Devon Whittle » Opinion

When do violent games cross the line?

devonwhittle — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 03:47:41 +0000

I must admit that I never really got into the YouTube culture that all my friends seemed to. I liked to watch funny videos every now and then, but I can’t remember ever using YouTube for extended periods of time. So I’ve missed out on great resources such as these videos on rebels and their leaders. Through YouTube I also became aware of a disturbing blend of the reality of war and violent video games. A note, the following videos are quite disturbing and depict a helicopter gunship firing, and killing people. It’s all from the point of view of the helicopter operator and in night-vision so there is no gore, but it still is quite confronting.

This video appeared on YouTube back in May 2006.

The next video is from a recent game, Call of Duty 4, and depicts one of the actual levels in the game.

As you can see the videos are eerily similar. It is almost as if the Call of Duty 4 creators modelled this level directly on the events in the Afghanistan video.

I have been concerned for awhile about the level of violence that we accept in the video game culture, and the gratuity with which gore is displayed in video games. The videos here, however, highlight a central issue of these games that simulate war and killing. Is it really appropriate to be simulating the attacks and deaths of real people, that have actually occurred? I think there is a level of disrespect involved in profiting off and being entertained by actual acts of war.

Of course the flip side of this is a realisation that the technology of war has turned killing into something of a video game. The helicopter operator in the first video could be forgiven for not thinking much of his actions, despite the wide spread destruction his button pressing causes. This is obviously the future of war, and while it may make ‘our people’ safer, the distance between the killer and killing is also quite dangerous.

When do violent games cross the line? is a post from: Devon Whittle. You can contact the author at devonwhittle@gmail.com.

Why do the ELSA WTO Moot?

devonwhittle — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:07:32 +0000

As you may have already known, my moot team recently came back from Adelaide after competing in the South East Asia Pacific round of the ELSA WTO Moot. Since last November we have been working extremely hard on our submissions. Many late nights were spent in the library, many bad dinners were eaten, some of the team even welcomed in the new year from the fifth floor of the law building. Even after our writtens were handed in we continued to practice our oral submissions and refine our arguments.

At Adelaide we enjoyed the Oaks Plaza in Glen Elg and all its beautiful facilities, in between further work on our oral submissions – some hastily printed out at the last moment. Ultimately though we narrowly missed out on moving through to the next round. We came away with best written submissions for the complainant, respondent and overall. We also went into the Grand Final ranked first, but in the end the team from Wellington went away with the victory.

So why work for over three months straight, holed up in the library with three other self-confessed ‘law nerdlings’ on very technical, non-sexy WTO trade law – apart from a uni-paid for trip to beautiful Glen Elg?

Learning the Law
Well, it teaches you the law. After completing the ELSA WTO Moot my knowledge of WTO trade law has exponentially improved. Not only the narrow area of telecommunication covered by the problem, but even a more general understanding of WTO dispute settlement and overarching concepts such as national treatment, market access and ‘likeness’. While some of the team never want to see a WTO dispute again, I’m excited at what I’ll be able to do with this knowledge in the future.

Learning Skills
Taking part in the Moot will hone your writing, presentation and administration skills. I learnt quite a bit about working in a team, cutting down on a word count, ‘dinner diplomacy’, cutting out excess words, oral presentation, cutting words, and general research/organisational skills. Not to mention putting all this in the context of an extremely tight deadline!

Experiencing the Law
Apart from straight-up learning, the Moot also made me feel a little bit of what it would be like to actually be working in WTO law. Having to know the facts intimately, and how the legal issues would play out, really made me feel personally invested in how things were going. Debating with the team as we disagreed about particular arguments we were running added to this realism.

Meeting the Team
One of the absolute best things about doing the Moot for me was spending time with ‘Odawg’, ‘Jrae’ and ‘Email Elimy’. We had an insane time preparing our submissions and an awesome time in Adelaide. I don’t know if I’d see the Moot as quite as worth it as I do now if it wasn’t for the great atmosphere the team had. Not to mention getting to know our great coaches Andrew and Tania, who went far beyond the call of duty in helping us out.

Meeting People
Finally, the Moot gave me an awesome opportunity to meet some really interesting people. Eminent trade lawyers, academic experts, barristers and WTO appellate body staff – I was amazed at the range of people I met, all of whom were willing and open to share how they got to where they were.

So all in all I would highly recommend you take part in the WTO Moot if you get the opportunity. Especially if you know some crazy cats that you’ll be doing it with! Even if you don’t get to Geneva you’ll have a smashing time and if worse comes to worse, as much as I hate the phrase, “it does look good on your resume”. So maybe, Jessup here I come?

Why do the ELSA WTO Moot? is a post from: Devon Whittle. You can contact the author at devonwhittle@gmail.com.

William Wilberforce and Sweeney Todd: Stories of London

devonwhittle — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:41:14 +0000

Clare and I had the pleasure of watching Amazing Grace and also Tim Burton’s new Sweeney Todd recently, and it got me thinking about some of the things Blattman has been blogging about how the bad things we are seeing in Africa aren’t that different to what the West was like not too long ago.

The two movies show quite different views of London in the 18-19th Centuries. Amazing Grace is basically optimistic and shows the England embracing the cause of emancipation and battling a few bad apples to see it become a reality. Conversely, Sweeney Todd is a dark, pessimistic movie about the depravity of revenge and man, and the corruption that pervaded all levels of English society.

Amazing Grace is an uplifting, inspirational film designed to get the viewer to believe that change is possible and to honour Wilberforce as the man who killed slavery. And in this limited way it works. I felt rather good after watching it and did feel more inspired that change is possible. However its ignorance of some of the other social issues plaguing England does leave it lacking as a realistic portrayal of English society. One can too easily take from Amazing Grace that the English were basically opposed to slavery the whole time and were only being held back by a retrograde ruling class. Also, England is portrayed as a great place to live, I can hardly remember a portrayal of the poverty and oppressiveness that characterised a lot of English life in the film at all.

Sweeney, on the other hand, revels in its dark portrayal of London as the “pit of the world”. It’s hyperbolic portrayal of the judiciary as corrupt to the core and of society in general being so degraded makes the cannibalism encouraged by Mrs Lovett seems almost acceptable as a natural extension of societal norms. Sweeney touches upon the child slaves in the mines, the horrific conditions in the ‘insane asylums’ and how the rich lorded it over the poor – creating a picture of London far darker, yet in many ways more realistic then Amazing Grace.

Sweeney embraces the London of yesteryear as not the golden, intellectual utopia of Amazing Grace, but rather a city of brutes. England was a country of oppression not only at home but abroad too. While Amazing Grace continues the civilising myth that sustained Western colonialism – that is that the generally good West must teach the bad Africans how to govern – Sweeney Todd demonstrates the hypocrisy of this position.

While there’s nothing wrong with condemning corruption and oppression, let us not forget this is not an ‘African phenomena’. This is not an issue about ‘African/triabl culture’.

Sweeney is a strong reminder of how close we are to the same societal wrongs that shock us again now. We were, and are, just as retrograde as any other society. The modern West has just succeeded in changing the focus and outlet of our retrograde behaviour.

William Wilberforce and Sweeney Todd: Stories of London is a post from: Devon Whittle. You can contact the author at devonwhittle@gmail.com.

Ozonomics by Andrew Charlton – Book Review and Quotes

devonwhittle — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:47:30 +0000

My awesome wife got me Ozonomics by Andrew Charlton for my birthday and I found it quite interesting. Charlton takes a look at Australia’s economic history to determine who/what is responsible for the boom times we are currently experiencing. Along the way he explains some economics, makes you laugh and blows away the myths being propagated by the Liberal Party. At only 200 pages it’s a bit short for my liking, though it did make a quick and easy read. The content may not be mindblowing for those in the know, but it is handy to inform people like me who need some of these ‘hard facts’ for when relatives and friends trot out the old furphy about how bad interests were under Labor. With an election looming bursting these myths is more important then ever, Howard and Costello have done a tremendous marketing job so that most of the electorate (even those voting Labor) still have more faith in the Liberals running the economy. It’s a bit scary to think how well the propaganda has worked, especially when contrasted against the history presented in Ozonomics.

The second half of the book is certainly the most interesting, as Charlton outlines some of Australia’s political history. The politics, lies and deceitfulness over Liberal economic rhetoric is astounding. Whether it’s debt, interest rates or the budget surplus, the Libs consistently outplayed Labor by misrepresenting economic policy and Australia’s economic position. It’s imperative anyone interested in Australian politics, or is planning to have a meaningful vote this election, reads up on this stuff. If we don’t know our history we are bound to repeat it.

Now for some good quotes:

Scrolling back through the breaking-news archive of the last few days reveals that the dollar has been on a veritable rollercoaster ride…but all these urgent stories, on closer inspection, are utterly insignificant…But fortunately, non-economists take no notice because they don’t know enough about financial markets to make any sense of this information, and economists know enough to realise there is no sense in it…Economic information like this isn’t informative.

Nobody knows if there is a strong link between productivity and industrial relations systems. The truth is that there are probably lots of contradictory effects…The real argument against the removal of workers’ rights is much simpler. Job security is its own reward. In a society as rich as ours, there is no reason to remove the right of workers to challenge their employers if they are treated in way that is unjust, unfair or unreasonable.

the truth is that Dick Smith is one of a long line of Australian businessmen who want their own profits to be shielded from foreign competition at the expense of the Australian consumer. He is using fear of foreign ownership to whip up a lot of free advertising for this business

China is producing 442,000 new graduates [in engineering] every year. That’s almost twice as many as the total number of Australian graduates per year in all disciplines. And at the same time, the Howard Government has reduced funding to Australian universities.

While richer people tend to be happier than poorer people, wealth does not improve society’s happiness as a whole.

It simply wasn’t true to assert…that mortgage rates under Labor governments are always higher than under the Conservatives. The standard mortgage rate in the Whitlam years averaged 8.5 per cent, while in the Fraser years…it was 11 per cent.

At his campaign launch Howard described debt as the most important indicator of a government’s economic credibility…However, more than ten years after Howard was elected…Australia’s net foreign debt has grown almost threefold, to $522 billion

Can Peter Costello say that he sees no way to invest in Australia’s future? In a country where our physical infrastructure…is woefully inadequate, this cannot be the case.

Other reviews by: Larvatus Prodeo and the Hipprocratic Economist.

Ozonomics by Andrew Charlton – Book Review and Quotes is a post from: Devon Whittle. You can contact the author at devonwhittle@gmail.com.

The God-Motive and activism

devonwhittle — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:54:31 +0000

For the past few days I’ve been adding my 2c to a Green La Girl post on religion and social activism. Comments are closed now but it’s an interesting read. I’m thinking about blogging about the God-motive more in depth at some point.

The God-Motive and activism is a post from: Devon Whittle. You can contact the author at devonwhittle@gmail.com.

More on exploitative advertising and the ASB

devonwhittle — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:31:48 +0000

I just got an e-mail from the Advertising Standards Bureau – I complained to them about Hippo and GPO ads – informing me that as the GPO advertisement is no longer running they will not be pursuing my complaint.

Now regardless of what you thought of the ad or what you thought of my complaint, the comments on that post linked to above show at least some people disagree with my calls for “censorship”, this is another example of the danger and ill-suitability of industry self-regulation. Why does it matter whether an ad is still running or not? Surely an ad, if found offensive, should result in some sort of disciplinary action against the advertiser. I’m being unfairly penalised just because I saw an ad towards the end of it’s cycle, in fact I’m being penalised for the ASB slow decision making process as I reported the ad while it was still viewable by the general public.

If the ASB is unable to pursue/discipline advertisers because their ad is no longer shown to the general public then a large incentive exists for advertisers to try out ‘racy’ ads on short runs in the knowledge that unless someone claims while the ad is still running and the ASB processes the complaint in a timely fashion, there will be no repercussions for themselves. It just doesn’t make sense that an ad complained about remains unexamined just because it no longer runs.

Of course my complaint against Hippo remains in progress, and today they ran the ad again on the back of MX so hopefully I will get some sort of resolution. It’s not funny, it’s not innovative, it’s purely exploitative and tacky – but I’m sure the ASB will justify it in some way. What is needed is strong government regulation of public advertising. If I can see it when walking down the street or on the train the government should be able to set standards to regulate the content (not to mention on tv and radio). Advertisers have been polluting public spaces for too long, something needs to be done about it.

More on exploitative advertising and the ASB is a post from: Devon Whittle. You can contact the author at devonwhittle@gmail.com.

Live Earth

devonwhittle — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 05:10:28 +0000

I haven’t got round to watching Live Earth yet, but I did listen to bits of it on the radio on Saturday. But found some of these quotes from a Washington Post article quite amusing:

“If you want to save the planet, I want you to start jumping up and down!” Thus Madonna revealed her plan to combat global warming.

Matt Bellamy of the band Muse mocked the event as “private jets for climate change.

From what I’ve heard it seems to have been a pretty effective event, the organisers say it’s “raised awareness” and it should encourage people to debate the issues and change behaviour. But it’s still very easy to knock these big rock star events – so I may as well add my bit of venting (all of this is hastily typed on the train home so excuse any inaccuracies) – I’ll just post two points for now.

Firstly, I’m thinking there are two main groups of people who go to or tune into these sorts of events – Live8, MPH, Live Earth – 1) People who like the bands and 2) People who support the campaign. I think the organisers would like the first group to think about changing their behaviour and the second group to be encouraged in their changes. While I’m sure the second group gets a big buzz from the event, I’m not sure the educative function is working quite so well. I know after the big MPH concert I certainly didn’t get the impression from my immediate peers or the larger group I was standing with that the concert resulted in any sort of major change for the audience. Quotes like the next one from the Washington Post show a similar claim could be levelled at Live Earth.

“I’m not even sure who Gore is,” said Georgie Simpson, 35, from Ipswich, in eastern England. “I saw Gore on TV,” added Sue Bourner, 38, a health service manager from Hampshire. “But frankly, I think it’s cheeky of Americans to come over here and lecture us. They are the worst polluters.”

However, the power of celebrities is staggering. Madonna fans now know that she ‘cares’ about climate change and they should too. It’s sad but true that the way people follow their favourite celeb means celeb involvement and subsequent media attention probably will result in some change in some people who hadn’t heard of these things before.

Secondly, (and keeping in mind the point above) the lifestyles of the bands/people involved in these events is so massively out of kilter with the general population – in terms of it’s effect on the environment – that I find it very unconvincing when the Black Eyed Peas and Madonna start advocating a climate change revolution. I know it’s not good to judge and all that, but honestly, the auspicious living of the big rock stars/actors/etc I find in many ways totally antithetical to what the whole movement is about. Though obviously maybe those living on a dollar a day would say similar things about my way of life – not sure what the real answer is, here just going with my gut that doesn’t like the Hollywood lifestyle.

Those two points are my main gripes with these big campaign events. Hopefully I’m not being too much of a downer/hypocrite – I do attend my own fair share of Funk-a-thon’s to fundraise for my favourite causes and still have massive ways to go in doing my bit for the environment. In many ways, however, it feels like Live Earth may do more for the celebrities involved then the celebrities do for the Earth.

UPDATE: For more upbeat coverage check out Grist.

Live Earth is a post from: Devon Whittle. You can contact the author at devonwhittle@gmail.com.