A political art exhibit at Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute (RPI) utilizing a modded version of
Quest for Saddam,
which caused a stir last week, has been booted from the campus by administrators.
GamePolitics continues to track the story of the exhibit, which went from "little random thing" to pariah in a week. RPI's VP, William Walker, stated in a press release, "As stewards of a private university, we have the right and, indeed, the responsibility to ensure that university resources are used in ways that are in the overall best interests of the institution."
The exhibit is currently being housed at the Sanctuary for Independent Media where protesters, led by the county's Republican majority leader, believe the game to be "
un-American and destructive" and "beyond the bounds of what is decent or acceptable." A counter-protest is already underway.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
shase @ Mar 11th 2008 2:36PM
Haven't been back to RPI for a while now... anyone else went/goes there?
student @ Mar 11th 2008 3:56PM
I go there now shase. Isn't it great to finally see RPI on joystiq... except for this?
ahhhh.
SearchX @ Mar 11th 2008 4:16PM
I haven't been back there in awhile either. When I last visited, it was funny seeing a coffee shop they named Java++.
J @ Mar 11th 2008 2:38PM
Come, join the ranks of brilliantly controversial games as Columbine Massacre.
As soon as anyone makes a game played from an unconventional, opposing point of view, people go nuts.
It seems strange to me, that by expelling or banning or otherwise censoring these kinds of things only brings more attention, and this and other similar institutions haven't caught on.
shase @ Mar 11th 2008 2:45PM
well the general public has to accept the game and it has to please all the ethical groups. Imagine someone made a game where white guys run ships from africa to america. Game where the parent chase kid around and spank him. A stalker simulation . They are all controversial and the creators will get sued. Its not people going nuts it is just what is acceptable in the general public. Maybe eventually we will see more of these but now isn't the time..
J @ Mar 11th 2008 3:11PM
There can be only one ;)
...
It's funny how worked up people get about things that aren't really a threat like videogames and... oh, like Iraq, itself for instance... Well, it used to not be a threat anyway, until our occupation of course, but protesting that would make them dirty hippies.
Well, bottom line, I guess is that these dirty Republican hippies need to get jobs :)
Kujel @ Mar 11th 2008 2:40PM
So if it doesn't agree with the establishment it must be terrorists?
MiamiUniversityRedHawks @ Mar 11th 2008 2:57PM
I guess because the university is private it has the right to remove content that it deems as unacceptable, but it is just for them to infringe upon the personal constitutional rights of others? I personally don't believe its right, but there really isn't anything that can be done since its not a public institution...
nerrrrrrd @ Mar 11th 2008 3:01PM
I strongly support free speech for all people but people are wasting their time trying to demand free speech at private institutions. That's why it's called private. dee dee dee.
colin @ Mar 11th 2008 7:06PM
carlos mencia? seriously?
Hyams @ Mar 11th 2008 3:02PM
For the love of God, change the picture. At the moment your advertising the Creationist Propaganda film 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
emmzee @ Mar 14th 2008 12:29PM
The official site for Ben Stien's movie, whether people love it or hate it (though we haven't seen it yet) is here:
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
ill trooper @ Mar 11th 2008 4:55PM
I too cringe at the thought of that documentary, but it is funny how you start your post off with "For the love of God" before insisting Joystiq stop "advertising" for a pro-creationist documentary...
Hyams @ Mar 11th 2008 4:56PM
I like irony.
colin @ Mar 11th 2008 7:11PM
i am a recreational procreationist. procreation ftw!
ThornedVenom (Harley Quinn Defense Force) @ Mar 11th 2008 7:51PM
I'm a procrastinating procreationist.
Except for the last part. =(
The Dude @ Mar 11th 2008 3:21PM
Disclaimer: this post does not contain the entirety of my political views. Anyone who thinks otherwise is as intelligent as a pustule on a rhino's left buttock.
-
"but it is just for them to infringe upon the personal constitutional rights of others?"
It's not his constitutional right. The SCotUS has shown free speech does have limits - you know, no yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? (I'm so sick of people complaining about losing rights they don't have.)
That said, I find the game - based solely on what I have read about it - to be pretty repugnant. If it is a simulation of the conditions the recruits come from, that's a while different matter, but to play the part of a murderer of innocents is just tasteless. It has nothing to do with a "different point-of-view," it has to do with what is indefensible in our culture. I agree that some things just aren't acceptable in our culture, nor should they be. I'd feel the same way if an "art project" that put me in the role of Joseph Mengele or a FARC guerilla.
Bucfann @ Mar 11th 2008 3:32PM
I agree with you.
Way to often, people use the "freedom of speech" excuse to say and do whatever they please, regardless of how idiotic, wrong, and evil it is.
In this game "players are cast in the role of a suicide bomber recruited by al-Qaeda". So yes, this game has no place in our society except to be shunned and put down. To take a real world event, in which 'evil' is committing acts against the innocent, make it in to a game and promote it or allow it, is just plain wrong. This has little to do with freedom of speech anymore, which has its limits anyways.
And it truly is sad, that some will rush out to defend this. The only ones who I expect should defend its existence is the evil Jihadist brainwashed fools themselves. Not any other civilized human being.
Yes, there are limits to your freedoms, as their should be. Including freedom of speech. Imagine if there were no limits. In fact, they are looser then they should be, really.
Anyways, if someone has to explain to you what's wrong with this and why it shouldnt be allowed and should not be defended, then you might want to take a closer look at yourself and your soul.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Mar 11th 2008 3:44PM
All freedoms come with responsibility. Freedom of speech is no different.
Mr Khan @ Mar 11th 2008 4:05PM
Tasteless or not, his right to do it has to be defended
However, it is a private institution, so all detractors of their action can do is wag a finger in disapproval
Nigeria @ Mar 11th 2008 4:35PM
I'm having trouble how the politician sees this as Un-American.
I mean, I understand the objective is to kill the President, but that in itself is not Un-American. It's an alternative viewpoint held by certain persons. Silencing this voice won't stop the noise, so to speak.
I understand the University's position as a private institution, but I'm struggling with the politician - except if he's politically avaricious.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Mar 11th 2008 4:38PM
Uh, yeah. Assassinating the president is definitely "un-American". You may not like the president, but subverting the democratic process by means of assassination is about as un-American as you can get.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Mar 11th 2008 4:39PM
Uh, yeah. Assassinating the president is definitely "un-American". You may not like the president, but subverting the democratic process by means of assassination is about as un-American as you can get.
Do you people even listen to what you're saying anymore?
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Mar 11th 2008 4:40PM
sorry, double posties.
Nigeria @ Mar 11th 2008 5:18PM
"Do you people even listen to what you're saying anymore?"
???
It's a video game. It's not real. Did you read the story? From the information available, it seems the student is offering a counter point to an already available work. The more viewpoints the better.
You should be less emotional.
wipsaunders @ Mar 11th 2008 4:42PM
Please don't use that Expelled graphic. It's from a shitty Creationist propaganda movie.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Mar 11th 2008 4:37PM
Have you seen it?
Then how do you know its shitty? or propoganda, for that matter?
Just because your science teacher tells you how the scientific method works, doesn't mean that a man created institution can't subvert it for its own agendas.
Seriously. The way dissenting opinions are treated these days in the scientific community definitely harkens back to the days when the church ran everything. People are even getting excommunicated, ruining otherwise promising careers in research, because they question a popular scientific theory.
Don't you see anything wrong with that?
Hyams @ Mar 11th 2008 4:52PM
We can deduce the movie is propaganda without actually watching it from many indirect pieces of evidence, including (but not limited to):
- The deceitful way in which the interviews were attained,
- The mis-representation of cases of 'fired' ID scientists,
- The fact that the only journalists allowed to currently write reviews for it are the horribly biased ones,
- That in all interviews Stein has been in, he has shown a gross ignorance of evolution (and, oddly enough, ID theory too),
- The blog that the Producers of the movie run has presented many ignorant and flat out incorrect arguments,
- The revising of Holocaust history - akin to the Holocaust Revisionists - claiming that Hitler was inspired the theory evolution (he wasn't),
- The fact the movie claims that the theory of evolution has many fundamental scientific flaws - it doesn't,
- The fact that the movie claims that ID theory is a valid scientific theory - it isn't,
- The fact that at no point the movie ever gives a defintion of either evolution or ID.
wipsaunders @ Mar 11th 2008 6:32PM
Yeah, I'm not going to have this argument on a joystiq comment thread. I'm just going to say that intelligent design is a completely unscientific theory (not because of religion, but because it is completely unfalsifiable and untestable. It fails to meet even the basic requirements of a scientific theory). It's a sham theory, a poor mask for Creationism, created to try to sneak religion back into science curriculums.
And no, I haven't seen it. Because it's impossible to see it without getting an invite, going to a megachurch, and then signing an NDA. However, I have read the only review by a film reviewer who the producers didn't want to see, and it's pretty clear it's propaganda, and pretty blatant about it too. I'll revise my opinion when I'm actually allowed to see it for myself.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Mar 11th 2008 5:16PM
Fair enough, but its these 2 that I find disturbing:
"- The fact the movie claims that the theory of evolution has many fundamental scientific flaws - it doesn't,
- The fact that the movie claims that ID theory is a valid scientific theory - it isn't"
This is exactly what this movie is talking about. The flat out refusal to even acknowledge a different point of view, or to even examine their conclusion based on the exact same data.
No, its just taken for gospel truth because "scientists" wouldn't ever be "wrong", without looking at facts and reality yourself, or even allowing yourself to entertain another viewpoint. I'm not here to argue ID or Creationism (though I have in the past), but rather the obvious exclusion of valid interpretation of data because it goes against popular theory.
Science is supposed to be about discovery and new ideas, not dogmatically defending an established theory no matter the reasons brought to question it. And believe me, there are numerous reasons to question it.
fred @ Mar 11th 2008 5:25PM
Cronos: The science has been discussed Ad Nauseum on other sites. Please Go to Panda's Thumb or Pharyngula (the author of that blog was personally misled about the project) if you want to know why it is so quickly dismissed. As someone said before this isn't really the proper forum and talking about this even if the picture at the top is related is kind of off topic.
Hyams @ Mar 11th 2008 5:31PM
The scientific evidence in favour of ID hasn't been dismissed out of hand. It has never even been presented. As soon as the IDists give legimet evidence, then we can talk.
The main line of argument used by IDists is Irreducible Complexity (IC). This argues (essentially) that many biological items are too complex to have evolved, as the removal of one or more parts results in complete failure.
This isn't support in favour of ID theory, but a criticism of evolution. (And it's a faulty criticism as well - it has been disproved countless times.)
ID theory presents NO evidence to support itself. All it does is give (always faulty) arguments against evolution.
Essentially:
No one is repressing new scientific theories. Fact is, ID theory is NOT a legimet scientic theory and has no valid evidence to support it, which is why it is being dismissed. It is NOT being dismissed just because it questions evolution.
Hyams @ Mar 11th 2008 5:34PM
Yeah, maybe I shouldn't have dragged us so far off topic.
Apologises.
(Incidently, I wouldn't recommend Pharyngula. Personally, I love the site, I'd imagine Crono would be put off by PZ's liberalism.)
ill trooper @ Mar 11th 2008 5:46PM
"The way dissenting opinions are treated these days in the scientific community definitely harkens back to the days when the church ran everything." - Chrono
You have it backwards, this documentary shows the wants of certain people ("The Church") to consider going back to that 'harkening.'
Simply do a google search for "Bush, Grand Canyon" and you'll see how it really goes down sometimes, with the 'church running everything.'
I have no problem with other points of view or differing beliefs (other than when they start to hurt others), so I'm not against someone making a documentary that differs from my views.
Not wanting 'Creationism' taught in schools is not a conspiracy against religion or God. I don't see this about God, or one's belief in God: many people believe God created things via evolution. This is a different argument, one that wants to have 'creationism' taught in schools with equal emphasis as theories of evolution, as though both require a leap of faith. This argument believes the Earth is a result of actions outlined in the Bible, and has no other evidence beyond those writings and some theories about why one species has evolved but another hasn't, and subsequently tries to level the debate by acting as though Darwin theories have a similar lack of evidence - simply by refusing to believe certain data scientists have collected over the last several millennia supporting theories of evolution.
But the 'Science/Darwin' side has hard evidence that has been researched, calculated, and proven (and can be consistently repeated) to trace directions in evolution and the ages of objects and materials on this planet. I will tend to believe this line of thinking more than the arguments I hear for 'intelligent design' or 'creationism,' crutched upon cherry-picked nuggets of science angled to support creationism, while omitting entire fields of data, like carbon-dating evidence of age, for instance.
Therefore, I don't want to have 'Creationism' given the same levity as 'Darwinism' in schools. Let the amount of evidence decide - when the idea can be studied and presented with as much evidence as the other side, then give it equal time.
Cheezeman3000 @ Mar 12th 2008 5:06AM
I just really hope you guys realize that Michael Moore's "documentaries" are no better, and neither is Al Gore's. And you are already dismissing a movie you haven't seen... seems to be blatant ignorance to me.
Living in a world without meaning... that is what atheism (and inadvertently evolution) suggests. I could go on for hours about how the modern "scientific" (that's a loose term now) world has been formed around the bias that there is no God, and how it's basically a pursuit of proving how the world could possibly exist if there was no God, but that would be pointless because you guys have no interest in ever changing your opinion or your mind. You want to think you're in control of your life, and that's perfectly normal for humans, so who am I to say something else might be at play?
And with that I'm gonna go back to playing Brawl. :)
caseyodonnell @ Mar 11th 2008 4:51PM
(I just saw this go out over email...I'm at RPI)
The City of Troy just shut down the Sanctuary for Independent Media for code violations.
Or "code violations."
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Mar 11th 2008 5:18PM
Oh yeah, its some vast right wing conspiracy to silence a game in bad taste.
You belong to the college democrats, don't you.
blahblahbloo @ Mar 11th 2008 5:04PM
Is there a good place to find more details on what the game is actually about? In Call of Duty 4 multiplayer for instance, I can grease US Marines to my heart's content, but I haven't heard that game referred to as terrorist and un-American. If the game is about targeting Marines in Iraq with IEDs, well, that's perfectly legitimate according to all relevant international law, so why can't there be a game about it?
nerrrrrrd @ Mar 11th 2008 5:29PM
There can be a game but RPI doesn't want anything to do with it and it's within their right as a private institution to boot out the exhibit.
colin @ Mar 11th 2008 7:15PM
Intolerance will not be tolerated!
Iron Raptor @ Mar 12th 2008 11:54AM
I think the great comedian Bill Hicks said it best.
"Go back to bed America your government is in control again. Here, here's American Gladiators... watch this, shut up. Go back to bed America, here's American Gladiators. Here's 56 channels of it. Watch these pitcher weary retards bang their skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go America, you are free to do as well tell you. You are free to do as we tell you."
-Bill Hicks, 1961 - 1994
J @ Mar 12th 2008 1:20PM
"diet coke"
:)
Batzarro @ Mar 12th 2008 1:46PM
The original was a stupid idea to goof around. To say the "answer" to that is an intelligent construction is stoopid. It's the game-mod equivalent of "No, MY dad can beat up your dad!"
hvnlysoldr @ Mar 26th 2008 1:13AM
Sigh... I don't like how Intelligent Design has been hijacked and associated to Creationism. Intelligent Design boils down to that a higher intelligence, god(s) universe(s) alien(s), used evolution to inherit desirable traits down lineages and that humanity inherited them. No it is not supposed to be 10000 years old. The universe is billions of years old and humanoids 3 million.
The problem people associate that there's no proof of a higher intelligence guiding evolution should look at cows. Why do they produce so much milk? They only really have a calf once a year yet have four teets and can be milked way after a calf has grown up with much more milk than it can eat anyway. Why do chickens lay eggs everyday? They were raised and bred that way. Those traits were desirable and were inherited down. That we as a higher intelligence influenced their evolution is proof.
The point that should be taken is God uses the laws of the universe to govern it. A miracle or tragedy is just a series of possibilities all aligned into a certain fashion. They still follow the laws governing the universe.