Words are very unnecessary, they can only do harm
A few days ago, The New York Times reported that US Intelligence warned Senators of the threat of Al Qaeda and its affiliates launching an attack on US soil within the next six months.
Hmm, sounds familiar.
A little too familiar.
You see, I like to think of history as a broken record (or corrupted .mp3 file for all you new-age punks), often repeating itself every few years. A remix of the original song, if you will. Kind of like Depeche Mode’s Enjoy The Silence, only the song and its 300+ covers never get old. Nor does Dave Gahan’s voice; but I digress.
Who’s to say that the US will not launch a preemptive attack in order to curb the growing threat of Al Qaeda? Did they not do that in 2003 when they claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? (Just ask Paul O’Neill). Maybe Obama’s Administration is conditioning us to accept a preemptive attack on Iran.
I found a how-to list online on how to make your own remixes, and it serves as a nifty little guide for most countries who want to legitimise their interference in other state’s affairs.
(I suggest you read the original article first so that you understand the context)
- Select the right
trackenemy. This is very important, since this is will affect your standing in the political arena. You’ll need, at the very least, a powerful ally to back you up. - Try to identify what you will contribute to
the trackyour justification. This can range from national security threats to a threat to world peace or some hoopla like that. You will also have to plan on whether you’re targeting small areas or aiming for total destruction. Think about what you’d like to take back with you from that country – what you like best, what you will keep intact and what you will change. Dissect the trackPlan of Attack. Will there be an ultimatum, or will you be a sneaky little bastard and creep up on them? In either case, after the initial incursion take the resources you have to work with, and do most of the attacking up front.- Experiment! Nuke ‘em. Rob them of all their natural resources. Napalm, biological weapons, and more. This is your chance to have fun.
- Reconstruct. In order to make sure that everyone doesn’t think you’re one big ol’ bully, you have to give something back to the country. This could be in the form of allowing the locals to fend for themselves slowly, giving them a chance to wean themselves out of your military occupancy (Vietnam), or it could be something even more taxing, like establishing democracy in a previously autocratic state.
- Export your creation aka Operation GTFO . When you’re happy with your “progress,” you should export, or as many locals would fondly say “GET THE FUCK OUT.” .
- Distribute your remix. This is where you tell everyone how awesome you are and how awesome the country you left in ruins now is, thanks to your overwhelming use of awesome force. Awesome.
Words, like violence…
Break the silence…
Come crashing in, into my little world…
Painful to me…
Pierce right through me…
Congratulations, if the whole world didn’t hate you already, they hate you now. Didn’t your mother ever tell you to leave well enough alone?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0cb2e931-43d7-4505-a9b6-63e76490c7ac)
Join the Conversation
Spot on!
What people think of you is important, but is not necessarily determinative of what is the right thing to do.
If the U.S. stayed out of places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc. then we would probably be more popular in some circles, and would probably save quite a bit of money, especially in times of budget deficits. Our unpopularity grows even further as innocent people are getting killed. But does that necessarily mean that we should stay out?
What about World War II? That wasn’t so long ago. People like Hitler had their agendas in full working order. The U.S. was reluctant to get involved. Pearl Harbor pushed them in. But was it a mistake to go in, in full force and measure?
The U.S. won the war. Tha bad guys lost. And instead of occupying conquered territory, the U.S. launched the Marshall Plan, which used economic incentives to turn oppressive regimes into democratic states. Was that wrong headed? Or could a similar model be used today?
Do you really believe that Al Qaeda’s ambitions are in any way consistent with a peaceful, proserous, and free world? And if they are fully committed to their cause, don’t we have to be at least as committed as they are? Or should we leave “well enough alone.” And doesn’t that mean making the sacrifices that are required, even if our public relations image takes a hit?
It sounds like that when you are looking
I wonder what type of ‘remix’ the West is going to come out with next regarding Iran and its uranium enrichment program. Perhaps something along the lines of metal rock..
Because of various reasons that are tied to a certain place, a video game which is considered perfectly acceptable in one country can be criticized in another. Such issues highlight why video game adaptation – unlike translation- is necessary for computer and consoles games.
That said, one seemingly simple yet relatively deep and complicated question has always bothered me: when does localization go so far that it becomes censorship? Should gamers accept this?
Let’s take a recent example, Yakuza 3 on PS3 shows well how thin the frontier between censorship and localization can be. Almost immediately, it came under fire for the huge cuts it suffered at the hands of Western localizers. Apparently, a significant chunk of the cut scenes, minigames, and events were removed from the US release, deemed “inappropriate” for American audiences.
Now the question is: do all of these elements actually required to be changed? Isn’t that just based on a stereotype that American gamers tend to be more religious and concerned about nudity and violence? I assume that someone purchasing the third installment in a game series would normally have a pretty good idea as to what kind of content they were getting into, especially with a series such as Yakuza, which is relatively well-known. The games even receive ratings similar to films, giving the consumer an even better idea of what the game in question contains.
Regardless as to what country this game is purchased in, by default (due to content) the player will generally be an adult – or at least old enough to understand that the game may contain some “naughty bits”. Just look at the cover – this fact is not going to surprise anyone. So who are the publishers to decide even further who this game is for, and what parts they should be allowed to play?.
Video game translation shall always be respectful of gamers.