Conservative Blogger Who Triggered 2008 Mass Effect Debacle Equates Obama Stimulus Plan with Rape Game

Just when you thought the RapeLay mini-scandal was over…

Kevin McCullough, the conservative blogger who in 2008 lit the fuse that would eventually detonate as pop psychologist Cooper Lawrence’s misguided attack on Xbox 360 hit Mass Effect, is back.

In a piece for the conservative Townhall blog, McCullough draws similarities between the despicable RapeLay PC game and President Obama’s just-signed stimulus package.

You can’t make this stuff up. Here’s what McCullough, who eventually backed off of his incorrect allegations against Mass Effect, wrote regarding RapeLay and the stimulus package:

This week after many complaints finally decided to ban a virtual reality game called "Rapelay." Defenders of the game say it’s not real rape because it only occurs between computer animations. There are no genuine side effects. And it won’t impact reality.

Sort of like what liberals sound like when it comes to our money. The money we work increasingly harder to earn. And with one uber-partisan vote they take away. Taken faster than the speed of light or at least in shorter than being allowed to read the legislation that does so.

In the game Rapelay, reviewers have stated that the player must first sexually assault a mother character and her two daughters before being allowed to then "pick" their next series of victims.

In the Congress of Washington DC liberals have seen to it that our mothers and daughters will have less money in the home budget working for their protection and welfare.

In the game Rapelay the reviews indicate that the rapist can even convince one of the animated computer characters that they like what’s happening to them.

In Washington DC liberals in Congress sent their lapdog "Mr. President" out to the masses to do the same thing…


I’ve tried to be as tasteful as possible in explaining this comparison, and due to the passion of the natural man that was not an easy thing to do!

Class act, that Kevin McCullough…

Via: N’Gai Croal

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. Ashla says:

    Hint: they didn’t.

    What we’re seeing here, is a fucking testament as to why leaving the market unregulated is bad.

  2. BrandonL337 says:

    Hear Hear!

    There have always been motherf*ckers, there will always be motherf*ckers, but what we can’t do is let them control our motherf*cking lives. -John Oliver, December 1st, 2008

  3. Andrew Eisen says:

    Heh, wrong shape (the canvas I mean) and the circle was off center but yeah, pretty much.


    Andrew Eisen

  4. BrandonL337 says:

    They were selling a Japanese flag?

    There have always been motherf*ckers, there will always be motherf*ckers, but what we can’t do is let them control our motherf*cking lives. -John Oliver, December 1st, 2008

  5. Sukasa says:

    Funny… but i thought all those conservative christians out there thought the end of the world is upon us and that yall will be raptured up not carrying what happens to the world.  So why would they care about a crappy 1.3 trillion dollars?  Heck why not add the nearly 600 billion(which doesnt include VA costs for medical treatment for vets wounded from the war, repair and replacement of worn/destroyed equipment, interest on that money etc) for Iraq bill that was paid with a nice Mastercard express and make it 1.9 trillion?  Well, democrats had to bend over and take it up the arse for 8 years, its republicans turn.  Hopefully us moderates and independents can keep put of the way while those two factions go at it.  Stock up on some lube Austin, it sounds like you will need some for awhile.

  6. Erik says:

    Get back to us on this after you look at the money which was wasted on the war in Iraq, as well as estimates on its future costs.  But, you know, coffins for dead American soldiers aren’t cheap.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  7. Mr.Pat says:

    I know, he truly does embody the mantra of the 23%ers. Whenever I mention that there’s no worship like Bush-worship, its people like him that come right to mind.

  8. Mr.Pat says:

    Yes yes, George never made a single mistake in all of his 8 years as president, nothing was ever his fault, he’s the living embodiment of jesus christ and you worship him as a god, we’ve heard your schtick over and over again. Last I checked Obama actually attempted to bring the republicans into this, and he made changes around their input, despite the fact that their only mantra right now are that tax cuts are the is-all-end-all solution to everything in life. Hell your "they never do wrong" republicans are even on the record complimenting him for his bipartisanship. But no, thats not good enough, they get told to all vote no regardless of any changes, and like the sheep they are, they comply. To them its all about scoring points for the next election – party before country, something you seem to follow quite adamantly.

    That, and torture is fine and dandy when we do it.

    But its nice to know that you’re so partisan that you’d probably punch a democrat in the face for rescuing your own mother from a burning building. I’m sure if all this money in the stimulus bill were were to go to Iraq you’d be jumping for joy, since apparantly wasting trillions into the "war" is perfectly reasonable, but spending at home is a travesty.

  9. thenameless says:

    Umm…no they didn’t if anything they are way ahead of you at least on the second count as they already declared the second a promise broken before the stimulus bill was passed. In fact they dinged him on two sperate accounts of breaking that promise, no need to make a list of each an every item when they already cought him doing it twice in a row:

    As for the frist they listed it as a comprimise while leaving the door open to downgrade it to promise broken:

  10. Austin_Lewis says:

    Right.  I’m sorry that I’m annoyed that this jackass helped to ram through a bill that wastes nearly a third of the government’s tax income on things that are just pork, nearly guaranteed to not have any effect on the recession, and, my personal favorite, WRITING A 1.3 TRILLION DOLLAR BILL THAT OUR CHILDREN WILL HAVE TO FUCKING PAY FOR!

    Right, Bush fucked us over as much as that.  It couldn’t have been the Democrat party helping to force Subprime lending, then blocking the regulation of the same sort of lending.  No, let’s misplace blame out of a blind hatred for Bush.

  11. hayabusa75 says:

    Well said.  I worked for five years as a mortgage loan officer myself, so I saw firsthand what was going on.  Unscrupulous business practices and sales burnout ultimately made me call it quits.  However, I did eventually have the satisfaction of seeing many of my former colleagues go broke after carelessly frittering away all the commission money they received by ripping people off over those years.

    I also learned that it’s not that difficult to read a mortgage note and understand what your loan is all about, even if you’re not familiar with loan lingo.  Maybe that’s why I’m relatively unsympathetic to the plight of the average consumer.

    "There is no sin except stupidity." – Oscar Wilde

  12. Ashla says:

    I was actually talking in a literal sense on the topic of a mountain of money being burned. that’s the only way that the US goverment could "waste" money.

  13. Geoff says:

    What I ment by that is that hard-line bloggers (both left and right) write hyberbole to make themselves feel smart and superior (it’s easy when you don’t have the other side to argue points).  Those that visit those sites often usually have the same hard-line views and go to said sites to help renforce the percepective bubble they’ve placed around themselves, meanwhile the blogger in question gets the smug satisfaction that people believe what he/she says.

    Hence, oratory masturbation.  They’re getting off at the idea that they aren’t alone with their crazy beliefs.  I guess you could say it’s more like a circle jerk though.

    Of course the same could be applied to any internet site, but you rarely see the same amount of hardcore ideological belief and preaching than on these kind of blog sites.  (Go check out Freerepublic or Democratic Underground if you like, though I wouldn’t suggest either.)


    Tea and cake or death! Tea and cake or death! Little Red Cook-book! Little Red Cook-book!

  14. Sukasa says:

    While I didn’t vote for Obama, I do enjoy watching those people at Townhall squirm because he was elected.  It was funny, they accused people who didnt like Bush of BDS(Bush Derangement Syndrome), so are they now guilty of ODS?  Personally, I don’t like either party, expecially when its far right/far left.

  15. JoshuaOrrizonte says:

    I agree with Amazon’s removal of Rapelay if it violates their terms of service, and if lolicon violates it, that should be removed, too. The ToS isn’t there to look pretty. If they’re not going to enforce the rules, the rules need to be removed.

    I’ve said several times, personally, that I’m disgusted there’s a market for it, but there is a market and it is not illegal in the country it was made in. It has every right to have been made.

    However, firing someone- anyone- from a blog is not censorship. It is censorship if the publication deletes the article and forces the employee to apologize when he doesn’t mean it. It is censorship if he is fired and all those free services out there that give you a platform refuse to let you use them. I hate to say this, but even though we’re only debating among ourselves? We’re engaging in free speech. You don’t need a large audience to be able to speak. You don’t need a large audience to exercise your freedom of speech.

  16. JoshuaOrrizonte says:

    Wow. I’m baffled. He’d have a platform. There are tons of services out there that will let you spew whatever drivel you want and be untouched.

    I have a Livejournal. I rant regularly about stuff, and yes, sometimes spew drivel that some would call offensive. I talk to my friends and family about it.

    So what you’re saying, then, is because I’m not working for a company, getting paid to boast my opinions, and reaching a large audience, I am… silent? I don’t have freedom of speech because the only people reading my stuff are my friends? That’s… not my understanding of the subject and not something I agree with.

    Furthermore, if there are people who want to follow him, in the sad event he was fired (for, as far as I can tell, doing his job- I’m not saying he should be fired) they can follow him to his blog. It happens.

  17. Austin_Lewis says:

    That seems like an extremely poor measure.  It seems to have forgotten about him hiring (or attempting to hire) lobbyists for government jobs, not being transparent with policy (like the stimulus bill, which he signed before most people had a chance to even read the bill), etc.


  18. TheCrowingOne says:

    EDIT: I work in the foreclosure prevention field, so I know what I’m talking out.

    The majority of those homeowners who were attempting to "live above their means" were placed into their loans by agrresive and often unethical brokers, agents and officers. By luring people (generally immigrants in the southwest) into minimum payment loans in which the borrower was not making payments on principle balance and the adjustable not feature created further payments which brought the loan out of any concept of affordability. These borrowers were "qualified" for the loans essentially by the banks, who held the grestest interest in flipping properties to create unethical profit.

    The entire loan "craze" of the turn of the century was based on the incorrect concept that our economy and housing demand would continue to rise exponentially, allowing borrowers who were above their means making these "minimum payment" loans to refinance within a five year period. The concept was sound, the implementation ended up as predatory. The loan products out there were meant for sophisticated consumers who understood and were willing to bet on the further economic rise. Instead, these loans were made to uneducated borrowers as a means for them to only pay $600 a month (minimum payment) for homes that sat decidedly out of reach of their current economic means.

    What does this mean? It means that there’s a lot more going on here than merely "people living outside of their means." These loans were pushed on low-income families in order for them to get into the home they dreamed of for years but could never afford. The problem began in the Clinton years when federal regulations were loosened to allow these products, were perpetuated by lenders’ unethical business practices, and came to a head when our economy slipped and people’s income began to drop.

    Consumers should not be given a free pass. There are many who knowingly entered into bad loans out of greed, and those who were tricked into signing due to a lack of financial knowlege and communication skills (Spanish-only speakers in the southwest who were never provided with loan documents in their own language.) Regardless, the problem begins and ends with the same thing: Governmental regulation and oversight over a greedy and unethical industry.

    You can talk about "choice" all you wish. The bottom line is that there was an abuse of trust on the part of lenders and, surprise, the general American populous fell for it. Really, when was the last time you saw someone who dropped out of school after 10th grade understand the ins and outs of mortgage lending? Honestly, do you understand the minute ins and outs of lending?

  19. hayabusa75 says:

    I can’t fully agree with that.  While it’s true that the government shares some of the blame, they were addressing the problem with the predatory lending laws.  The lenders were just one step ahead with their "creative financing".  And consumers should be given a free pass?  I say bullshit.  In this day and age of internet access, it’s not hard to educate yourself to the point where you can make sound financial decisions, even if you only go so far as to get competing offers.  If you go with the first smooth-talking salesman you meet regarding a huge financial decision like your home, that’s your choice.  Just don’t expect me to feel sorry for you when it all goes south.

    "There is no sin except stupidity." – Oscar Wilde

  20. Jack Wessels says:

    That’s true I suppose. But then I wouldn’t have been able to complain about it. And what fun would that have been?


    -"A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject." -Sir Winston Churchill

  21. Father Time says:

    "And that’s another thing that pisses me off! When the government raises taxes, they’re not just taking money and throwing it into a pit (well, some of the time they are)."

    Well the pit hasn’t been approved by our beaucracy yet, but don’t worry it’ll be there. As Americans when we see our tax dollars wasted we want to see them wasted in style. That pit’s going to look pretty good.

    And expecting the government to act responsible or in everyone’s interest all the time is in my opinion stupid. Adopting an attitude of ‘government knows best’ just gives a lot of potential for abuse or downfall when/if the government gets incompetent.

    I say that people should be skeptical of government considering the amount of power it has and the amount of money it needs.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  22. Thomas McKenna says:

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin

    I had my thoughts on this, but this post confirmed it.  You’re a jackass.  In order to ensure your own sense of safety and self worth, you’d deny hundreds of millions their freedom.  You’d rather be financially secure than free?  That is the most incompetent thing I have ever heard, and I’ve heard a lot of them.  You’d willing be a pet to the powers that be so long as you were financially secure?  You’d be willing to spit in the face of millions that have died just so they and everyone around them could taste freedom just for your own comfort?  What is all the wealth in the world without being free?

    Your statement there confuses me to no end.  I have so many different thoughts flowing through my head that I can’t make up from down.  The one thing I can be certain of though, is anger.  I have never said this to anyone before, but if you honestly believe what you just said, then you may live in this country, but you’re no countryman of mine. 

    I was going to try to end on something else to drive the point home, but really, I don’t think I need to.  Realize you’re not the center of the fucking world, and that you’ve been given the gift of liberty freely, something many would and have died to gain.  You would gladly trade this away for comfort.  You are a pet and a fool, and you don’t deserve what has been given to you.

  23. Thomas McKenna says:

    Again, I said he’d probably be prosecuted.  However, he’d become a martyr in the eyes of anyone that bleeds red, white, and blue.

  24. Daria_C says:

    Would you like to know why so many people are defending Rapelay, even though we find it disgusting? Its because of two words……

    "Stare decisis"

    These words mean to maintain the precedent. Its how our legal system works. United States judges are not supposed to pull rulings out of their butts. When making up their minds, they have to look to older rulings and the consitution for the answer. These days books, movies, and music have almost complete protection under the first amendment, but the precedant for digital media is still being set.

    Now picture if you will: an american court bans Rapelay. This doesnt seem that odd to some people, all in all, it is a game with a violent setting, and very little artistic value. Now, later on GTA V is released, the normal hulabalu starts, and so on. This time, however, it gets banned. How could this have happened? Well its just so happens that the judge on the case pulled up PoliticalJerk v. Rapelay, which says that certain digital media can be "banned if they don’t have a cetain level of artistic merit" (or whatever the legal brief from the case claimed).

    You wonder why, despite being disgusted by Rapelay so many of us get our noses out of joint about regulation? Thats why.


    I also point out, I’m a moderate. One of those people in middle. I think that the political blog we have been talking about is a disgusting little bit of fearmongering, but I will defend their right to spread that filth around because its the same right that allows us all to get togather here and take pot shots at each other. ^_^

  25. Father Time says:

    Yes but not if the expression involves punching someone then it’s not covered under free speech no matter how many ideas he was expressing through it.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  26. Andrew Eisen says:

    Hence the problem and why obscenity cases are debated to this day.  Determining if something passes a particular prong of the Miller Test is a matter of opinion, not common sense.

    As an example, does common sense dictate what is of "serious artistic value"?  No, it’s completely subjective.


    Andrew Eisen

  27. gamadaya says:

    How did the government encourage banks to take up so many toxic assets?


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  28. gamadaya says:

    I’d rather be financially secure than "free", as you put it. I might be responsible enough to not live way beyond my means, but most people aren’t. And when so many people are living so far beyond their means and taking out so many loans they can’t possibly pay off, banks begin to fail. And then it starts to affect me and other fiscally responsible people, and I can’t have that happening. And frankly, I don’t give a shit about most pork barrel projects. The ones that the Republicans are bitching about don’t mean a thing. A couple million hear or there is nothing in the big picture, so if polititions try to slip in funding for useless things, just let them. And 300 mil to upgrade the computer systems at the fucking state department is not pork. I have no idea why this is the most popular example. And even some projects that seem like they are useless at first may have the side affect of simply creating more jobs.


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  29. Sukasa says:

    I think the fundamental issue is that its easy to find something that offensive anywhere.  I used to work in a bookstore, we would occasionaly have someone get offended, get mad and say they are never coming back again cause we had some item they didn’t like.  I could say I don’t like the bible or the koran or some other "acceptable" book.  I may not like them, but I don’t have the right to demand that they be pulled off the shelf.  What would happen, for example if a bunch of fundamentalist christians got into power?  Could we expect to see a "censureship" for say witch and wiccan books/products because they believe them to be not moral and offensive?  Where do you stop the line of what is offensive.  Yes, we have freedom of speech, but that doesn’t seem to matter if someone (in power)finds it offensive.

  30. gamadaya says:

    I think that one justice said it best. I know it when I see it. There is no quanitification involved here. You just have to use common sense. And I don’t mean common sense as most people on the internet refer to it, as intelligence. I mean real common sense. The sense that is common to all (or almost all) people.



    Internet troll > internet paladin

  31. Sukasa says:

    If J-List sells it, its not coming up on their search engine…though not like there isn’t other games on the site that are similar in nature, etc.

  32. gamadaya says:

    That’s all correct, except the consumer never posseses any of the blame. You know how you don’t blame a retarded person when they do something wrong because they can’t help it? Well the consumers are like super-retards. If the average person was capable of making responsible decisions about their economic futures, while still keeping other people’s economic situations in mind, then we wouldn’t really even need a government. It is really the fault of the banks for not being more responsible, and also the fault of the government for not keeping the banks in line.


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  33. Thomas McKenna says:

    They have a right to burn the flag, and he has the right to show them how he feels about it.  He’ll probably be prosecuted, but he’ll be a martyr for it.

  34. Thomas McKenna says:

    The answer of course is yes, they should be allowed to say the things that they say.  It’s called the first Ammendment.  Kind of the keystone of the American ideal set.  Just because you don’t like what she says doesn’t mean she doesn’t have the right to say it.

  35. Thomas McKenna says:

    Through inaction?  Their hands were all over the mess, long before it started to manifest itself.  First with a poor sense of fiscal responsibility and then later with measures that encouraged banks to get into the position that caused them to fail, along with coddling the weak ones with handouts until they imploded upon themselves when all shit went south.  Facts and common sense would show that the government shares half the blame, while the other half lies on us.

  36. Parallax Abstraction says:

    It’s Austin_Lewis.  If he wasn’t trolling for the neo-con "everyone who doesn’t agree with us is to blame" point of view, he’d have nothing to post here.

    Parallax Abstraction
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  37. Thomas McKenna says:

    "Sometimes the government has to get involved and use people’s money how it should be used."

    The last group I would trust to spend money how it should be spent is the government.  They waste more money than I can even fathom with unnecessary pork barrel project, inefficient bureaucracies, and shady politicians.  When was the last time the govenrment actually did something that made fiscal sense?  The only people who know how to spend their money is the people, and if they fuck up then so be it.  That only prooves that they’re free, which is a hell of a lot better of an idea then what you’re proposing.

  38. GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    It’s called the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, right? When a person takes something (Rapelay) that has nothing to do with the topic at hand (stimulus bill) and tries to twist it around to make it relevant?

  39. Andrew Eisen says:

    Only the first prong but even so, how do you quantify how the general public will define "average person" or "contemporary community standards"?


    Andrew Eisen

  40. Firebird says:

    I don’t have a in depth knowledge other than basic college Economics,

    But doesn’t the consumer possess half the blame (at least) in this, for not being able to pay back the loans they were never able to afford in the first place?

    The decrease in home value comes from supply and demand, as more are not able to pay their loans, they go into bankruptcy, ergo they sell their house to the bank…

    Do this in masse, and you have an abundance of houses, and with the law of supply and demand, the homes are significantly worth less than when they were first bought, which really screwed other homeowners facing emminent foreclosure (is that the proper term?).

    Spread this among other factors such as the inability to buy insurance (much less pay for medical expenses), an increase govenrment expenditure (food stamps, etc.), all of which we pay for in taxes…. and lets not forget the current CEO corruption, and other individuals that were responsible or could have prevented this… (Alan Greenspan, etc.)

    Plus, the war….. and I think that’s mostly it.

    There in more details than I care to state, elaborate, or even know. But I think that’s the gist of it.

    I maybe half-wrong here, since I am half-awake during my classes. So any more insightful commentary or corrections (no cursing  😉  gentlemen/women) will be fully welcomed.

  41. gamadaya says:

    But the mountain is there, and the match is lit. It’s a tense situation. I actually think we’ll have to wait more than 4 years to see if it works out.


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  42. David says:

    Not at all.  But stating that information is wrong simply because of its source is just foolish.  I chose Wikipedia for the sake of expediency.

    The Miller Test is readily available for people who wish to check whether the information provided is true.  If you don’t like Wikipedia, then look elsewhere and confirm what I said.

  43. gamadaya says:

    You know, Coulter and this guy kind of fall into the same catagory. They are like real life villains. They’re entertainment. And they can create intelligent debate. Sure, most of that debate is over whether trash like them should be allowed to say the things they say, but it’s still intelligent debate.


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  44. gamadaya says:

    Who other than Michael Moore even comes close to this?


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  45. gamadaya says:

    I’d say this guy. Some people just have some weird fetishes.


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  46. gamadaya says:

    It’s terms are defined by the general public’s attitudes. And the general public would find this game obscene and pornographic.


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  47. gamadaya says:

    I think facts and common sense would say that the government didn’t cause the recession. Or you could say that they absolutely did cause it through inaction.


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  48. gamadaya says:

    You can say "if the people did this" or "if the people did that" until you’re blue in the face, but the people don’t. Sometimes the government has to get involved and use people’s money how it should be used.


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  49. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    No, it wouldn’t, b/c then he’d become the equivalent of the Time Devourer from Chrono Cross. We must keep him in the Lavos stage FOR GREAT JUSTICE, until there is a way to completely and utterly destroy him.


    "Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon

  50. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    Does it have to be for people to know that the info there can be tampered with?

    Last I checked common sense was applicable outside of school as well.


    "Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon

  51. Adrian Lopez says:

    If anything, the third prong raises the issue of whether the government should be acting as art critic. If modern art demonstrates anything it is that one man’s art is another man’s commode.

  52. Adrian Lopez says:

    "The stories are a significant part of the experience of Manhunt and GTA.  They make statements about destructive behavior and Western culture."

    So art must be judgmental to qualify as art? Art cannot have a negative message?

  53. Andrew Eisen says:

    "If this doesn’t pass the Miller test, then what the hell does?"

    Nothing I can thing of and that’s the problem.  The Miller test is far too subjective and vague.

    "And I can guarun-damn-tee you that nobody is playing the game for the story."

    Doesn’t matter.  No one plays Super Mario Bros. for the story either.  Is that enough to declassify it from "serious literary" value?  To some, yes, to others, no.  Again, that’s the problem with the Miller Test.  It doesn’t define its terms.


    Andrew Eisen

  54. Andrew Eisen says:

    And herein lies the problem with the Miller Test.  It’s far too vague and subjective to accurately define obscenity.

    "average person" "community standards" "depicts/describes in a patently offensive way" "serious literary/artistic/scientific/political value"

    None of those things are defined so we can go back and forth all day on why Rapelay does or does not fall into any of those categories.  I see how it could and I see how it couldn’t.

    At the end of the day, I don’t care whether Rapelay is viewed as obscene or not.  All I care about is that people understand that it’s just a game, it’s not real, it can’t hurt anyone (unless you hit them over the head with the game disk), and while you don’t have to play it (or in the case of Amazon (ignoring Amazon JP) sell it), any interested gamers should be able to.

    Getting back to the original question of “why justify or defend Rapelay?” – it’s a work that a lot of serious effort went into creating.  Some may find the end product deplorable simply because of its content but there are those out there who enjoy the game for a variety of reasons and I think that’s enough to justify and defend its existence.  It fills a need without hurting anyone or violating anyone’s rights.

    And finally, just for fun…

    "That said, Pong.  Pong lacks any legitimate artistic merit."

    In an art gallery I once saw a painting of a red circle on a plain white canvas.  Damn thing was selling for a couple grand.  Certainly has serious artistic merit to someone.

    Anyway, Pong, when taken as a whole, does have artistic (and scientific) merit.  Getting an oscilloscope to render and animate a brick and a square ball was a heck of a feat back in the day.  The engineer had to work a hell of a lot of technical magic to get it to work.  While I could write Pong in half an hour today, I can’t help but acknowledge the skill, imagination, and creativity that went into creating the original and call it art.


    Andrew Eisen

  55. gamadaya says:

    Dude! The game is fucking called Rapelay! It contains rape, and lots of it. And I can guarun-damn-tee you that nobody is playing the game for the story. If this doesn’t pass the Miller test, then what the hell does?


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  56. gamadaya says:

    How many promisses a president keeps is a poor measure of his effectiveness. Personally, I’d like to see Obama break a lot of his promisses.


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  57. David says:

    If Jack Thompson were to lose GamePolitics… wait, he did… well, if Dennis decided to ignore all things Jack, then what more would you hear of him?  He’d lose his platform.  He could send faxes and emails all day long, but nobody would pay them any mind.

    Same thing here.  Kick him off whatever site he’s on and let him go on Livejournal?  What’s the point in doing that?  Nobody would read his drivel.

  58. gamadaya says:

    And that’s another thing that pisses me off! When the government raises taxes, they’re not just taking money and throwing it into a pit (well, some of the time they are). They are attempting to use that money in a more responsible way than the public have been doing, because sometimes, believe it or not, the government is actually capable of being more responsible than the people. In fact, a long time ago, that was sort of the point of a government. I know it’s hard to imagine a responsible government after the past 8 years, but I’m pretty sure it’s possible.


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  59. Ashla says:

    Free market is what got you guys (and a great many other nations besides) into this mess.

    With the right regulations, the banks wouldn’t have wound up giving out mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them (the source of the problem), or would have been compelled to NOT swap them around like trading cards (which would have isolated the toxic assets).

  60. David says:

    The game can be purchased from other quarters (I think J-List may still sell it).  It’s not being censored, it’s just being removed from a particular quarter because they see keeping the listing as a terrible PR move.

    I mean, I can’t buy adult movies from Blockbuster, but that doesn’t mean they’re being censored.  I just have to go to a different place if I want them.

  61. gamadaya says:

    That’s what I hate the most! Why do they think tax cuts will all of a sudden start working? I don’t understand economics very well, but I am able to see a basic pattern. I can see how tax cuts would work to put more money in people’s pockets and allow them to spend more, but for one reason or another, that hasn’t been happening. I can also see how raising taxes and investing the money in rebuilding our infrastucture of, well everything at this point, would also help. Why don’t we try that for a little, because frankly, we don’t have much more to lose.


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  62. David says:

    That’s just it, don’t you see?  Rapelay is not a stand-in for the gaming industry, just as Dark Knight is not a stand-in for the entire movie industry.

    You need to view things on a case-by-case basis.  Broad assertions don’t always work.

  63. David says:

    The stories are a significant part of the experience of Manhunt and GTA.  They make statements about destructive behavior and Western culture.  That gives them artistic merit.

    Rapelay’s story is not a significant part of its experience.  It’s simply a setup so you can start to rape three people.  You could conceivably skip the entire story and not miss anything of real import.

  64. gamadaya says:

    lol, I’m not defending it because it’s a videogame. I just hate censorship. It even pisses me off that France and Germany prohibit the display of Nazi paraphernalia, and there is pretty much nothing that I hate more than Nazis.


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  65. Ashla says:

    Last I checked Obama didn’t put a mountain of cash on fire. As such we won’t know whether or not the money has been "wasted" until we see some sort of result (positive or negative).

    If, 4 years from now, the US is no better (or is in fact worse) an argument could be made for the spendatures being a waste.

    As to the qq of republicans not getting there say: You guys get to watch the other kids have fun.

  66. GTCv Deimos says:

    but you’re splitting hairs, and going on a case by case basis… which… in the ideal world would be nice… but as of this moment, rapelay basically represents the entire industry… it’s why I get pissed off at Rockstar… I do believe they should have the right to release whatever crap they want… but I wish they displayed a little bit more tact.

    And the Dark Knight was a really REALLY bad movie… seriously…!

  67. gamadaya says:

    Ok, this is starting to not make sense. First off, you don’t silence them. They can always get a job somewhere else where they can voice their idiotic opinions (Fox news for example). And if they can’t get a job, that’s their own fault for being an incompetent moron.


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  68. vellocet says:

    I think RapeLay is a better metaphor for what the previous administration did to the US and the rest of the world.

    Anyhow, about the stimulus package.  I may not agree with all of it, but what I do agree is that something different must be tried.  Tax cuts are part of the reason we’re in this mess already.  Aren’t you guys willing to give the Democrats a chance? (remember the surplus, peace and prosperity of the Clinton years?)  Forget partisanship for a second.  We’re all intelligent people here.  The democrats may not be right but at least they’re trying something different.

    The reason the republicans keep losing power is that instead of doing something different, they want to do the same thing they’ve been doing for the last 8 years but expect different results.

    At least one thing that I’ve noticed since Obama became president is there’s a feeling of comraderie now.  People are more willing to help each other.  People are helping out people find homes and jobs.  Or just to help out because they’re in a better position than the person they’re helping.  There’s been too much of "This is mine, fuck off" and "you’re wrong, fuck you" coming from the states.

    Just my two canadian cents.


  69. David says:

    I state my viewpoints because I believe I can make a good case for them.  They are opinions, just like anybody else’s.  The only thing we can do is try to persuade others, or at the very least let them see where we’re coming from.

    Except for the asparagus.  It truly is horrible.

  70. GTCv Deimos says:

    And I think pong is very artsy fartsy…

    so one of us must be right… and the other is wrong…

    wanna sword fight over it?

    I kid… I’m wright, because my moral viewpoints are better than your moral viewpoints… fact! 😀

    Also, because my viewpoints are fact (like you believe yours are), asparagus is disgusting, and Dark Knight is the crappiest movie ever.

  71. David says:

    I think it’s a far stretch to say that calling for his firing is the same as calling for him to be silenced. Saying that he shouldn’t speak for that publication is a lot different than saying he shouldn’t speak.

    If you remove somebody’s platform, then you’ve effectively silenced them.

  72. Ashla says:

    Do you really think that venting your spleen like this particular blogger is prone to do serves intelligent discourse.

  73. gamadaya says:

    Yeah, exactly. And I also don’t think Amazon removing Rapelay from their site is a bad thing in principle. It’s their site, so they can do what they want with it. But if they start regulating content like this now, then they are going to have to deal with a lot of difficult situations in the future. I know that one person on the previous article about this said that Amazon has a no lolicon policy. But then another person instantly found lolicon for sale on Amazon. The Rapelay issue was what brought attention to that.

    What I do think is a bad thing in principle is when people say Rapelay should not have been allowe to be made. That’s censorship of free speach, and that’s wrong.


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  74. David says:

    He’s not defending it, he’s defending its right to exist.

    It can exist.  It doesn’t have to exist on Amazon.

  75. Father Time says:

    Amazon can sell whatever they want on their website. Likewise townhall can publish what it wants as well.

    (of course this doesn’t cover Amazon selling contraband or townhall publishing something like slander).


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  76. David says:

    That’s what prurient means and I don’t think most people would find that a cartoon depiction of rape or a video of someone defecating on another would qualify as appealing to a prurient interest.  I’ll have to ask a few legal guys I know, see if the Millar Test is using a broader definition of "prurient" then the one I’m aware of.  If it encompasses mere interest, then yeah, it could arguably pass the first point.

    OK.  Maybe I was unclear with the first prong.

    The point isn’t whether an average person finds that a work stimulates himself, it’s whether the average person would agree that the purpose of that work is sexual stimulation.  Again, (don’t) look at scat porn.  Stuff like Swap.avi is positively revolting to most people; however, the average person would likely say that the purpose of that film was some sort of titillation.

    Next, a plot device doesn’t make something a serious work of literature.  Otherwise, those little blurbs in Club magazine explaining why Suzie is in a diner and about to do stuff to Tommy would count as serious literature.  Nobody’s pretending that the blurb is; why suggest the plot device was?

    Can you give me an example of a video game you feel has no artistic merit?

    Can you name a film without artistic merit?  If your definition of "art" involves any sort of cinematography at all, then you’ll have a problem saying anything at all lacks artistic merit.

    Likewise with games.  Anything I name will either have words (literary merit) or pictures (artistic merit).  So, when I give you an example, understand that just because a game has pictures, that does not mean it meets any artistic merit.

    That said, Pong.  Pong lacks any legitimate artistic merit.  If I had more time (a week or so), I could probably come up with a better example than that.

  77. Ashla says:

    Dude, have you looked at the likes of coulter objectivley?


    At any rate, Does anyone hear think that intelligent discourse is served when idiots like this particular blogger are given free reign?

  78. Father Time says:

    You kidding?

    Assaulting someone because they did a protected act you find repulsive?


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  79. Mr.Pat says:

    And a great big Fuck you back, you’ve got a lot of gaul calling anyone a moron after 8 years of nonstop Bush-worshipping.

  80. Weatherlight says:

    Hopefully I am not breaking any rules by posting this, but it is a link to Obama Promise Tracker. I don’t agree with their conclusions completely, but they do explain their reasoning’s and link to the presidential press releases.


  81. Weatherlight says:

    The rich don’t take everything from you, you give them everything when you spend money you don’t have. The idea with tax breaks is a rather old thought, where businesses expand and people invest more when they have the capitol to do so. Spending the money they make on a big boat and party employs the people who make the boat and those that work at the party. Tax breaks don’t work when everyone stashes their money in their pocket/bank because annalists scare them into thinking the economy is going to tank and they will have no money if they spend/invest.

    What we have now is people getting "free" handouts from government programs, and capitalism is going by the wayside. If people only spent the money they actually had we would not be in this situation and the government is making it worse by spending money they don’t have on programs, while tax cuts just decrease revenue.


  82. Weatherlight says:

    Go back to only spending money we have and better regulate the futures market. That is how we got into this to begin with.


  83. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    From Wikipedia:

    • Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, 

    • Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2]specifically defined by applicable state law,
    • Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literaryartisticpolitical or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific.)

    Please explain which point it fails.

    To be quite honest, it fails all three points as Wikipedia is NOT a credible source. Sorry, please try again.


    "Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon

  84. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    And then I’ll get charged with conflicting interests. *sigh*


    "Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon

  85. Austin_Lewis says:

    I think we need a joke in here about how this was ‘rammed’ through congress without any bipartisanship whatsoever.  Seriously.  Republicans weren’t allowed to have a hand in the writing of the bill, their ideas for the bill were largely ignored (and in my favorite example, they actually did the exact opposite of what the republican party line wanted and cut out all money to veterans except 1 billion to the VA for rebuilding), and they weren’t allowed any input at the end. 

    Of course, with all Obama’s talk about how transparent this new government would be, he sure didn’t care to let people read through the 1100 some odd pages before the vote, nor did Pelosi.  Hell, no one even knew exactly what was in the bill until the day after it was voted for.  What a great new government.

    Oh, and to anyone who voted Obama?  Fuck you.  Thanks for assisting this moron in wasting 1.3 trillion in a month.

Comments are closed.