The Tea Party may be deluded, but they’re not zombies.

No, no, no, this is not cool. Not under any circumstances is this an acceptable piece of discourse.

Bachmann and Palin as zombies.

StarvingEyes Advergames built a first-person zombie horror game in Flash. Yeah, obviously the game is going to be technically limited, but it’s not a bad example of how to build a pseudo-three-dee game along the lines of Wolfenstein. The problem I have with this game is not technical. It’s subject matter related. You see, in this game, you invade Fox News’ headquarters and kill zombified versions of Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and various random hick rednecks and other teabaggers. The game is about killing the Teabagging zombies before they kill you. It’s called “TEA PARTY ZOMBIES MUST DIE.”

Does anyone else see anything wrong with this? With the idea of turning your political opponents, no matter how dogmatically they came into their particular ideologies, into mindless zombies fit only for extermination? I don’t appreciate it when right-wingers advocate watering the tree of liberty with the blood of people who happen to think you shouldn’t pay through the nose for health care, or that gays are humans too. I don’t appreciate it when right-wingers paint targets on their political opponents or exhort their supporters “don’t retreat, reload”. I don’t appreciate it when people make death threats openly or dehumanize left-wingers in any way. Why should I stand by when right-wingers are treated likewise? Why should we let the discourse be so debased by outliers on either side of the political spectrum?

Zombie movies are creepy because you know these slavering monsters were once human beings, and they could very well turn any other human being into one of their numbers. Zombie games are fun because they’re a frantic game of maintenance against an unending horde of enemies — their ceaseless battering against your defenses will eventually cause you to succumb, and it’s just a matter of ammo and time. Political discourses about civil rights are undertaken by rational human beings who discuss and sign into law their attempt at ameliorating what they find to be the issues for the day. If you don’t like how they tackle these issues, or if you think they’re putting too much focus on some issues over others (like the Republicans’ hyperfocus on gays and abortions despite being elected on a platform of job creation), then you inject yourself into the political discourse and get elected and fight for the change you want to see.

Accusing your political enemies of being a horde bent on infecting as many people as possible might be analogous (to any group of people attempting to effect political change on either side of the spectrum), that’s one thing. Depicting them as mindless slavering zombies out for your blood, who can only be stopped by violence? Well, that’s something completely different. And we’re above that.

Aren’t we?

{advertisement}
The Tea Party may be deluded, but they’re not zombies.
{advertisement}

94 thoughts on “The Tea Party may be deluded, but they’re not zombies.

  1. 2

    In Canada, either would get you drummed out of politics. Pardon me for coming from a country where a cartoon of a puffin pooping on a political opponent was considered a gigantic scandal.

  2. 4

    So should your liberals advocate the use of “second amendment remedies” to eliminate those representatives of the Tea Party that are in office now? Where is the line drawn? Where are you going to stop reciprocating and decry the incivility of the level of discourse as a whole?

  3. 5

    Oh, goodness gracious, incivility. /drops monocle into soup

    And, yeah, one gaming outfit depicting teabaggers (can I say that here, or is that a no-no word as well?) as horror-movie creatures is just like major figures of the Rethuglican (sorry, was that incivil, too?) Party suggesting that people take up arms against liberals.

  4. 6

    Coming from Norway, this kind of imagery is a bit more hard to swallow past 22.07

    Sure, it’s all fun and games, but it only takes one deluded fucker who don’t quite get the joke.

  5. 7

    Oh for fucks sake. I’m not talking about the kind of incivility where you are rude to someone who’s being an asshat. I’m talking about the kind of incivility where you dehumanize someone for holding a viewpoint contrary to yours. Where you advocate violence against them. Do you LIKE that the other side is engaging in that shit? No? Then why should you like it when we reciprocate?

  6. 9

    I’ll absolutely agree that this Jason Oda is not in any way, shape or form a representative of the liberal political sphere. He’s not an elected official, a spokesperson, or even particularly influential on the political blogosphere. Pardon me for deploring his violent imagery in making his hamfisted political statement. I’m just being consistent in my critiques against dehumanization and the advocacy of violence against your political opponents.

    Like Gnumann says, all it takes is one sick fuck to think this is a good idea. I’d rather expose the left to as little of that possibility as possible. Let violent terrorism stemming from violent rhetoric be the domain of the right-wing. We ARE above that. And the further above that we stay, the better shape we’re in as a society.

    Or, of course, the alternative is to start stockpiling weaponry for the civil war you are apparently okay with hastening.

  7. 10

    You know what I tire of more than teabaggers being teabaggers? Passive-aggressive martyrs on soapboxes.

    Pardon me for coming from a country where a cartoon of a puffin pooping on a political opponent was considered a gigantic scandal.

    Pardon me for deploring his violent imagery in making his hamfisted political statement.

  8. 11

    Oh no! A violent name! (I assume I shall thus also be dismissed out of hand.)

    As a Canadian, I can agree that this would not fly in terms of Canadian politics. As a Canadian, I will also point out that the Harper Reich has pretty free rein over screwing us over, but they’re doing it nicely, so apparently that’s dandy.

    And in terms of the power differential, if you choose to overlook that, then frankly you’re too fucking stupid to discuss any form of politics, the crayons are at the kids’ table. I mean, it’s obvious that cultural context is comically out of your grasp as well.

  9. 13

    I’ve seen worse, tbh. I recall a little shooting gallery game, back when I was a rather young child and modems were rated in baud, involving the cast of George Bush the first’s presidency. Their image would bounce around the screen while you would try and shoot it. Every time you missed, they would taunt you.

    I still remember (and chuckle at) one in particular, “You should like walrus piss!”

    It is also entirely possible I am not a good human being.

  10. 15

    Some points:

    Like Gnumann says, all it takes is one sick fuck to think this is a good idea.

    Liberals are wired much differently than their conservative counterparts. You would be hard-pressed to find a murder spree conducted by a liberal. Hell, most aren’t even armed. I shocked my teatard in-laws when I described my rifle as they didn’t think any leftie would own one.

    The pearl-clutching about incivility is getting a bit rich. I would just use the all-round excuse we always get from the Right and claim “it’s just a joke, lighten up.” While the Right is constantly dizzied from its cognative dissonance, this may make the point a bit clearer, though I’m not holding my breath.

    And after watching the “debates” last night, I wouldn’t withhold any criticism of them being blood thirsty; considering how they acted when the death penalty or letting uninsured people die, I think that they deserve more derision, not less.

  11. 16

    “Or, of course, the alternative is to start stockpiling weaponry for the civil war you are apparently okay with hastening.”

    Yes, because video game violence inevitably leads to school shootings, political assassinations, and barbaric bloodshed. If this gives someone the bright idea to go out an attack a politician, they are unhinged to begin with and would more than likely end up hurting someone sooner or later anyway and should be barred from watching anything more mature than Sesame Street.

    This game is harmless, if tasteless, in the hands of anyone with the slightest notion of the difference between fantasy and reality.

  12. KG
    18

    Lost: Jason Thiebault’s sense of humour.

    Last seen leaving home looking unloved, and shouldering a stick to which was tied a pathetic little bundle in a red-spotted handkerchief.

    If found, please return to this blog. Jason’s sense of proportion has also gone missing, and may have accompanied his sense of humour.

  13. 20

    Goodness. Gracious even. We can’t have liberals acting like they were emotional human beings getting more than a little annoyed at conservatives who want to drag the country into being a third world theocracy.

    Quick, bring me my fainting couch and my clutching pearls. Oh, if only some Canadian would verbally chastise these miscreants on a blog, then my life would regain its happiness.

  14. 21

    Brother Yam, the problem with “It’s just a joke” is that it isn’t a joke when they say it. Their “It’s just a joke” is a lie. Plenty of them would kill you if they thought they could get away with it. If you make that kind of joke–and actually mean it to be a joke–you provide cover for those thugs.

  15. 22

    You know, ‘Tis Himself, I don’t really think anyone would get upset about liberals getting upset. In fact, I think an awful lot of people would be thrilled. Discovering that those folks decided the best use of their political outrage was a FPS, on the other hand….

  16. 23

    Really, Erulora? Would you care to interpret your statement accurately for me?

    I find dealing with passive aggressive martyrs more tiring than dealing with teabaggers. What’s hard to understand about that? It says nothing about my priorities, just which one is more taxing to me. Stop reading things into my comments that aren’t there.

  17. 26

    Wow. Who knew the absolutely most controversial thing I could say on this blog is “hey, let’s stop treating each other like inhuman monsters that you have to crowbar in the face to defeat”? I mean, this isn’t even approaching Chris Mooney territory. I want liberals to get active, to get out there and do something useful. To be present in the political dialog. To stop the teabaggers from fucking up your country. I’d just rather “stop them” not involve weaponry. Regardless of whether or not liberals and conservatives are wired differently, which I believe to be true but I’m not willing to bet people’s lives on that. I just want more consistency. That’s all.

    I’m really very sad that, despite all the other things I’ve agreed with you folks on, you’re going to try to cow me into silence on my suggestion that maybe we should apply our issues with violent rhetoric consistently. Perhaps you’d like to call me a wilting lily? Or a traitor to liberalism? Perhaps you’d like to search my blog archives for other signs that I’m not a member of the tribe?

  18. 27

    Well, then it’s very good of you to drag your tired self over here to deal with this crisis at Jason’s blog.

    Yeah, typing comments is hard work. But I was already here, so I figured I’d speak my mind. Now I know that I’m not welcome, I’ll go. Wouldn’t want you to strain your neck looking down your nose at me.

  19. 28

    Yes, because video game violence inevitably leads to school shootings, political assassinations, and barbaric bloodshed. If this gives someone the bright idea to go out an attack a politician, they are unhinged to begin with and would more than likely end up hurting someone sooner or later anyway and should be barred from watching anything more mature than Sesame Street.

    As I type this, Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood is paused on my PS3. It’s a game about murdering Templars, a group of people united by the sign of the cross. We know the difference between fantasy and reality. But if we’re going to complain about violent rhetoric from the right, we should damn well complain about violent rhetoric from the left too.

    What’s interesting is how many people on the right are losing their shit over this game. And in the comment threads, the right-wingers are very much frothing over how they should kill us before we kill them. Or how we’re the real zombies. (Infected directly by George Soros, apparently.) How the hell do you drain this kind of swamp without being the change you want to see?

  20. 29

    You’re welcome to disagree with me. Please don’t call a passive-aggressive martyr on a soapbox though. Especially when you’re not going to call me that when I write a blog post about some shitty thing that a theist does. Consistency is all I ask.

  21. 30

    Erulora, I do try to make sure people are treated the way they demonstrate they think people should be treated. I’m very sorry you found your own behavior mirrored back at you to be so unwelcoming. I hope your neck is okay.

  22. 31

    Especially when you’re not going to call me that when I write a blog post about some shitty thing that a theist does.

    I’d have to time travel to do that – this is the first post on your blog I’ve read. And I only read it because somebody linked me to it. But if it makes you feel better, I promise to never call you that again.

  23. 34

    I was writing a reply in which I was going to disagree with you on the basis that because the targets have been zombified, this makes the game so unrealistic it goes back into the camp of acceptable, but I’ve changed my mind. I think you’re right. Even when it’s obviously fictional, I don’t think shooting games where the targets are politicians are things we ought to approve of.

    In a way, it serves to trivialise the issues. Real people are dying and living lives in pain and oppression because of the policies of the right. Can we really feel better about it by hunting the assholes down in a video game?

    [The preceding is not necessarily a fully considered opinion. I’m just tossing the ideas around in my head.]

  24. 36

    Erulora: I’m sad to see you go, then. It’s a shame that, based on this single post, you’ve both discovered me and decided that I’m not worth reading. I do so hate it when people who never read me tell me I suck and I’m not worth reading.

    Brother Yam @16: You make a lot of excellent points, accusations of pearl-clutching notwithstanding. Since this game already exists, and since they themselves have used the exact phrase “calm down, it’s just a joke” about violent rhetoric, that is of course an excellent way to make their heads spin.

    Doesn’t mean I condone that game in any way. Just means I’d like to see them realize that their discourse is exactly as unacceptable. If they’re going to be pissed about this game, they should damn well be pissed about the other murder fantasies their leaders (e.g. Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin) peddle.

  25. 37

    “But if we’re going to complain about violent rhetoric from the right, we should damn well complain about violent rhetoric from the left too. ”

    Really!? This video is from “The Left”!?

    “client list includes Pepsi, GM , Hasbro, NASCAR, Sears &c.”

    Doesn’t sound particularly leftist to me. This company has no authority, no voice in politics, and no power, why would I care?

    It also sounds like the game was so over the top as to be ludicrous, or a false flag op, or mebbe both.

  26. 38

    Stephanie,

    I realize that “it’s a joke” is a lie with these people. Hence getting them to perhaps (small chance) glimpse at their own hypocrisy.

    It’s funny that the ones that scream that atheists must be killed when one shows up on Fox, now rush for their fainting couch when presented with something else to get offended about. Now there are calls to arms to kill atheists before we kill them. How many comments were there about how this has gotten liberals all fired up for violence?

    “Hey, hitting Michelle Bachmann with a crowbar sounds like a really good idea! Why didn’t I think of that?”

    Please.

  27. 39

    I do so hate it when people who never read me tell me I suck and I’m not worth reading.

    Not exactly what I meant, but I can see how it would come across that way, and I’m sorry. I don’t think you’re entirely wrong in your post. It’s your “pardon me” comments that just really grate on my nerves. And yes, it is passive aggressive. I grew up with that stuff, and I can’t stand it. I will read more of your blog, but I will stop commenting once this conversation has reached its end, because it’s not exactly bringing out the best in me (whatever or wherever that may be).

  28. 40

    There are a number of things that have been said over the years pointing out that consistency isn’t all that. They’re generally right. There comes a point where some of our principles conflict with other principles. This game is, in fact, one of them. How we sort things out then matters.

    No, I do not support capital punishment. A situation that resulted in killing in immediate self-defense might have a different calculus.

  29. 41

    Brother Yam, I applaud the idea, but I think that in order for it to work, you’d have to be dealing with a group of people whose capacity for ignoring cognitive dissonance was somewhere south of infinite. I don’t think the Right qualifies.

  30. 42

    Brother Yam, I applaud the idea, but I think that in order for it to work, you’d have to be dealing with a group of people whose capacity for ignoring cognitive dissonance was somewhere south of infinite. I don’t think the Right qualifies.

    Point taken.

    I hate to sound childish, but when you have people that stubbornly dig in when presented more facts, you have to get the point across somehow and I’m all out of good ideas. Would I be offended if they had a game that presented Obama, Biden, et al as zombies and bashed them? A little, but I wouldn’t be surprised coming from what I’ve seen from these folks.

    I also shouldn’t be surprised about their squealing either. I’m properly embarrased for not expecting it. Still, it’s fun too hear even if they don’t get what they’re complaining about is what their M.O. has been for the past 15-20 years.

  31. 43

    Well Ms Violent Handle there kinda gives away her position before even getting started, doesn’t she?

    It’s not that complicated. If your goal is to gain power at any cost, because you like being on top, why sure, go ahead and throw logic and facts out the door, and jump straight to dehumanizing the other side. It always works, for a while. If you’re lucky it’ll work long enough for you to die still in power. Didn’t work out that way for Hitler or Pol Pot, or Khaddafi, or Louis XIV, but it might for you.

    If on the other hand the goal is to make the world a better place, a good place to start is not making the world worse. I don’t know about you, but what disgusts me the most about the right wing today is that they want to “win” the “war” against radical Islamic terrorism by becoming just like them. They hate our freedom, so we have to get rid of it.

    You can justify becoming what you hate with power differentials or obfuscation or whatever rationalization you want, but it doesn’t change the facts. Dehumanizing groups of people is not the way to a better world.

  32. 45

    Jason,

    Your comments on zombie movies illustrate exactly why this game makes sense on some level:

    “Zombie movies are creepy because you know these slavering monsters were once human beings, and they could very well turn any other human being into one of their numbers.”

    Appropriate or not (and I’m not insisting it is), this is a fairly accurate metaphor for FOX news and its viewers.

    And this:

    “Zombie games are fun because they’re a frantic game of maintenance against an unending horde of enemies — their ceaseless battering against your defenses will eventually cause you to succumb, and it’s just a matter of ammo and time.”

    …is also a good metaphor, for how it feels to deal with seemingly endless supply of Tea-Party politicians and their apparently-immune-to-reason followers.

    And to stretch the analogy a bit further, the whole “zombies eating brains” meme is a damn good metaphor for “destroying people’s minds” in more mundane ways: misinformation, scape-goating and fear-mongering are all tools used by FOX and the TEA party to short-circuit rational thinking.

    Maybe you’re right; depicting Bachmann and Palin as zombies to be mercilessly slaughtered is possibly going to far. OTOH, if there’s a “zombie Anne Coulter” in this game, I might have to check it out anyways….

  33. 46

    “I’d just rather “stop them” not involve weaponry.”
    In this case, it didn’t. It involved pixels of weaponry and a keyboard. How many action movies do we see where the evil, greedy corporate tycoon gets his comeuppance in a spectacular fireball? Novels where backstabbing politicians grab for power and are brought low by the hero who hails from the disenfranchised, and is engulfed by an angry mob? Songs that decry government actions and call out to the listeners to rise up and not let themselves be bullied by the government any longer?
    In how many of those villainous masterminds are thinly veiled stand-ins for real-world people? Same concept, different media. Zombie movies themselves have a penchant for making a zombie look like some famous person and having them take a shotgun to the face.

    “How the hell do you drain this kind of swamp without being the change you want to see?”
    As jaded as it’s going to make me sound, you don’t. You have to hope and pray (well, maybe not pray) that these people don’t get it “their way” on election day, and hope some of the swamp water evaporates away. To “drain the swamp” requires reasonable people on both sides, and I’ve yet to see anything to make me think there’s anything reasonable about the tea party.

    I’ve never complained about violent rhetoric from the right, personally. It’s only when outright death threats are made that I feel the urge to complain (and report, if applicable). Unless the tea partiers actually DO turn into zombies, this game most certainly is not a death threat or call to take up arms.

    PS:
    Maybe it’s just a Canadian lost-in-translation thing, I have a friend from Alberta who sometimes does this, but a couple of your replies did seem to come off with some kind of martyr complex.

  34. 48

    For the record, I don’t disagree with anything Neon@45 said.

    Erulora@48: I don’t think anyone’s freaking out over the ‘nym, but you know, a name like that does suggest that the holder of said name is predisposed to violence. It’s not like the name was handed to her, or she picked it in a vacuum.

    Chris@46: I guess it’s all a matter of where your lines are drawn. Yeah, there’s a line that’s crossed when you directly advocate violence against a specific person (e.g. Glenn Beck fantasizing about poisoning Nancy Pelosi), that is not actually crossed by this game. However, a different line is crossed — one where the person you disagree with, is classified as an inhuman monster. Where you prioritize one line over the other is a subjective matter, I guess.

  35. 49

    a name like that does suggest that the holder of said name is predisposed to violence

    Really? I would never make that leap. I’d be more inclined to think it’s a florist who thinks of xirself as “da bomb” and is just trying to be clever.

  36. 50

    I dunno. That’s about as many times removed as most cockney rhyming slang. It’s possible that’s why she picked the name, but if so, maybe she should have a disclaimer someplace indicating such.

    I’m just saying, if I walked into a feminist forum with the name “Privileged White Male who Enjoys Having Sex with Women”, even though every part of that statement is true, and even though I’m a dedicated feminist, I could expect some backlash based solely on that name. It’s not irrational to take cues from a person’s chosen ‘nym as to how they wish to present themselves.

Comments are closed.