Am I Over reacting?

[Theta.G]

Yeah, and so do I, but these weren't animals, they were pixels in the shape of animals.

I would say the upset person is not upset directly by the movie, they are reminded of their own experience and upset by that.

If OP saw the animals hurt in the game and this reminded OP about the fact that animals are hurt in real life, or a time in her life that she witnessed them being hurt, and that upset her, then that totally makes sense.

Judging by some of these posts, I don't see how boycotting or hitting them would suddenly be an overreaction, if morality is the same virtual or not.

That doesn't matter. The less than conscious mind cannot tell the difference between what is real and what is imagined. This goes for all visual data we take in through our eyes as well. Yes you are correct noone is ever upset directly at what a movie did for what it displays it is always tied to something else in the viewers past or present // looping back to my previous post. relatable. Including but not limited to memory / past experiences, belief systems, core parts of what makes a human, human and others.

Sure, maybe OP saw something traumatic involving animals at a young age or something. But i fail to see how someone who cares for animals, who would cry when an animal is being abused has something wrong with them. It's not like she's having panic attacks or hurting anyone.

She's here to see what we think if she was overreacting or not. Not here because any visual data depicting animal cruelty wrecks her life.

There's a pretty big gap between crying or being sad, having a transient emotional reaction that will pass. and actively forming a group and going after a company that allows it's players to abuse animal characters in game, for months on end. Even though that's not the focus of the game and the game just allows players to do almost whatever they want in it. Or... physically attacking someone over it.
When you're sad that's on you, in you, doesn't negatively impact anyone else.
Violence? Smashing your head over something you did in a game which could leave permanent damage? Ya... huge difference... over reaction.

"It's just pixels".
Did you have a tamagotchi as a kid?
Did you cry when it died?
At what level of pixel density does it no longer become "just pixels"?
If a recovering coke addict saw a pixelated cartoon do a line what happens in their mind and body?


If you were flipping through channels and came across a brief scene of a graphic documentary which shows how millions of animals are "farmed" and slaughtered would you cry? Probably not. Most are insanely desensitized. But someone that cares about animals likely would have an emotional reaction.
Is that documentary also "just pixels" on a screen?

 

[Judge]

Hard to say in all fairness. Metaphors that are not acted upon can reflect "much ado about nothing". However if such metaphors are later acted out in more profound ways reflecting physical injury to both animals and/or people, then your concerns become truly valid concerns.

In the present tense your fears are unfounded. But what about the future tense?

 

[wight]

That depends on how you define "cruelty". Not only are you equating virtual cruelty with actual cruelty, but you're removing the part of cruelty that involves pain. In a video-game, there is no actual victim or actual pain. So how is it still defined as cruelty?

If you were to believe that laws and prison exist in our society for moral reasons and not just crime prevention reasons, as many do, then you would advocate for the arresting of anyone who has killed in a video-game, based on what you said.

It is the OP that is the object of the cruelty, not the pixels. You are focusing on the wrong thing.

 

[Misery]

Worth noting, with the Autcraft server there, when they say "no kills", they probably mean "no player killing". Chances are, there'll still be plenty of pig-stabbing or whatever, to get resources. Unless of course the entire server is creative-mode, but they wouldn't bother with such a specific rule if that were the case.

I would bet though that you wont see people on there doing things like trying to slaughter Villagers though (innocent NPCs that you can trade with and that sometimes need protection from monsters). Call it a hunch, but chances are that sort of thing just doesn't happen on that server.

Killing a few animals in a game doesn't matter. Gobbling down drumsticks and steaks at dinner does.

So yea you are overreacting.

It's clearly important to the OP though, so... yes, in that way, I'd say it absolutely does matter.

But isn't it only a universal stance in response to reality?

If a representation of reality garners an identical reaction as reality, I'd have to say there might be something wrong.

But if the reaction to it actually happening is far more extreme and this reaction to the game is already a much reduced version of that then maybe it's not so odd, just different proportions than most people.

Well, consider how a lot of games are designed now. These aint the days of Pac-man. A lot of games (not all, but still plenty) are designed with "immersion" in mind. They want the player to be both mentally and EMOTIONALLY invested in the world the developers have made for them. And you can see evidence of this all over the place. And heck, this isn't just with games that look realistic. They could look VERY not-realistic and still be designed with this in mind. Look at freaking Undertale for instance, and the way *many* of it's players respond to the things happening in game. A lot of fans will utterly refuse to try doing a "genocide" or combat-focused playthrough in the game, because they don't want to see the characters getting killed/hurt. And the game is actually partly designed around getting that sort of emotional investment out of the player. Even something like FNAF produces this effect. And I don't mean just in autistics. This applies fully to NT players too.

Even Minecraft falls into this. Immersion is an important part of sandbox design... the developers want you to feel connected to your game world as much as you can, as it makes the things you do there seem to have much more impact, increasing satisfaction and enjoyment. The game may be super-blocky, but again, visual style has little to do with it.

Of course, each player's reactions will vary wildly. But that too is part of the point of a game like Minecraft.

 

[Fino]

That doesn't matter. The less than conscious mind cannot tell the difference between what is real and what is imagined. This goes for all visual data we take in through our eyes as well. Yes you are correct noone is ever upset directly at what a movie did for what it displays it is always tied to something else in the viewers past or present // looping back to my previous post. relatable. Including but not limited to memory / past experiences, belief systems, core parts of what makes a human, human and others.

Sure, maybe OP saw something traumatic involving animals at a young age or something. But i fail to see how someone who cares for animals, who would cry when an animal is being abused has something wrong with them. It's not like she's having panic attacks or hurting anyone.

She's here to see what we think if she was overreacting or not. Not here because any visual data depicting animal cruelty wrecks her life.

There's a pretty big gap between crying or being sad, having a transient emotional reaction that will pass. and actively forming a group and going after a company that allows it's players to abuse animal characters in game, for months on end. Even though that's not the focus of the game and the game just allows players to do almost whatever they want in it. Or... physically attacking someone over it.
When you're sad that's on you, in you, doesn't negatively impact anyone else.
Violence? Smashing your head over something you did in a game which could leave permanent damage? Ya... huge difference... over reaction.

"It's just pixels".
Did you have a tamagotchi as a kid?
Did you cry when it died?
At what level of pixel density does it no longer become "just pixels"?
If a recovering coke addict saw a pixelated cartoon do a line what happens in their mind and body?


If you were flipping through channels and came across a brief scene of a graphic documentary which shows how millions of animals are "farmed" and slaughtered would you cry? Probably not. Most are insanely desensitized. But someone that cares about animals likely would have an emotional reaction.
Is that documentary also "just pixels" on a screen?

But she didn't see an animal abused. She saw something that game told her was an animal, a vague design that was close enough to the real thing for her to go along with that fantasy; unless we both agree that the emotional reaction is that it reminded her of actual cruelty, in which case we're not even disagreeing in that regard.

I did have a tamagotchi, and no, I didn't cry.
At no level of pixel density does something not become "just pixels," unless I'm misunderstanding something about pixel density.

Again, with the coke, the response would not be directly from the cartoon, the addict's physical reaction would be a reaction his own memories, memories triggered by the pixels. But also again, maybe we're actually agreeing, I'm not entirely sure.

The documentary wouldn't be the same because actual suffering is being caused. The pixels are a way of transmitting this fact to you, but that would be just as if someone called you and told you your mom died. It's not the phone that's troubling you, just as it's not the television that's effecting you. It's the reality you've suddenly perceived.

 

[sidd851]

It is understood, and taught in buddhism, as well as in other philosophies and religions,
that "fights", for instance, are far more damaging than they appear to the casual observer.
In such a fight, one person always gets
hurt--- the aggressor--- his or her mind.

Any aggressor must actively detach from compassion and empathy(or be simply incapable of it to begin with) in order to cause harm, in whatever form.
This, in and of itself, is the first harm caused, and it sets the stage for subsequent harms to be done.

Disconnecting from empathy is a dangerous and slippery slope, as what we practice to be, we become.

The OP may very well be aware that the animals are "pixelated", but while the "animals" remain in a "dangerous" situation, the OP is also aware that the actions that put them there haven't been undone.
There was a disconnect of empathy(however "small") to commit this act, and a continuing unconcern to leave them there.
To remove this actuality will foster a sense of atonement or rectification.
Not to have done it in the first place would have been better.
Preventive housekeeping is preferable to remediation housekeeping.

I suggest that it is no "small thing" that disturbs the OP. To find that someone close to you, to whatever degree, is capable of relinquishing their empathy can be disturbing.
Understanding that such an act is one of degrees is an apt observation on the part of the OP.

Who here would wish to become someone that can easily, and at will, disconnect from empathy?

Who would be okay with learning that a loved one had the capacity for cruelty?

Why would someone practice such a thing?

What (good) purpose could it possibly serve?

It is a disturbingly common practice to judge our actions by their effect(s) on others, but to discount the effect of the cognition of them on ourselves.

What we do, no matter how insignificant seeming, has ramifications beyond our immediate understanding and purpose, and it is for this reason, and by this mechanism, that we can choose to progress and train toward greater capacity for loving-kindness, compassion, and empathy, and away from indifference, harm, and cruelty.

sidd

 

[Fino]

It is the OP that is the object of the cruelty, not the pixels. You are focusing on the wrong thing.

I do agree that's the case, but I don't think that's what the OP said. That's a conclusion drawn by many, but the OP is quite clear in that it's the pixels that upset her, unless I'm reading the post wrong.

 

[Fino]

Worth noting, with the Autcraft server there, when they say "no kills", they probably mean "no player killing". Chances are, there'll still be plenty of pig-stabbing or whatever, to get resources. Unless of course the entire server is creative-mode, but they wouldn't bother with such a specific rule if that were the case.

I would bet though that you wont see people on there doing things like trying to slaughter Villagers though (innocent NPCs that you can trade with and that sometimes need protection from monsters). Call it a hunch, but chances are that sort of thing just doesn't happen on that server.




It's clearly important to the OP though, so... yes, in that way, I'd say it absolutely does matter.




Well, consider how a lot of games are designed now. These aint the days of Pac-man. A lot of games (not all, but still plenty) are designed with "immersion" in mind. They want the player to be both mentally and EMOTIONALLY invested in the world the developers have made for them. And you can see evidence of this all over the place. And heck, this isn't just with games that look realistic. They could look VERY not-realistic and still be designed with this in mind. Look at freaking Undertale for instance, and the way *many* of it's players respond to the things happening in game. A lot of fans will utterly refuse to try doing a "genocide" or combat-focused playthrough in the game, because they don't want to see the characters getting killed/hurt. And the game is actually partly designed around getting that sort of emotional investment out of the player. Even something like FNAF produces this effect. And I don't mean just in autistics. This applies fully to NT players too.

Even Minecraft falls into this. Immersion is an important part of sandbox design... the developers want you to feel connected to your game world as much as you can, as it makes the things you do there seem to have much more impact, increasing satisfaction and enjoyment. The game may be super-blocky, but again, visual style has little to do with it.

Of course, each player's reactions will vary wildly. But that too is part of the point of a game like Minecraft.

I haven't played video-games in years, so thank you!

That makes it sound more like a problem with the industry then, because that sounds scary and.. not so good. Brave New World-ish.

 

[Misery]

I haven't played video-games in years, so thank you!

That makes it sound more like a problem with the industry then, because that sounds scary and.. not so good. Brave New World-ish.

It's not really an industry problem in the way you're thinking. Not a universal issue, is what I mean.

The issue that can arise, can come from the individual game's design. Minecraft, for example. Not exactly a game about murder. You play the part of a survivor in a strange world. There is combat, but it's against genuinely evil things that just want to shred you... zombies, skeletons, Creepers, and some more creative yet spooky things. The game makes a very, very clear distinction between "innocent/neutral thing" and "actual villain". With a couple of small exceptions. Overall though, you are not meant to be the bad guy here. If you DO play that role... that's entirely your fault as the player. Plenty of other games don't allow you to be the villain at all. If you're playing a Mario game for instance, you're always the hero. Unless it's one of those games that lets you play as Bowser for a bit, but even he isn't truly malevolent (even though he wants everyone to think he is). But yeah, in those games, you as the player don't have the option to murder or torment anyone. It encourages you towards a heroic mindset, saving the day instead of ruining it.

But then there are games like Grand Theft Auto. You certainly don't have to go on a murderous rampage... but the thing about it is, even when you are NOT doing that, you're still playing the part of a brutal criminal. The entire story and setting focuses on that. In that way, the game encourages a more malevolent style going beyond just the main story events.

Immersion in games is generally a positive thing, same as it is in TV, movies, and books, all of which do their best to use the very same concept. But any of these forms of media can use it in a rather nasty way, if the creators so choose. And the problem with THAT is that it tends to draw attention if they do, leading to more sales. It's why you see games like GTA selling so well, or nasty "reality" shows being so popular.

 

[Peter Morrison]

There is nothing wrong with feeling for the animals. You are playing a game as if it were real life. Your siblings might be doing outrageous things because they know it will make you cry (if this is an ongoing pattern).

Kids will experiment with lots of unusual stuff because they are curious and crave excitement. I wouldn't label them as deranged just yet. From personal experience growing up, boys will attempt outrageous feats and dangerous maneuvers because they haven't yet experienced serious, irreparable damage to themselves or their neighbor's cat. There is no real fallout from a computer game. Anything goes. There is no guilt or remorse.

If the way they play the game bothers you, don't play with them. Protect yourself from the anguish of watching them being cruel and sadistic. You might consider establishing rules that no animals be harmed as the game is being played. Having sensitivity to animals is a positive way to view all life. Share your sensitivity for responsible treatment of animals.

 

[inkfingers]

Your reactions are possibly the reason your siblings are doing these things.
And, I tend to personify some things.

Hmmm. Now that I think about it, my brother does like to wind me up. But don't misunderstand me, my siblings are not inherently mean and cruel. They make mistakes like any other human being. I think my bro does not understand how much distress his "pranks" cause me. He likes to tease me and "toy" with me because I take everything so literally, but he means no harm.

 

[Tom]

I am not familiar with the game, but if you can, suggest you lay waste to their villages, slaughter the inhabitants and free all their animals in retaliation.

 

[Fino]

I am not familiar with the game, but if you can, suggest you lay waste to their villages, slaughter the inhabitants and free all their animals in retaliation.

Sounds like you're from PETA!