It came as a shock to many people that the “No Russian” mission in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 allowed players to act with such extreme malicious intent. The inclusion of the mission sparked a blazing controversy amongst pundits and critics alike, with its gratuitous depiction of terrorists mowing down innocent civilians at a crowded Russian airport. It was one of the most intimately morbid moments in recent gaming history.

It doesn’t come as any shock that after all the public scrutinyModern Warfare 2 received, the soon-to-be released Medal of Honor is being met with resistance before the title even hits the front lines. After it was announced gamers will have the option to play as a Taliban terrorist at some branch of the story, which follows Tier 1 special operatives in modern day Afghanistan, the U.S. Military threw the red flag and outlawed its sale at bases across the country.

"We regret any inconvenience this may cause authorized shoppers, but are optimistic that they will understand the sensitivity to the life-and-death scenarios this product presents as entertainment," said Maj. Gen. Bruce Casella, who commands the Army & Air Force Exchange Service.

The game has already been banned at nearly 300 Army and Air Force base exchange shops. The Navy was quick to follow suit, barring it from 104 of their exchange shops, as well. The prohibition also looms over the 49 GameStops located nationally on military bases.

"At the hands of the Taliban, children have lost fathers, and wives have lost husbands," said British Defense Secretary Liam Fox, who has led the public protest. "It's shocking that someone would think it acceptable to re-create the acts of the Taliban against British soldiers."

It’s commonplace that you can’t have the good without the evil. Where there is a hero, there is a villain, and for video game’s sake, players seemingly always have access to both the light and the dark. What fun would a story be with might and no gloom, sunshine and no shadow? Kids have matured into adults on steady diets of cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, and as moviegoers, we’re more often than not rooting for the bad guys. This begs to ask the question: when does the line between tasteful discretion and egregious censorship get drawn in the sand far beyond its means? Ignoring both sides of a story is what realists call “propaganda”, something our military isn’t a stranger to.

Aren’t these soldiers fighting for our freedoms and sensibilities, the same ones that constitutional rights uphold and protect? My heart goes out to their valiant souls and their unnerved families, as they sit and pray for the day their loved ones will return home. Haven’t these noble enlistees earned the right to do whatever they please? At the end of the day, doesn’t impeding on one's right to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness make you no better than the terrorists you are trying to eradicate?

Will there ever be an end to the ridiculousness that is video game censorship? Is this to say that because of Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor, we can’t play as samurais in video games because we’re supporting terrorism? Should we still be throwing British tea in Boston Harbor? Should bratwursts and pilsner be banned from our stores because we fought Nazis in World War 2?

Saving Private Ryan had such a melancholy aura with veterans watching the film, so much so that it was reported that some threw up, passed out, or were so emotionally disturbed by the D-Day invasion at Normandy, they had to leave the theater. That’s the point here: if something affronts you, you proactively choose to avoid it, not tell others that because you’re offended by it, they will never be granted a decision for themselves as to whether or not it invokes the same feelings with them. The U.S. military is overstepping its bounds here drastically, something it tends to do best.

While this ban limits the sale of Medal of Honor, it does not prohibit its ownership. With no shortage of online stores ready to cater to the men and women gamers in the service, rest assured, you shouldn’t skip a beat when the game releases on October 12th.

Edited 6 Years Ago by Glass_Joe: n/a

Comments
You are seriously defending something that is vile and evil? The government should ban this from being sold all together!
Your viewpoint stinks.
Attachments moh.jpg 57.8 KB

As a retired 23 year veteran I have to agree that the game should be banned from every store in the USA. The game is an insult to every American who died in wartime. If I see a copy of it I'm afraid I will have to burn it in front of the store that sells it.

>>The U.S. military is overstepping its bounds here drastically, something it tends to do best.

Bullshit. The military has every right to ban anything they want from military installations. Military installations and the people on it are not bound by the United States Constitution -- they are only subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. US Constitution rights do not apply there. Anyone entering a military institution give up those rights during their stay.

Comments
Wholeheartedly disagree

I have to admit that I used to play a decent amount of Grand Theft Auto and its variants. I'll also confess that, while I normally play the part of a G.I. in video games, I've occasionally played on the Nazi side. Playing for the Taliban side seems a bit too far for me to go (I guess it's just too current and hence too real), but really, what's the difference? You're out there shooting cops and innocent civilians in Grand Theft Auto. Is that disrespectful to real-life cops and crime victims? I don't think it is. If you have a good sense of who are the good guys and who are the bad guys, it's harmless. I guess Grand Theft Auto was so over the top that it didn't even seem like real violence. Blowing up a U.S. Humvee would probably be more disturbing.

It would be interesting to see a survey of opinions of current U.S. servicemen in Afghanistan and see how many are offended and how many aren't, and how many would actually play the game.

Comments
I would love to see a poll too

I wholeheartedly disagree with you, Dragon.

My point wasn't that the military doesn't have the right to ban this game. It was that men and women in the armed forces are dying for our freedoms of choice when they aren't even afforded any for themselves. Now they're going to intervene with which forms of entertainment media our soldiers choose to enjoy? It's asinine. This isn't about loyalties; this is about sensibilities.

Have you ever watched Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, Apocalypse Now, Black Hawk Down, Band of Brothers, or The Pacific? How are they any more or less an insult than the scenarios one will play witness to within Medal of Honor? It's a huge double standard. In the end, all you're choosing to do is surround yourself with things that better suit you.

Like Vernon says, you could literally make a point like this with the release of any game, movie, or album; relating this to Grand Theft Auto is a perfect example. What a miserable existence it would be if people took everything with a grain of salt. Why even get out of bed in the morning if every offensive crevice and facet of modern society upset you? It wouldn't even be a feasible existence. That is why people have the freedom to choose what brings them joy, a freedom good people die for. That is why this is ridiculous.

Men and women in the military are already told when to wake, what to eat, where to go, and what to do. Do they really need people limiting how they enjoy their time in between fighting for our flag?

Edited 6 Years Ago by Glass_Joe: n/a

I am so glad Ancient Dragon was here to defend those who serve and have served in the military.
My dad,my uncle, my grandfather, my great-grandfather, my great-great grandfather all served in the military. I am so glad that the government banned the game from being sold on the base. I think that this level should be banned altogether, but it is freedom of speech so it is allowed even though it is sickly warped, morbid, vile and Anti-Earth. Letting people play as the Taliban might give them the wrong impression. I keep seeing references to grand theft auto and how it didn't cause any problems. I know that a major fact has been ignored by gamers that GTA was the cause of at least one Real Life issue that I remember reading about off the top of my head. Three cops died because of an 18 year old who killed real cops after playing the Grand Theft Auto game. A long time ago when GTA was new a friend said this is a cool game. I put it in my system turned it on and as fast as I turned the game on I turned it off. I highly discourage the company from releasing this anti-american, anti-british, anti-earth level and if they do I highly question their judgment. You can give me negative ratings all you want. I know what is right and what isn't and this is not right!!
When I say anti-earth, I am NOT referring to all the countries, Men and Woman who are fighting to keep their Countries and families safe from evil. I am referring to the evil people who try to destroy our planet.

>>Letting people play as the Taliban might give them the wrong impression.

I've played GTA and I haven't run over any hookers, cops or children with my car yet.
I've played counter-strike as a terrorist, but I have never felt the need to take a bunch of people hostage, or rig a bomb somewhere.
I have also played Mario Bros and I don't feel the urge to dive in sewage pipes or eat green and red mushrooms.

People can think for themselves and know the difference between fiction and real life. If they don't: they need help. Your not going to help them by banning these games.

>> Three cops died because of an 18 year old who killed real cops after playing the Grand Theft Auto game

If it wasn't for videogames he would have done it because "aliens told him", "his dead father came to him in a dream", "the A-Team". These people are sick and need professional help. Putting your head in the sand by banning these games isn't going to help them or prevent these incidents from happening.
A few years ago "heavy-metal" was the source of all evil. Now it's games. Tomorrow it'll be something else.

Comments
Very well phrased and one of the more rational posts in this thread.
Thank you for getting it, my friend. I started to think I was the only one with a pulse for a minute.

I am so glad Ancient Dragon was here to defend those who serve and have served in the military.
My dad,my uncle, my grandfather, my great-grandfather, my great-great grandfather all served in the military. I am so glad that the government banned the game from being sold on the base. I think that this level should be banned altogether, but it is freedom of speech so it is allowed even though it is sickly warped, morbid, vile and Anti-Earth. Letting people play as the Taliban might give them the wrong impression. I keep seeing references to grand theft auto and how it didn't cause any problems. I know that a major fact has been ignored by gamers that GTA was the cause of at least one Real Life issue that I remember reading about off the top of my head. Three cops died because of an 18 year old who killed real cops after playing the Grand Theft Auto game. A long time ago when GTA was new a friend said this is a cool game. I put it in my system turned it on and as fast as I turned the game on I turned it off. I highly discourage the company from releasing this anti-american, anti-british, anti-earth level and if they do I highly question their judgment. You can give me negative ratings all you want. I know what is right and what isn't and this is not right!!
When I say anti-earth, I am NOT referring to all the countries, Men and Woman who are fighting to keep their Countries and families safe from evil. I am referring to the evil people who try to destroy our planet.

What are you even saying? What does any of that rambling even mean? You're but the second person to glaringly miss any underlying substance with a brash response. I'm not berating anyone serving in the military, and the fact you assume that is both an insult to the views I articulated carefully and shows how long you thought about your response.

All my relatives fought in wars. Does that all of a sudden make my opinion have more weight? I have friends that are veterans of Iraq and will be purchasing and playing this game. Now what can you say? And I ask you as well: have you ever watched Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, Apocalypse Now, Black Hawk Down, Band of Brothers, The Pacific? Have you ever taken enjoyment from watching Hollywood's depiction of the battlefield? Then you are, in the end, no better than these magical double standards you choose to uphold.

The series has put you in the boots of Japanese and German soldiers in its previous titles. Where were you then to cry out about our past international diplomacy?

And no, three cops didn't die because of Grand Theft Auto. Three cops died because a withdrawn, reclusive psychopath with parents that ignored the obvious signs blamed Grand Theft Auto. There's a difference. If you want warped, morbid, and vile, how about the aimless, senseless comments you regurgitate from the video game hate monger Jack Thompson following Devin Moore's senseless killing of these three officers, when Thompson used the headlines as an in to slander the game with his unsubstantiated, mindless soapbox speeches to spread his biased views to impressionable people like you. But hey, why blame the terrible parents or young adult with mental issues and no grip on reality when we can point the finger at something else!?! It's such a fun game passing the blame around our society!

Like Nick said, banning these games does nothing for the greater good. You can sweep all the evil in the world under the rug, but that doesn't mean people won't still be raving lunatics or forget it existed. The children who politicians are trying to "protect" by banning these violent games are ultimately just being ignored. It's easier to take something away than it is to nurture the person behind the reasons why you had to do it.

In this instance, it's about the US military controlling what its service men and women see, and considering our vested involvement in the Middle East, the Taliban perspective reported to be in Medal of Honor would be detrimental to the cause's morale and give life to an enemy we're told has no soul. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edited 6 Years Ago by Glass_Joe: n/a

I'll say it again: this game is wrong on so many levels.
The human mind, especially the teenager mind is very impressionable. This game should be banned or at the bare minimum have everyone be over 18 & carded & sign sometype of legal agreement. I am sure some stores will refuse to carry it while others see the dissatisfaction of their customers and stop selling it. Seriously, what were the game designers thinking? I design games & I leave anything to do with politics out of my games. Yes, this has to do with politics and so much more like morals and ethics.
Ding my rating all you want on here. I still won't change my comments.

Comments

1) There is nothing wrong with the military banning this game from their bases/service people to keep troop moral etc.. you need propaganda and censorship.

2) Video games do not make people go out an kill people, sick depressed frustrated people will go out and kill people no matter if they are reading a book with graphic descriptions of violent watching a movie or playing a video game or not.

3) These games are almost always rated M for mature meaning you have to be over 18 to buy it already it is the parents of the teenagers that are giving them permission to get it and often buying it for themselves and sharing it with their kids to have family time. Clearly it is the parents you should be complaining about not the video game manufacturer's.

The level should not be banned, games always let you play as good or evil I have won WW2 for the Soviets in RA, I have destroyed the Jedi as a Sith, I have used nukes and terrorist against enemies in many games. I have also done it as the good side. Depending on how it is done playing as the other side can give you insight into why they are fighting against you which is valuable if we want to stop them from fighting without exterminating every last one of them.

There are 2 sides to every story. I find it funny that the Americans (the only people to have used the atomic bomb and they did it twice when once would have sufficed) and participated in the cold war which nearly did destroy the planet with nuclear weapons are accusing people resorting to improvised explosives of trying to destroy the planet. Get some perspective there are only a few countries/organizations in the world with the ability to destroy the planet and they are the ones claiming to be 'protecting' us.

@tiger86 if your games have nothing to do with politics how boring they must be, part of entertainment is looking at an issue from a different perspective that's why most forms of entertainment do not feature average Americans as the leading characters we already know what it is like to be them.

Comments
Great appendage to my points. High five!

I'll say it again: this game is wrong on so many levels.
The human mind, especially the teenager mind is very impressionable. This game should be banned or at the bare minimum have everyone be over 18 & carded & sign sometype of legal agreement. I am sure some stores will refuse to carry it while others see the dissatisfaction of their customers and stop selling it. Seriously, what were the game designers thinking? I design games & I leave anything to do with politics out of my games. Yes, this has to do with politics and so much more like morals and ethics.
Ding my rating all you want on here. I still won't change my comments.

That's fantastic...you said it again. That means I get to read the same baseless rhetoric twice. On what levels is this wrong? You have discussed how this issue has made YOU feel, so now explain why its a blemish to society. I truly don't think you've read anything that anybody has typed. Also, the sky is blue and dogs wag their tails when they're happy.

It's called the ESRB and stores carding people for games with a Mature rating. Do you have any idea at all about anything you're typing, or is it all just sort of loosely falling out of your head to your fingers to bang together words on the keyboard? If you're a game designer, seems as though you'd know these sorts of things.

This discussion is pointless if you're just going to pick and choose what you want to read to advance what little and insignificant points you are trying to make. It's people like you that give video games their bad name.

Agilemind--spot on, by the way. Kudos. The military has all the power in the world to ban things for whatever reason they see fit. I just disagree when the reasoning they've given here, when it's clearly just them tossing up another smokescreen to the real purpose, as I had said previously:

"In this instance, it's about the US military controlling what its service men and women see, and considering our vested involvement in the Middle East, the Taliban perspective reported to be in Medal of Honor would be detrimental to the cause's morale and give life to an enemy we're told has no soul. Nothing more, nothing less."

I think that we all may be making a bigger deal of this than it is. As the story states, there is no prohibition against owning the game. I served in the military and spent over a year in Afghanistan. I personally saw a person lose his leg when a RPG hit his 7-ton. I have no problem with allowing military members to play this game if that is what they want. However, I also have no problem with a military base deciding not to sell a game that will in some ways legitimize Taliban actions. They are not prohibiting the right to play the game, they are merely exercising their right to choose what items they offer in their stores. I can't help but think that on a military base, there would be several people that have been harmed by actions of the Taliban that would have to pass that game on their way to the BX/PX. While most wouldn't be affected, I applaud the decision to prevent even a few mental breakdowns that might be caused. For the record, I will not and probably could not play this game because of the material. I enjoy MW2, but to me that is impersonal and not real. To play in a arena that I spent so much time in would not be enjoyable to me. But I would not want others to be prohibited from playing if that is what they desire.

Okay, first off I've never played Medal of Honor. I have played Halo online. I was quite tired last night when I made my second post. I know that games like Halo and GTA depict violence, but what seperates them from this new level of medal of honor is that
(1 the versions of Halo online that I played weren't set in any era. I also would like to state that while I have played Halo Online I didn't like it and quit after a few days. My cousin wanted me to play it.
(2 we are currently in the middle of a war on terrorisim & Medal Of Honor allows people to be the enemy that we are currently fighting.
(3
There is a rating above M, it just isn't sold at retail stores or at least I've never seen it.

I will admit that GTA case does indeed have to do with the players mental stability, but There is a big difference between books and Movies.

I've never watched the movies you listed, because those aren't my type of movies. Games that have shooting like guild wars are fine IMO, because you kill monsters & ghosts. I am not a fan of PVP in games like that, but even then you are a fictional character with powers. What I find wrong with this new Medal Of Honor is the fact that you can play as the enemy and fictitiously kill are own men. It is fictitious, but sends out the entirely wrong message.
I won't reply to any other posts.

Anyone noticed the Irony yet?

The best recruitment tool the US army has every had is an online computer game where you play a US soldier and shoot terrorists etc... they pay real soldiers to play and befriend the other players and recruit them.

Course the military should realize by making such a fuss over this game it is just going to guarantee it will be a success, look at all the free advertising they are giving it.

>>Course the military should realize by making such a fuss over this game it is just going to guarantee it will be a success
It does seem to work that way with anything that is banned whether it is drugs, alcohol, movies, books, games, guns, etc. I don't know about other countries but in USA banning something seems to produce a backlash affect.

Banning something will only make people want it more because they can't have it. There's no such thing as bad press.

Good.

The mind can be incredibly delicate. I am shocked that it took this long for the military to make it an issue. To use the term Censorship gives creativity a bad name. This is more a case of not respecting a serious issue.

If you've ever read the General's current orders, you'd see how much is banned throughout the military. Making this not much of a shock.

Only people who have never served in the military would be shocked at the banning. Such a thing is actually pretty common. I recall one time the Base Commander banned a Cheek and Chong movie because it involved drugs.

The military is an organization; it has to "forbid" certain things in order to not be seen "condoning" them. So they say "you can't buy it at the PX" and it's done. People serving in the military don't seem to have any trouble getting hold of these things, and the military organization can say "we've done what we can". Everybody's happy. I don't see what the big deal is.

I thought the armed forces run their bases as they see fit. To hell with so-called civil liberties and all that pretentious ballocks - they aren't civilians. If the Brig wants to ban a game, so what? If the Brig wants to ban married men from watching Sex in the City, you'd better not cop a peek. He'll have your knackers on a silver plate me old china.

Who's complaining anyhow? Is it the servicemen? Is it the game manufacturer? Is it some disgruntled game-playing-saddo that thinks he has a right to feel disgruntled about something that doesn't affect him directly? This world's getting pettier by the minute. Huh, I can see a law suit coming on. That'll help - not.

22 year ret vet, still work with active duty. Most vets love these games and it doesn't matter if the base bans the sales, they'll just go off base and get it anyways. But here's the real rub: These officers have the audicity to think they're sending a message to the troops...but the fact is the troops have NO RESPECT for this message cause they know it's bullshit. They'll go buy the game off base regardless; meanwhile the leadership is left standing SNIP looking like complete morons.

Edited 6 Years Ago by happygeek: watch the language please - keep it clean

Comments
try to think without using vulgar language

22 year ret vet, still work with active duty. Most vets love these games and it doesn't matter if the base bans the sales, they'll just go off base and get it anyways. But here's the real rub: These officers have the audicity to think they're sending a message to the troops...but the fact is the troops have NO RESPECT for this message cause they know it's bullshit. They'll go buy the game off base regardless; meanwhile the leadership is left standing SNIP looking like complete morons.

Maybe so. Officers and audacity. Hmm, that's a pre-requisite for the job isn't it? The fact that some things are banned from being sold on base doesn't mean that they are banned full stop. Of course stuff from outside finds its way onto base - cannabis, speed...

Are the brass sending a message to the troops or sending a message to the manufacturers saying 'We are not amused by this game'. Brass could have a point. If some of my mates were blown to pieces in Af. by some Taliban, I don't know if I'd be over the moon at seeing some other mates playing a game where they play the part of the Taliban killing your soldiers.

You can argue that games are just entertainment. They are usually. However, we have age certification for some of them because they could be disturbing to certain people below a certain age. At what point does age not become an issue? In most countries, this tends to be 18 or 21. Can we really say that just because you've celebrated x amount of birthdays, that you will no longer be affected by what you see, hear or play?

I couldn't really give a flying fig about this issue, but it does seem to me to be a storm in a teacup. If the military doesn't want to sell something, so what? There again, perhaps it should sell Taliban games as opposed to gazillions of dollars worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia. How the hell did Obama get the Nobel Peace Prize?

@Ardav: Audacity is not always a positive attribute. For instance I would say it is really audacious for some officer to bloviate about defending our freedoms while making the decision to deny the people who are fighting for those very freedoms. And that was my point: if one wanted to talk about what is "American" or "UN-American" they certainly would have to acknowledge that freedom of choice is a thread that runs throughout the fabric of America. You don't like ___________ (fill in the blank), don't buy, watch, eat, partronize (ETC! ETC! ETC!) it. Now in the U.S., servicemembers can just go off base. What bothers me is for the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan....they are denied the choice....on whether they can play the game or not. They're big boys, they should be able to make their own choice. It's that simple.

The other thing that bothers me is that most of the public figures / military leaders raising issues without a doubt have never played a modern FPS. If they did they would know that there are usually two main modes: single player (or co-op) campaign and multiplayer. Without a doubt the single player will be playing the Americans kicking Talibans butt. If anyone would be ticked off it should be the Taliban! And I know that this game would fly off the shelf overseas because servicmembers would no doubt like to kick Taliban arse in their leisure hours (just like they've kicked Nazi, Russian, Brazilian militia, Iraqi Repub guard, Locust Hoard (chainsawed, no less), Grunts, the Flood, Sires, and the Covenent). In multiplayer, where the one team will have to play the Taliban is a *duh* moment. I sure any intelligent person can figure out why one team has to be the Taliban.

Lastly, when it comes to emotional distress or PTSD (one of the reasons cited by those making the decision to censor), researchers have been using virtual reality simulations to help soldiers relive their experiances with the goal of desensitizing them to the images they fear. So FPS games that are realistic (IMHO) may just as well help, not hurt, recovery from PTSD or any other emotional issues. And if you know anything about how our Army has handled PTSD, you'd know they should be the LAST people to claim they championed treating our soldiers for this. Complete BS!!!!

Edited 6 Years Ago by amtote: n/a

@amtote - you can't get the game, you don't get facetiousness either. Audacity - I was being facetious.

> What bothers me is for the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan....they are denied the choice....on whether they can play the game or not. They're big boys ....

Does it really bother you? I mean, REALLY bother you? OMG - they are denied the RIGHT to play a computer game. The world's coming to an end! If they're big boys, what the hell are they doing fussing about a silly little computer game like some 7 year old? I think your founding fathers or whatever they were would be turning in their graves if they could see the way that your constitution was being used to justify the sale of a game on a military base. Don't try 'the principle of the thing' either. It won't wash. Complete BS!!!! as you say.

Comments
I've yet to see Ardav post anything "anti-American" and he's got a strong point.
The use of reputation points to punish opposing views annoys me.
Maybe if you keep making your anti-American comments and continue to insult our country's beliefs as you join forces with us in the Middle East, you won't look like such an elitist fool. Oh wait...

OMG - they are denied the RIGHT to play a computer game

No, actually I don't believe that's the case. At least I haven't heard that the game is forbidden. The PX won't sell it to you, but there is an internet out there. So the only right that's been taken away is the right to buy this game on your base.

Look, I'm a pit bull for free speech - I think Terry Jones is an absolute douchebag, but he's got every right to burn his own Korans and light the fire with the American flag if he wants, as long as he's clear with the laws on open-air fires. Every person has the right to say whatever they think needs to be said, be it in public speech, in print, on line, or in art, period.

That being said, to call this a violation of a right strikes me as obtuse and a most disingenuous form of grandstanding, since the game has not been banned, and there is no threat to do so.

Comments

>>That being said, to call this a violation of a right

I don't recall anyone saying that in this thread, but if I missed it and they did, then they are dead wrong. A base (or post) commander has every right to not allow something to be sold in the BX/PX, just as WalMart, ToysRUs, Target, or any other company has the right not to sell something in their stores. This is not a US Constitutional issue. And AFAIK no one is going to go door-to-door searching for people who have bought that game from somewhere else and are playing it in their homes (or barracks). That would be an invasion of privacy.

AD - reviewing, you're right. I was responding to Ardav's post, but I don't see that anyone has actually claimed a violation of rights has occurred - only that it's a travesty of some kind, type unspecified.

I still think there may be some obtuse and disingenuous grandstanding here, however.

I still think there may be some obtuse and disingenuous grandstanding here, however.

To whom and how does the definition of the word "grandstanding" apply?

WRT Rights - I got the impression that the argument had gone on to the right of a soldier to 'purchase' the game on base. I may have stretched that to 'play'. Sorry. If the former is indeed the limit of the situation, I think it's even more ludicrous that people would be making a fuss over such a trivial matter.

The Grandstanding, IMO, refers to people taking offence / making a fuss for no good reason. Human rights aren't being violated for goodness sake. Some people need to get a grip.

To whom and how does the definition of the word "grandstanding" apply?

It applies to the implication of travesty in a case which qualifies, at most, as a minor annoyance or an insensitive use of what is for many a deeply personal tragedy for purposes of banal entertainment. As you'll see, it shows up on both sides of the argument here. Proponents of both sides are playing to the gallery, looking to make the most of some very weak material, which is to say, grandstanding.
Games don't actually cause people to kill other people in the real world, and Americans put up with offensive views, or they're un-American. Again, the free-speech pit-bull can hold no other view. "I would burn the game" is a comment which I think Ancient Dragon may well have made in heat and may well regret having made, in any case it's an example of grandstanding, not least because I don't believe that he would either buy or steal a copy of the game in order to incinerate it.
On the other hand, much of your original posting and much of your defense of it also qualifies, particularly since you acknowledge in your last paragraph of the original post that no actual harm has been done. If I had to call out one particular line, it would be this one, which is particularly vacuous and worthy of any traditional demagogue:

Aren’t these soldiers fighting for our freedoms and sensibilities, the same ones that constitutional rights uphold and protect? My heart goes out to their valiant souls and their unnerved families, as they sit and pray for the day their loved ones will return home.

That's playing to the grandstand, my friend. That's cheap and easy sentimentalism, and it's irrelevant to the question, since the soldiers - again, as you acknowledge, in the same breath! - are not actually being affected by this case, and if they were, neither their valiant souls their unnerved families would find the game in question to be much comfort if the potential tragedy you summon up were to occur. That tragedy has come to far too many of the people you allude to, and it will continue to do so, so it is quite tasteless to whistle it up to score points in an argument about a forgettable and already-forgotten pseudo-controversy over a forgettable and soon-to-be-forgotten entertainment.


One final point: Please be careful with the adjectival scope in reading the post you're quoting. The words "obtuse" and "disingenuous" refer to the grandstanding itself, to the arguments used in the grandstanding, not to the makers of the arguments. The arguments are bad ones, they look to sentimentalism and hollow rhetoric to make ringing defenses of positions not actually under attack. That is in no way a judgement on the people making the arguments. I hope that's something that can be understood, though it's not exactly in step with the spirit of the times we live in.

Edited 6 Years Ago by jon.kiparsky: Typo repair, minor clarification