed up for, and fought by many who thought it was a bad idea. At the end of the war, he was chosen to accept the surrender of Lee's army at Appomattax in Virginia. He ordered his soldiers to salute the defeated confederate soldiers as they marched past. His actions showed respect and dignity towards his adversaries. The salute was widely reported (and appreciated) in the South, and condemned by many in the North. Chamberlain understood that while wars happen, they are followed by peace, and our conduct in war helps determine the results of the peace that follows. We need soldiers who think like this. Who understand the long term consequences of their individual actions, made more dramatic in a world of instant global news. This is a far more pragmatic yet idealistic reality to embrace in my view.
I can recall few instances where someone gave a war and no one came. One of the few I can think of perhaps is the mass suicide at Masada, but that was only one side not showing up. I think that is what you are proposing in reality, mass suicide by the side that does not show up. There is nobility and dignity of a sort in that too I suppose.
I disagree with you. I respect your viewpoint, but I think it woefully ideal. I hear the frustration and anger behind your words. I really wish I could live in your happy world. When you find your pacifistic utopian Shangri-la, please invite me, I promise to tend my garden, and own no weapons (or at least no tools designed ONLY to be weapons.)
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
