I read this while sitting in a computer lab for class. Try as I might to resist, I found myself tearing up. This letter is one of those things that makes you question your preconceived notions about others. There’s meta-reconsideration within this letter: in seeing the man comforting the other man, the writer reconsidered how he perceived others – making us reconsider how we perceive prisoners. These men aren’t “hardened criminals”, they’re humans who, for the most part, have made bad decisions that have cost them everything.

Popular opinion states that prisoners, particularly murders are evil through and through, that there’s no forgiveness or rehabilitation possible. They’re often considered as less than human – as monsters. I’ll be honest and say I’m not exempt from this. My first reaction is usually revulsion, fear, and loathing. Rarely do I consider them human beings first and foremost. That’s a mistake, a rather huge mistake. While you can’t discount or ignore the fact that they’ve committed a heinous crime against another human being, sometimes an innocent one, you also can’t discount that they’re human beings themselves. Human beings with hopes, dreams, emotions, and all.

It’s incredibly touching that men who hate each other are there for each other in times of extreme hardship. It’s incredibly touching and eye-opening that men who seemingly have no hope offer what hope and compassion they have to each other so easily, that men with no hope of an outside life ever again create for themselves, and each other, a life of their own.

Maybe one of the only ways to truly understand yourself and others is to lose everything. Maybe the only way to be truly compassionate and understanding of others is to first be faced with the utter lack of it yourself. Maybe the only way to truly understand suffering is to first suffer yourself.

Personally, I’m not sure where I stand on the death penalty. I feel that it could be appropriate in extreme cases – Hitler-type individuals, for example. Then again, “ultimate” punishment doesn’t leave anybody better off in the end. There are many ways beyond killing someone to serve punishment, to get retribution for crimes. There are fascinating minds inside of the “inhuman” criminals – fascinating human minds.

As you say, “The problem with Sam’s lecture was this: it was all propaganda. Just as jihadists are very good at recruiting young men as terrorists, Sam is good at making America look like the bad guy. Anyone can take a bunch of video clips and random quotes to make one giant issue look like something simplified and undoubtedly based on one cause or reason. But this is not the case.” I would have parsed the quote, but it’s important that you know the entirety of what I’m responding to.

It looks like you got the point of the lecture, but don’t realize it: ANYONE can take a bunch of clips and soundbites to oversimplify something to support their agenda. Anyone… including the U.S. media. Including the Iraqi and Afghani media. The point of the lecture wasn’t to demonize the United State’s position in the war – it was to show us that nothing is ever a black-and-white issue and what we think we know about issues is not the whole story. Sam’s making America look like a bad guy was intended as exactly what our media does to the Middle East – our media picks and chooses pictures, clips, soundbites, select stories, etc. to rally support for the war and dehumanize actual Middle-Easterners and portray the “enemy” as the opposite of all that’s good and right.

We’re all well aware that the Iraq War isn’t a “Christian Invasion”. As you stated: “Because the invasion that is going on is from radical Christians, not the majority of Christianity. Just as the hate towards America is coming from radical Muslims.” That’s exactly the point. To some on the “other” side of the war, it’s seen as a Christian Invasion because of propaganda utilizing the statements and actions of radical Christians – just like some on this side of the war see all insurgent forces as “Muslim Jihadists” because of propaganda utilizing the statements and actions of radical Muslims. Do you see what I did there? People on both sides of this war are going through the same exact things when it comes to propaganda skewed against the “enemy”. Fortunately, it’s easy to see through propaganda, because it rarely stands up to close scrutiny. If everyone took the time to actually inform themselves about who they’re fighting against and why, and also remind themselves that the “enemy” is just as human as the “ally”, then maybe there would be no way for extremism to exist – but then again, the Higher-Ups wouldn’t be able to rally support for a war, so I guess it’s better to keep the masses informed only when it can “support the cause”.

What freedoms are we fighting for in Iraq? Freedom from terrorists? Freedom to be the world police? Or is it the freedom to line pockets?

You know what's blatantly, morally offensive to me? Porn. Specifically rape and incest porn. Should it be banned? No, it's protected under the First Amendment. Something shouldn't be banned just because it goes against societal norms. Where would it stop? Where you decide it should?

The Japanese erotic game industry actually stopped producing rape simulators last June, without the help of the government. There are actually censorship laws in Japan, some stricter than those in place in the US, and there's a current bill being debated that will heavily restrict artificial depictions of minors. Food for thought.

Replace every occurrence of the word "video game" with "porn", or even "books", and reread your post. Would you be as angry? I hope to god you would, or else you'd be a hypocrite.

Children aren't the only group of people who play video games. A majority of video games are created by and for adults, and thus the M rating - a rating that prohibits sale to a minor under the age of 17 unless given present parental consent. It's not game developers' responsibility to "protect" children from graphic situations, that's all on the parent.

Further, your "example" cites a fictional story on a television drama created to titillate viewers - it's not their goal to present facts. That didn't actually happen. Violent video games don't promote violence, just as violent movies and books don't promote violence, either.

You're saying that rape is "Extremely common" in Japanese society. Let's see....

UN Rape Rates per 100,000

Canada: 78.08
Australia: 77.79
USA: 32.05
Sweden: 24.47
UK: 16.23
France: 14.36
S. Korea: 12.98
Germany: 9.12
Russia: 4.78
Taiwan: 4.08
Japan: 1.78

Wait a minute.....

I don't think you "know" as much about Japanese society as you think; only as much as you've read in manga.

By the way, uncensored depictions of rape in US pornography (you know, with real people) is just as widespread as censored drawings of rape in Japan.

***SAM, PLEASE READ THIS. SERIOUSLY.***

When I first heard that CNN did a report on this, I was actually pretty shocked. Not because of the content of the game, but the fact that CNN is reporting on this NOW. RapeLay has been out since 2006. The game’s been out of print for at least a year; the UN called for an explicit game ban back in august; and rape-style games haven’t been made since June 2009 because the Japanese erotic game industry regulated itself and came to the decision to stop production of games. Regardless, this game was made in Japan, by Japanese law, and never meant to leave its shores. So why is CNN reporting on it now? It’s pretty much a non-issue at this point.

My favorite part of this “news story” is where the reporter states, “this country has long produced products the rest of the world would call pornographic.” Holy shit. Japan is getting flak for an out of print game whose genre has ceased to exist that features simulated rape, and yet the story blatantly ignores that the United States has been producing actual, uncensored pornography featuring rape, bondage, and torture scenes for years, unregulated and freely available everywhere, including the “bastion” of Japanese rape games, the internet.

We’re worried that these games are being made because our poor kids might be able to get their poor innocent hands on them on the internet? We’re worried about this game that they wouldn’t have known about- and please, pay attention to this- had they not heard about it on CNN? I repeat, kids today would likely NOT KNOW about this OUT OF PRINT, JAPANESE LANGUAGE, NEVER OFFICIALLY EXPORTED GAME had they NOT HEARD ABOUT IT ON NATIONAL NEWS. We’re worried that they could be exposed to Japanese censored anime sex, but not that they can get some Good Ol’ Fashioned All-American ~Uncensored~ Rape Porn that depicts the female stars crying and being abused? Something’s wrong here.. I can’t… I can’t quite… WHAT? Depictions of rape are legal in the United States. CNN is calling for censorship of another country doing the same thing, only not real.

So why report on it now? More generic “lol Japan is so weird you guys, look at that!” from the United States? Slow news day? Ethnocentrism on the part of the United States? Here’s an idea: if you’re so worried about the kids, how about you monitor them yourself instead of relying on a nanny state to do it for you.

By the way, there’s currently a proposed bill in the works in Japan that would “limit the manner in which ‘nonexistent youths’ are represented as well as clauses that call for the filtering of images of minors online and via mobile phone.”

“Do people have to be older, more mature, and out of the realm of their parents/homes to openly discuss race? I argue that...maybe. Although I think it's important to reshape textbooks, I think white guilt will exist regardless until individuals can begin to think freely in a less controlled atmosphere--like in this class, in college.”

I agree with you that the ability to think and discuss freely, away from familial prejudices and influences, is necessary in order to actively consider issues like race and white guilt. However, I feel that it’s also the time that white guilt can more easily manifest itself. As a child, I never felt white guilt – why should I have? Why would children consider it? Yes, children learn about the atrocities of slavery, but it seems like there’s some level of disconnect between the slaveholders of the past and the people of today. I feel as though children of all races realize that the white people of the present are not even remotely responsible for African slavery, and most children are too young to realize the far-reaching advantages they might have gained from their forefathers slaveholding. I could be wrong – that’s just my personal observation and opinion.

I agree with you that primary history education needs to be reformed, but I’m not sure on how. There would be a lot to cover, and it would be difficult to write it from a neutral position – after all, history is written by the victors. I do think it’s important to teach history accurately – genocide of Native Americans and the rest of the atrocities included. I don’t think it’s necessary to teach from a racial standpoint, though – the color of a conqueror’s skin doesn’t decide whether they will be benevolent or greedy. Maybe THAT’S why white guilt exists: we learn white people did this to this race, white people did that to that race, and focus on that instead of anything else. I think that discussing history in terms of culture rather than race could help – but again, I haven’t considered teaching history in a better way to foster race relations at a young age much until today.

As I was saying before, I feel as though white guilt manifests itself later on in life, particularly when one starts to branch out and have the freedom and the incentive to think freely and intently, and actually begin to realize that there’s an issue with race relations and want to do something about it in their own lives. As kids we believe as our parents do, and unless they teach their children that they’re guilty of being white, (something I figure is very unlikely), children wouldn’t even consider it. I could be wrong – maybe white guilt manifests itself differently in children than it does in adults, but personally, I don’t believe it. I understand that what we’re taught about white people as children contributes to white guilt, but I don’t think it becomes an issue until people are old enough to consider the history they’ve learned on their own.

Every time I hear or read a story about discrimination against anybody in the LGBT community I am one, appalled, and two, forced to ask the question: “Why does it matter to people?” The “it” being another person’s sexuality. Why does what someone chooses to do in their private life matter so much to other people that other people actively try to not only bring them down, but to change the individual? As other people have said: what year is it now? People aren’t just the sum of their parts, and they’re certainly not the sum of their sexuality. Nobody thinks that cancer patients are bad people deserving of discrimination, so why should homosexuals be treated that way? That’s not to equate homosexuality with a terminal illness, but both are something that isn’t chosen. Flip the coin, even: homosexuals don’t think heterosexuals are bad people worthy of discrimination, so why should it be the other way around?
I get that people of the older generation are stuck in their ways (and generally pass on those ways to their children) but I don’t understand how, in this day and age, they can remain ignorant about the fact that LGBT people are human beings. Bleeding the same blood and all that. Last night in my Soc 110 class we had students come in and we had a Straight Talk, a talk with LGBTA students that included personal stories and a question and answer session (if anyone gets the chance, definitely check one out.) We started the talk by listing all the homosexual slurs we’d ever heard, and at the end they said something that struck me: most of the slurs were rooted in the physical act of sex. Too many people think of homosexuals as what they do in the bedroom, and not as people living and struggling just like everybody else. Somehow the school higher ups don’t realize that this girl is just another student trying to enjoy her high school career just like everybody else, and see only that she kisses girls. Frankly, I find it immature and ignorant.
What’s worse than simply barring her from the prom is the fact that they canceled the whole thing altogether because of her. It’s vile and underhanded – the administrators can not possibly think that she won’t catch any flak for that from her peers. Bullying is hard and prevalent enough in high school, so how do they think other students will react to the administrators all but saying “Prom’s canceled, it’s Constance’s fault, take your frustrations out on her.” It’s as if they’re trying to teach her, and other LGBT students in the school a lesson: this is what happens when you’re gay, so either go straight or endure torment and canceled proms for the rest of your life. It’s a low and disgusting move on the school’s part.

It’s inspiring that Yvrose doesn’t have any first-world advantages yet still works hard and creatively to stretch what she’s given to the fullest extent. To be honest, it humbles and shames me – I don’t work half as hard as she does, and yet seemingly have more. I can only hope to be as driven as her and, to be honest, she’s inspired me to try.

I agree with other commenters that feel that she’s figured out and learned all she has partly through necessity. Her (pre earthquake) situation required her to think and work creatively, and it just so happened that she figured out complicated economic strategies on her own through hard work. Though I only know as much about her as the post includes, I’m awed by her, I really am. I have so much respect for people who work hard to try to make something of themselves, and those who have so much intelligence as Yvrose seems to have.

After listening to the npr clip, I looked up the follow up to her story. She hasn’t been able to work out a deal with her bank as of yet, but she has set up an account with a micro-credit financial institution that doles out small loans in developing countries with generally low interest rates – people can even lend directly to her through the institution. It’s at http://www.fonkoze.org/ , if anyone is interested in learning more.

mqp5040: You said “Yeah, some people got where they were because they worked hard and had no one helping them out. They busted their butt and made it. But does that still mean they deserve to be there when so many others do the same and won’t even get a chance to compete in the same ballpark?” I’ll have to disagree with your rhetorical question there, or rather, say “yes, they do deserve to be there.” I feel that if someone busts their butt to make it somewhere, they deserve to be where they are. Yeah, they may have been implicitly given opportunities through sheer chance of birth into a good family/prosperous country/etc., but the person still worked hard to get where they are and deserve everything they get. The population of the world and the global economy are just too vast to give equal opportunity to everyone, regardless of how hard they work. Like you said, it’s just how the world works – not everyone, most people in fact, aren’t given the best opportunities or even the opportunities they deserve, and must either live with it or work hard to change it. Even if they do work hard to change it, though, they might not be able to. People make do and work hard with the cards that they’re given and hope for the best.