Relieve stress with Trumpinata, a Donald Trump pinata app

boing
22

Well, it is differentiated by the fact that it is explicitly a pinata, and that when you break parts of it candy comes out. The Sarkeesian violence simulator which, as I understand it, “rewarded” players with an increasingly bloody and bruised image of her face.

Both games were made as statements. One is an expression of anger and frustration at a presidential candidate’s policies. The other was an attempt to intimidate a media critic by alluding to real threats of violence against her. I don’t think the comparison between the two makes any sense at all. Criticisms of presidential candidates are not only allowed, but encouraged in democracy, and they can take any form short of actual threats or violence (especially in the US with it’s fairly extreme interpretations of free speech).

I’m not sure if you play other video games that have violence or violent images in them. I’d be interested in what you think the difference is. Is it that the violence is targeted towards an identifiable individual in real life? If so, what can we make of the fact that this violence is clearly targeted not at that individual but at a paper mache model full of candy?

4 Likes
23

i don’t see that knocking around a virtual stand-in is ‘criticism of a presidential candidate’. I also don’t think that if the Sarkeesian game were instead a pinata and candy came out, it would have been considered much (if any) less problematic. It’s a violence simulator in either case.

Frankly I see them both mostly as what you described, expressions of anger and frustration at opposing viewpoints, but in a hateful way. Furthermore I don’t see why we need to bend over backwards to justify this instance of hate speech. You can make the relative argument all day long that it’s not as bad as other instances, but to what end? All it does is further normalize the concept and increase the acceptability of hate speech in general.

I have and do play video games that depict violence. I don’t think i really know what the difference is but it does seem that there is one. might have something to do with that violence in a shooter/hack and slash being generally either in furtherance of an actual game with decision making, tactical, and execution skills required to win, and/or interactive storytelling; the satisfaction comes from winning/experiencing the narrative rather than seeing someone you don’t like getting beat up (albeit maybe in a cutesy way). I’m sure there are holes to be poked in this, but I’d just ask again why it’s worth the effort to try to justify something that you would never try to justify if it were directed at a different target.

24

A button that says, 'Clinton Sucks" would count as criticism, and I don’t see how making a Clinton pinata would be a very different statement. I also just disagree that a pinata-Sarkeesian game wouldn’t have been taken differently (as in the median offense would shifted substantially, not as in suddenly everyone would be okay with it) than the actual violence simulator was. Probably the worst part of the Sarkeesian violence simulation was that someone photoshopped her face to look progressively more beaten up in a realistic way.

When you take a person who is already receiving threats, taking those threats very seriously, and start posting images of them beaten up for the enjoyment of those who are doing the threatening, you are participating in the threatening and intimidation. When you make a pinata of a presidential candidate you are just expressing that you don’t want that candidate to win. People really make Trump pinatas and really destroy them - a real world act that is legal and that Trump doesn’t seem to think is worth mentioning. How could a videogame depiction of that act be considered to be the same as a videogame depiction of beating an actual person?

I think the right bar for judging the harm is the actual harm done to the person. Maybe this is really wounding Trump. If it is maybe it could lead to some kind of dialogue where he and the creator could discuss how each of them had hurt one another and come to some kind of understanding. Ordinarily I would say that the bar is set pretty low - if there is even a small chance you are going to hurt or offend someone, you should think twice and maybe ask them before you do anything. But presidential candidates have the bar set at a very different place by necessity.

You ask why I am defending something I wouldn’t defend if the target were different. First of all, target matters. If I send a dozen roses to a friend of mine with a card that says, “Get Well Soon” because they are sick, that’s nice. If I send a dozen roses to a friend of mine with a card that says “Get Well Soon” because I know their violent ex is stalking them and I think it would be fun if they interpreted it as a veiled threat from that ex, then I’d be a psychopathic asshole.

I think this game would be perfectly fine if the pinata were any other presidential candidate. If it were not a presidential candidate (or a candidate for other high office) then I think that significantly changes the context. The reason I am putting so much effort into “defending” this is because your initial comment was about others being okay with violence against white males, which isn’t true, and your further comments have drawn what I think is a really unfair equivalence between (1) posting images of a person being badly beaten in the midst of a campaing of violent threats against them because they spoke their mind on the internet; and (2) making your anger with a candidate for high office known via pinata.

2 Likes
25

well it’s possible that i just didn’t understand the nature of the problem with the Sarkeesian game in the first place. It was my thinking that it was bad in and of itself to simulate violence as a personal attack against a human. Perhaps it was more the context that made it so vile and in the absence of threats were made by others it would have been OK. That sounds wrong to me, but whatever.

it’s not the change of target that makes you a psychopathic asshole in this example, it’s the change of intention. The motive of sending good wishes after illness or injury is a kind gesture regardless of ‘target’.

I understand that the target matters in something like this insofar as we are considering the person’s ability to be less affected by the attack due to fame, wealth, and privilege but for me the sticking point remains that if it is wrong to glory in fantasized violence toward an individual, then it is wrong in all cases. Also, while you personally might be OK with this type of game having Ben Carson or Hillary Clinton as its target, I would expect that many people would find those things upsetting even though they are politicians.

26

I agree, the motivation is very important. The target helps us understand the motivation when we aren’t mind readers. Target a woman who is currently received death and rape threats and it reads as a threat. Target a politician who is running for president of the United States and it reads as a “This guy sucks, don’t vote for him!”

Now, if the game were actually of punching Donald Trump’s face and making it bloody and bruised I’d be backing you fully. But making pinatas of Donald Trump and whacking them open for candy is something real people are doing in real life and Donald Trump is none-the-worse for it. I can find articles on Trump pinatas going back to early September and not one comment from Trump about the issue.

I understand the comment that people wouldn’t take the same way if the pinata was Clinton or Carson. I’ll admit that if this had been Carson I’d be a little bit more suspicious, and I’d be curious about the motives of the creator. That being said, however, if pinatas, real and virtual, for all other presidential candidates were to come out now, I wouldn’t think much of it. The creator of the first Trump pinatas is planning on rolling them out for other candidates too now.

I think a lot of political candidates, if confronted with a pinata of themselves, would ask for their turn giving it a whack just to show that they are good sports, and to get the news coverage that could result.

I really don’t agree with this, I think it’s too simple. Actually killing people is wrong in all cases. Imagining killing someone can be a coping mechanism that helps people get through the day and isn’t actually very uncommon. Making a game or a piece of art that suggests real life violence against another person has the potential to really harm that person - emotionally if not physically. Putting a picture of the stuck-up highschool principal on a dart board while you practice isn’t actually hurting a real person.

People who genuinely think they would be justified in killing another person (morally, not legally) usually either have a very personal issue with that person (revenge or defense) or they have a very general issue with a group that person belongs to. Sarkeesian got the treatment she did because the people threatening her with violence didn’t particularly think violence against women was wrong. Racism, sexism, homophobia - those lead to violence.

If a game like this came out about you or about me, what would we think? If it were about me I’d want to know who had such a personal interest in me that they would do that. I’d probably feel threatened, but that’s just because I can’t think of any reason anyone would do that other than an unhealthy obsession with me. For Trump and Sarkeesian we know exactly why the games were made and what they are saying. I don’t think there is a comparison to be made.

1 Like
27

Okay, there’s your problem.

You can’t possiblity equate the imagery in this Trump game:

With the imagery in this: (spoilered for trigger warning)

4 Likes
28

my comments have never been about ‘equating’ this app with the Sarkeesian app. It is about whether or not a game where you pretend to beat up a real life person because you disagree with them on some issue is OK in some cases or just not really OK ever. And if you think this thing is OK because well it’s Trump we are justified to hate Trump so this is fine, well that’s BS.

@anon50609448

it seems fairly clear to me that the motivation is the same whether or not you are using cutesy graphics or photoshop.* It’s not like my heart is over here bleeding for Trump or anything, i know he won’t lose sleep over this or the death/other unpleasantness threats he undoubtedly receives as a ‘celebrity’ and politician. But the desire to virtually slap around someone you don’t like is still an ugly thing, even if your target is Trump.

*unless you have some cultural association/tradition specifically regarding pinatas and politicians, which i think is a minority of us, in which case perhaps the motivation is more complicated.

29

Dude, you are equating these two games. You’re describing the Trump game - a game where Trump is represented by a bunch of coloured polygons and when you hit him candy comes out - with the Sarkeesian game - a game where you punch an actual picture of the person in question and cause actual physical damage to their face.

“Hate” doesn’t even enter into it. One game is a cutesy-looking pinata game, the other is a domestic violence simulator.

FFS, if you can’t see how those two things are completely fucking different, I can’t help you.

2 Likes
30

I don’t see the point in moralizing over people’s thoughts, feelings and imaginations without any appeal to the results of those thoughts, feelings and imaginations in the world outside their heads.

1 Like
31

How the fuck do you un-spoiler that? I tried to highlight it and it disappeared.

1 Like
32

Click on it matey :wink:

3 Likes
33

I can’t, it’s gone. Literally. Big white space where the spoiled image was. I done broke it somehow.

34

That happened to me too. Try a reload of the page - it’s back for me.

1 Like
35

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.