Osaka takes Japan's first steps against hate speech.

Progress, but small progress.
Osaka has passed its first ruling by a major city against hateful speech last Friday.

A more indepth ordinance failed to pass last year due to the LPD and Komeito parties opposing the idea of giving the city authority to loan money to victims who would want to take their case to court.

Osaka drew international focus for hate speech in February 2013 when an anti Korean group 'Zaitokukai' held a rally in the Tsuruhashi district where many ethnic Koreans reside. During the rally a YouTube video was taken showing a 14 year old hurling abusive slurs and death threats towards Koreans while the Zaitokukai members cheered on. This led to then-Mayor Toru Hashimoto and his 'Osaka Ishin no Kai' (One Osaka) party beginning to attempt to crack down on hate speech. Eventually leading to a heated debate against the head Zaitokukai member, taking place in October 2014.

 

An example of one of their rallies.

The ruling that passed on Friday simply allows a committee to be formed, consisting of 5 legal and academic experts who will investigate any allegations of hate speech filed by Osaka residents. Unfortunately, no 'real' action can be taken against the perpetrators. If the committee agrees that a hate speech case has taken place then the offender and their affiliated group will have their names posted on the city's website. It's effectively an official name and shame ruling.

During the early stages of the assembly it was even disrupted by a man throwing two orange paint balls to the ground and then yelling "Protect the self-esteem of Japanese people" as he was subdued by security, Kyodo News reported.

Korean activists have welcomed the decision but says more needs to be done. Current existing rules regarding public welfare allows public facilities to refuse groups who participate in discriminatory or violent behaviour, as well as revoke rally permits. However, this is full of exceptions and is generally down to subjective views of what is discriminatory so it is hard to enforce.

There are also a lot of concerns about the interpretation of 'free speech' regarding this new ruling but I feel that there is a huge difference between voicing an opinion and having a gang screaming abuse and wishing someone to die based purely on their ethnic background. It can cause emotional distress, destroy reputations as well as their income and future prospects. Not to mention the chance of inciting violence against them.

While Japan has definitely come along way regarding international communication and understanding, some citizens still feel there is something 'unique' about being Japanese and thus look down upon others who are not.
But don't get me wrong, I personally have had only positive experiences here and absolutely love the Japanese community and their hospitality. I wouldn't be living here otherwise. Despite this, it is easy to see the many micro aggressions that permeate Japanese society against outsiders, whether intentional or not.

             

The obnoxious Uyoku dantai in action, note how the police do nothing about their numerous obstructions and traffic law breaking either.

I'm sure many foreigners in Japan have uncomfortably witnessed the 'Uyoku dantai', the loud obnoxious right wing black vans, fitted with loud speakers and imperial propaganda. These often preach hostile messages against foreign groups at irritating volumes and can be pretty intimidating to some. Whenever I see these it reminds me of the problems back home regarding the BNP or EDL (English Defence League) groups in the UK who also rally for independence while acting extremely hostile to particular groups.

...I'm not really sure where I'm going with this post but I'm glad that some first steps have been taken to highlight hate speech as an issue that requires action rather than just ignoring it. I somewhat doubt whether this committee will be effective but some progress is better than none!

This should apply not just to Japan, but the world as a whole.

HATRED is new video game violence clickbait

HATRED is causing outrage due to violence in context

Before I write anything I feel it is best to put everything in context by linking you to the trailer to watch and form your own initial opinion...so here it is!

DISCLAIMER: I do not feel that video games condone violence at all, if you think so I feel that you are a complete idiot. I have been playing games for years and years and consider violent people to be the most simple and lowest form of humanity. Games can be inappropriate for younger children yes, but that does not mean that it will cause them to stab their neighbours. It is a parents responsibility to judge what is appropriate for them, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER FORM OF MEDIA.

Now that is out of the way, lets take a look at HATRED, a gameplay trailer has just been released by the Polish developers 'Destructive Creations' along with a tweet saying "Spread it on the web! Share it! Bring it everywhere and let the haters hate! (And they will, oh they will...)" Now this immediately screams to me as a marketing gimmick. Jumping hot on the heels of Gamergate making gamers look like feminist hating death threat sending idiots, this trailer aims to get the game as much publicity as possible with shock tactics. The fact that the video has over a million views within 3 days says something.
You only need to briefly take a look at the Youtube comments to see how much butthurt this has created not just amongst game fans but in the media overall. Several blogs are over-exaggerating; calling this game a genocide simulator. I wouldn't go that far, it doesn't depict a sole target for extinction, I would rather use the term mass murder simulator.  The reason for many of these accusations is because several observers have taken note that many members of the production group are affiliated with far right wing, homophobic groups. Yes this makes them shitty people, but I see no indication of their targeted hate in the trailer at all, its a simple mass killing simulation.

The trailer depicts an edgy trenchcoat wearing, long haired thug with generic gravelled voice, the only thing missing is a fedora to complete the angsty image. Clearly designed to appeal to angsty teens with a persecution complex. He states that he wants to kill everyone, violently, and wants to die, violently. Loading up weapons into he incredibly deep pockets. The gameplay then cuts to show a minute of violent gameplay showing the player opening his door into an innocent neighbourhood and gunning down innocent civilians as they run and plead for help. Many people were especially shocked at the 'execution' scenes showing civilians and cops getting shot point blank as they flail and plead for their lives. This made me reminisce instantly about the Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 mission 'No Russian', which also generated a ton of controversy for gunning down innocents in a busy airport. What most people forget though is that this kind of violence is nothing new - Manhunt, GTA, COD. Yet year after year people blow up in response to violence in video games. HATRED tries to push the envelope further by making the slaughter of innocents in the most dramatic and edgy way as possible as the sole objective of the game. At least it seems that way so far, from one minute of gameplay it is difficult to tell whether there is more of a context to be given. This is what makes violence in some games 'socially acceptable' but in others 'outrageous', context.  

The Last of Us was a commerical success, receiving lots of 'Game of the year' awards and praise from various press releases. The quest for a man and his young female dependant trying to survive in a society plagued by an infectious disease. People praised the story and the development of the characters, what a lot of people forget though is that Joel and Ellie killed A LOT of people on the way, sure, a lot of people wanted to kill them too but why is that suddenly ok? I'm also pretty sure that a lot of the medical staff at the end didn't deserve it?

How about Uncharted? Also incredibly successful, the hero Drake is an explorer who searches for relics Indian Jones style. He kills an huge amount of people, these people die and people just shrugs it off and laugh because 'they are the bad guys'. This is a modern story and the hero takes countless lives for the sake of treasure and shows very little afterthought when he does so. Yet no-one thinks twice about it because people aren't begging for their lives or scared of death so its OK?
Even in games where bad guys DO plead for their lives, often gamers hit the execute them any more because 'they are the enemy'.

I wonder what people would say if you dressed the HATRED guy as an American Spec Ops soldier, set it abroad and had the innocents as part of the 'violent ISIS community and culture' . Would it be acceptable then?
Other games such as Homefront, Spec Ops, and Payday have killable civilians as part of the setting. They are not the main objective but for example, in Payday during a Bank Heist, things often go wrong and police officers and innocents may end up as part of the body count. All for the sake of money, but its part of the gameplay so its OK, we have choices right?

This two faced approach of gaming journalism is really irritating, why choose a few games as a violence scapegoat for crimes yet accept the rest? Journalist sites are glorifying the violence in game because it so openly shows the violence in a dark setting, literally, look at that total lack of colour apart from all that edgy blood! To be honest, if the developers can get away with marketing this game for what it is, killing people, then maybe its better than other games out there who try to pretend it doesn't exist as part of their gameplay or try to justify the violence. Some people are too disturbed by this reality of life despite our media being full of suicide bombings, school shoots, public stabbings and so on. I would be more worried about walking home past a bunch guys on a dark night in the UK than some violent game.

I kind of drifted off my original point but violent games don't cause violent actions in real life. HATRED is a tasteless game, I agree. It also looks incredibly shallow from a gaming perspective, I enjoy rampaging in a game like GTA once in a way but it becomes boring fast. I can't imagine an entire game based around shooting unarmed people until police show up is going to remain 'entertaining' for a long time. This won't matter for the developers though, they have just created a huge amount of free marketing and promotion with just one tweet and a mini trailer. People are going to buy it to see what the fuss is about and out of morbid curiosity, then there will be the kids who also can't wait to shoot up the society because 'everyone is out to get me' and 'life sucks'. Hell I even wrote an article about it because the community butthurt was so fascinating. Well played Destructive Creations.

Burger King's KURO Pearl VS. McDonald's Cheese Tsukimi!!

In Japan, who is better?

During my three or so years living in Japan I have probably eaten way more McDonalds than I have in my entire lifetime in the UK!! Why? It's cleaner, brighter, friendlier, tastier and the staff smile and go out of their way for you. Not to mention the fact that they release some AWESOME specials that always seem to be experimenting and keep things exciting. (As exciting as fast food can be anyway...)

Right now in Autumn 2014 the two rival chains have released two seasonal specials:

McDonald's contender is the '月見 (Tsukimi - literal translation is moon viewing!) Burger' that draws from the traditional harvest moon festivals. Its main attraction is the juicy egg on top to resemble the moon with some bacon and 'special sauce' to go with it. It comes in at 491 calories for those of you that care about that kind of thing. I chose the cheese version as this rivals the BK offering more closely. 

Burger King have capitalized upon their successful Star Wars burger campaign of last year and have released another set of 'KURO' burgers, essentially 'black' burgers....literally the entire thing is black from the bun to the cheese. It comes it two variants, one with salad and one without, I chose the basic one since the 月見 is one of the rare burger offerings that comes with zero salad. Good for the fussy fatties out there! This comes in at 465 calories, probably due to no bacon.

Lets see what they actually look like!

McDonald's is up first!

Ta-da! We open it up to find...

Sexy eggyness

The first thing you might notice is that is actually kind of looks like the actual damn photo! That's one main point I have noticed since eating here is that more often that not, what you see is what you get.

Sexy bacon

Inside too is an actual chunky piece of bacon, a pleasant surprise from the paper thin stuff back home. The egg is surprisingly soft and 'just right' too, none of that stiff, stodgy overcooked type of eggs that I usually associate with fast food. The special sauce though is pretty much just a combination of ketchup and Japan's sexy mayonnaise. The burger has a good balance between sweet and savory and is pretty moist without making the entire thing soggy. Overall a really tasty choice! Also the fries were piping hot and fresh too!

Burger King's turn...

I actually had to go out of my way to find a BK restaurant since they are far fewer in number!

Black wrapper, nice start...

DARRRRRRKNESSSSSS

 What Burger King's limited edition burger has going for it is definitely the novelty and shock factor of eating an entirely black burger. Some would find it massively off putting, associating it with something dirty or burnt. It actually tastes quite fresh and has been darkened using bamboo charcoal, same goes for the cheese...

Yay or Nay?

 The sauce is a squid ink enhanced garlic sauce, it has a pretty tangy taste to it, one of my friends commented that it has a strange smell but I was too infatuated with the colour to notice! Taste wise there isn't a lot else going for it due to the basic ingredients. They provide a ton of sauce though which inevitably drips out.

Looking at this pic in hindsight, the bread does look kind of 'doughey', similar to the chocolate bread that is so common here. Tasted fine though! One other big difference between McDonald's and BK is that the BK burgers actually feel meaty, almost twice as thick and you can definitely taste it more. The burger itself looks cool but it didn't actually taste that special.

The Verdict?

The McDonald's 月見 Burger is by far the better burger overall, despite costing the same you get more for your money, both in taste and ingredients. Coupled with the app coupons you can get you can usuall score a large drink and fries with it too.
Burger King are slowly expanding again in Japan after having given up several years ago and are vastly outnumbered by McDonald's but if they continue campaigns like this then their appeal should grow! This burger is good for a novelty meal and something to say HEY LOOK, I ATE THIS! But it isn't something I would rush to buy again.

Wow...I've never written so much about fast food before!

Response and deconstruction of Sarkeesian's 'Women as Background Decoration Trope'

This week Anita Sarkeesian has released another video for her series 'Feminist Frequency' on youtube. This is generating a ton of heated debate online, with arguments from extremists on both sides giving me a headache as I read the comments.

Normally I like to stay far away from such debates as it is hard to make an opinion without being labelled as a hater or sexist, or extreme feminazi and so on. The current trend in gaming journalism to focus on these social activist issues really irks me lately but that rant is for another blog.

In Anita's latest faring "Women as background decoration" parts 1 and 2. She has made some good arguments and points but she has also focused on certain games and scenes that I feel have been totally misrepresented, cherry picked and twisted in order to fuel her agenda. I would like to point out that I am not claiming that sexism in games is a non issue, it is, but Anita's representation of the issue leaves me feeling that she is a bad figurehead for the feminist voice, as many feminists have said so themselves.

She has a goal in mind, an axe to grind and only picks the information that suits her agenda. She rarely acknowledges when things have been done right as well as wrong. She feels it is easier to complain without offering any clear solutions or ways to improve. She is beginning from her conclusion 'Video Games are sexist: Let me show you why." instead of "Are Video Games Sexist? Let's see." This method irritates me no matter the subject of the argument, and this is an important subject to discuss.

This video has numerous problems, especially the video games chosen as representation. This stems from games such as Assassins creed, Red Dead Redemption and Dragon Age being 'period pieces'. As a feminist she should be aware of the state of affairs in these eras, horrific violence against women was shockingly common and and much more distressing than anything I have ever seen in a game. There are endless historical accounts of women being beaten, attacked and tortured as punishment or for the entertainment of males in those eras. While this by no means makes it any less shocking, she fails to acknowledge this context.
Showing violence against women in this case is not only about realistically reflecting reality, but also realistically reflecting human behaviour. Wouldn't completely omitting the acts and glossing over the fact be equally as bad?

Dragon Age Origins

Let's look at some specific examples...
The Dragon Age example is an historical reference to a practice called "First Night" which some argue was law in England, though as this custom has many sceptics, this could also refer to other media references to the custom. LA Noire pays homage to Noir fiction. Red Dead Redemption, a lightweight representation of Wild West fiction. For Assassin's Creed's, any violence against women is far, far tamer than what commonly occurred in the areas in question, which even includes some of the famous historical figures they use.
Sure we can argue "let's show experiences better than what occurs in the real world" but what if the author's and creator's intention is to depict the harshness of the real world, in a different environment?

Around the 26 minute mark she made the statement that a lot of the violence against women is "inescapable, unchangeable", yet earlier in the video she mentions, as well as fails to mention that the player can intervene, prevent or skip certain scenes entirely. Many scenes are there to engage the player and have them act, not as some gory side show. One reference that irritated me was that in Red Dead Redemption she mentioned that the same act happens repeatedly, in order to desensitize and titillate the player.
Has she no knowledge of how side quests work in a sandbox world? The worlds are huge! If certain side activities only happened once they could 1) Be easily missed 2) Are not a fair representation of the Wild West and 3) The game wouldn't have any lasting content/atmosphere. Eventually making the game dull and lifeless. (This counts for any sidequest - not just sexual violence).

Thunderf00t on youtube has made a very strong argument that Anita has made incredibly black and white statements and has completely taken one game completely out of context. That game is Hitman Absolution.
Please see his full video tomorrow, with particular focus on his argument for Hitman.

Sarkeesian's depiction of this game ENTIRELY focuses on the strip club scene, the game has 20 missions, 7 parts in each. Only 2 parts in a sole mission take place in a strip club. She shows the strippers being killed and dragged around for the sick enjoyment of the player. However Thunderf00t went through roughly 60 streams of players going through this segment and only one player had shot the guard and strippers. None had 'toyed with the bodies'. Many people are questioning where she gets such footage. Did she manufacture this content herself? Did she beat the strippers and drag them around just so she can be disgusted at what she had just done? Players are PENALISED for killing innocents, female or male. It is actively DISCOURAGED for the player to engage in such behaviour, with negative reinforcement through guard alerts, point loss or reputation loss. When she cherry picks and twists the representations of scenes just to support her argument, it undermines her legitimacy.

She almost never highlights the countless violence that occurs to men in video games either. If women are indeed 'background decoration' then violence to men is most definitely the 'main attraction'. It is Anita's complete unwillingly to explore the other side of the argument that makes her lose face. Yes there are indeed, many crazy people outraged enough to give her death threats. People make death threats to everyone about anything it seems. Hell, people stab and shoot each other at Walmart. The world sucks. But there are also many people who give constructive and level headed arguments that she completely shuts off in the areas that she controls. I'm sure if she opened the gates, many more opinions and videos such as Thunderf00t's would blast her arguments wide open.
Violence IS done to innocent, helpless men and in at least one case in for a few games she featured, it IS mixed together with sexual objectification. In Far Cry 3, a protagonist's male friend is purchased and used as a sex slave. In Dragon Age Origins, a nude male is found being tortured in a dungeon. In Red Dead Redempion, as part of a stranger quest, Marston finds a merchant who is in the process of being raped and eaten by a cannibal. This however doesn't match her argument so she either ignores it completely or uses blanket phrases such as "rarely do we see".

There are many other specific cases we could mention such as God of War, Bioshock and so on but my argument would spill onto even more pages so I will stop here.
It is an important issue to discuss, and it IS good that it is getting discussion, but we need a more balanced representation and view of the issue. Not a cookie cutter, cherry picked view that does not even attempt to consider the counter argument.