Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

72% of Xbox 360 Gamers Approve of "More Military Drone Strikes"

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the ok-but-what-about-pepsi-drinkers? dept.

The Military 446

An anonymous reader writes "During the latest presidential debate, Xbox 360 owners were being polled live, as the debate was progressing, on a number of different questions, and asked to answer 'Yes,' 'No,' or 'Don't Know' using their gamepad. Out of these questions, one particular question produced a surprising result: Xbox 360 owners were asked 'Do you support more use of drone aircraft to attack suspected terrorists?' 20% answered this question with 'No'. 8% answered 'Don't know.' And a whopping 72% answered the question 'Yes.' This raises an interesting question in and of itself: Is the average Xbox 360 player at all aware that drone strikes in countries like Pakistan cause a serious number of civilian deaths on a regular basis? Or do Xbox 360 gamers live in a parallel, game-inspired universe, where a real world 'Drone Strike' is something seriously cool, just like it is cool to use it in popular games like Call of Duty? In other words, does playing simulated war games like COD on a game console on a daily basis, and enjoying these games, cause gamers to become blinkered to the at times seriously dire real world consequences of using military tactics like drone strikes for real?"

cancel ×

446 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Or... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764731)

Or, perhaps they feel using a drone to make an attack, rather than risking American soldiers, is the better choice?

Re:Or... (4, Insightful)

Squiddie (1942230) | about 2 years ago | (#41764823)

We should also consider the fact that gamers are not exactly a monolithic group. There's a lot of twelve year olds that scream bitch at you when they beat you. I doubt this has anything to do with the game and more with the baseline of the gamer group. Ask a group of children the same question and you'll get similar answers.

Re:Or... (2)

TokedUp (2760375) | about 2 years ago | (#41765011)

WTF? Kids sitting still for longer than 20 minutes, watching a presidential debate, AND take part in a political poll.

Re:Or... (1)

Squiddie (1942230) | about 2 years ago | (#41765117)

Or manchildren.

Re:Or... (5, Interesting)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41764979)

It probably didn't help that that question was more loaded than an Irishman at a wake on St. Patrick's Day. If you ask "Do you support doing X to attack suspected terrorists?" you could pretty much get at least a two-thirds majority no matter WHAT the "X" in question was.

Re:Or... (4, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41765041)

Which is why the article mentions, but glosses over during their tirade, that other polls have shown 62% support on a similar question to the general population. That the difference is only 10% from a biased sampling is quite interesting.

Re:Or... (2, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41765223)

Which makes them fucked up.. The key word is 'suspected', not confirmed or any other hard evidence. These strikes are murder. There is no other way to describe it.

Remember, these are the same people who think the 1st Amendment goes too far [firstamendmentcenter.org] ... We see it in practice with the press's timidity on the issue. Fascism permeates...

Re:Or... (0, Insightful)

Simon Brooke (45012) | about 2 years ago | (#41765003)

Or, perhaps they feel using a drone to make an attack, rather than risking American soldiers, is the better choice?

So it's OK to kill women and children, provided they're dark skinned, far away, and can't shoot back?

Re:Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765113)

Or, perhaps they feel using a drone to make an attack, rather than risking American soldiers, is the better choice?

So it's OK to kill women and children, provided they're dark skinned, far away, and can't shoot back?

YES! have you not been watching Fox News?

Re:Or... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765151)

Yes, yes, it's all racism and you are so pure and caring. Could you shit out a rainbow for us this fine morning?

Re:Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765153)

...as opposed to light-skinned, nearby, and can shoot back? I think I'll go with the former.

Re:Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765193)

From the "let's not get OUR SOLDIERS killed" perspective, it's perfectly reasonable.

From the "let's make friends there so they stop being nasty to us" angle, not so much.

Then again, asking a cloud of xbox players to come up with foreign policy isn't maybe the best idea. Then then again again, letting people with heavy military-industrial commercial interests make same hasn't turned out so great either.

Maybe the US citizenry is just as thirsty for power as any random crackpot dictator, yet also deathly afraid of blood (that's "being civilised" means, right?), only this time they're calling it democracy. Or was that republicanism? I never can tell.

Re:Or... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765217)

Oh lawd, suh. I is so glad you cares about us lowly Negroes. We would be so lost without you taking us on as your white burden.

Re:Or... (3, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#41765039)

With the constant "civilian shielding" enemies use. I would say that both are difficult, but one in particular does not put American soldiers at risk and in stressful and frustrating situations.
Drone attacks may cause civilian casualties, but then so do terrorists.
I dont see one good solution here.

Re:Or... (4, Insightful)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#41765149)

I dont see one good solution here.

How about going home?

Re:Or... (4, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 2 years ago | (#41765191)

I dont see one good solution here.

How about not being in Afghanistan or any other Middle East country in the first place?

Re:Or... (2)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about 2 years ago | (#41765081)

Or, perhaps they feel using a drone to make an attack, rather than risking American soldiers, is the better choice?

This. I watched one of the debates through xbl, the questions and available answers are trash.

People watching the debates through xbl (and voting) were also overwhelmingly liberal, so it's not as though they were just stereotypical right wing warhawks, itching to bomb everything in sight.

So yes, I expect the result on that very informal survey mirrors my own opinion on the subject. Put as few Americans in harms way as possible. That doesn't mean I want innocent people to die.

Re:Or... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765229)

Or, perhaps they feel using a drone to make an attack, rather than risking American soldiers, is the better choice?

...well, it's certainly a better choice better for us Americans, I'll give you that.

Not so sure about the people who get to live in places where a couple missiles rain from the sky every so often.

Fortunately for us Americans, their lives matter far less to us than our own, so that makes the fact that we keep accidentally killing them with missiles easier to stomach.

Nice leading question (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764737)

The more correct question is "Are civilian deaths lower from drone strikes than from conventional military action?"

Re:Nice leading question (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765087)

An even more correct question would be "Do approve of the executions of suspects prior to due course of law and a conviction?"

Why are we killing SUSPECTS exactly?

Re:Nice leading question (4, Insightful)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41765091)

The more correct question is "Are civilian deaths lower from drone strikes than from conventional military action?"

No - the more correct question is - why are 12-year-old boys being polled about American military policy? I think you would have gotten a similar 72% positive response to the question: "Should America's President be a 9th degree Ninja warrior with high-power rifle and demolition skills instead of a businessman or lawyer?"

WTF?? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764741)

What a horrible summary for one, and two, how the fuck is this news????

Re:WTF?? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764765)

News? It's intentionally inflammatory linkbait.

Re:WTF?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765133)

Oh, if you think the summery is bad, you should read TFA. Let me give you a few choice quotes:

"This widespread support comes regardless of the well-documented fact that drone strikes have been shown to kill way more innocent civilians than suspected terrorists. Pakistan’s Interior Minister Rehman Malik recently stated that up to eight out of 10 people killed by drone strikes in his country are innocent, meaning only a mere 20 percent can even be deemed militants. Other estimates show that 50 civilians have to die for every single militant killed in a strike."

"up to" I love that phrase.

"Note that the word “militant” is nothing but propaganda considering Obama redefined it to mean “all military-age males in a strike zone.” These people are blanket classified as “militants” even though our government officials may literally know nothing more about them than age and gender."

"May literally" this leaves much room for "May metaphorically." Ofcourse when you take the two comments together that leads to a female:male ratio of somewhere around 10:1. (given a lot of room for young, old, and infirm males)

"There was a time when killing innocent people was considered “murder”; now it’s simply chalked up to “collateral damage” without a second thought. There are no checks and balances. No one is punished for innocent lives lost."

Care to speculate when that was? based on the civilian casualty numbers from the first world war, it certainly was before 1914.

On second thought, dont bother. The article isn't worth the paper is wasn't printed on.

Perhaps (5, Insightful)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about 2 years ago | (#41764757)

The gamers understand it's unrealistic to expect civilians not to get killed, and the best that you can really do in any war is to not go out of your way to kill them like the Nazi's did.

Re:Perhaps (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#41764907)

A fact that they learned after getting a 5 kill streak...

Re:Perhaps (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764949)

This word "war"...?

* What are the objectives of this "war"?
* What do you have to achieve to be able to say you've won it?
* How far along are you towards achieving that goal, if it all?
* Is this just another political "war on...XXX" thing (except that they're killing people as well as spending trillions)?

Re:Perhaps (5, Informative)

royallthefourth (1564389) | about 2 years ago | (#41764951)

That's your stupid fucking opinion, but here's the facts:

"The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html [cnn.com]

Re:Perhaps (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765023)

Also- notice the word "suspected" in there?! Do we really think it's ok to just drone bomb anyone "suspected" of being a terrorist? Fuck man, reading slashdot probably makes plenty of people in the military suspect you of being a terrorist.

Re:Perhaps (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 2 years ago | (#41765127)

Interesting. Although I consider myself to be well read, I was not aware of those figures. That article you linked to also has a couple different studies in it. One says 2% of those killed are high value targets, another says 11% of those killed are civilians or not known to be terrorists. Which one of those you believe would highly influence your opnion on these strikes.

Re:Perhaps (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765115)

Go USA! -We're not as bad as the Nazis!

As an xbox 360 owner who doesnt live in the USA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764759)

I can tell you I take this kind of thing very seriously and nobody would just click on the funniest option.

American politics are idiodic dogshit.

That's pretty suspicious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764763)

I am starting to suspect those players of being in favor of the use of violence in order to advance a political agenda. Should we send in drones to attack these suspected terrorists?

72% For Obama (2)

zidium (2550286) | about 2 years ago | (#41764767)

I watched all four debates on XBox Live.

Every single time a question came up like

        Have you already decided who you want to vote for?
          Definitely [ 80% ] No [ 15% ] Not Really [ 5% ]

        Will you vote for Obama or Romney?
          Obama [ 72% ] Romney [ 23%] Not Sure [ 5%]

It was like that on every question, every debate. SO that's the audience we're talking about.

Re:72% For Obama (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764875)

Given his record, a vote for Obama is a vote for more drone strikes. And I'm guessing a vote for Romney is also a vote for more drone strikes.

Re:72% For Obama (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#41765007)

Right, people who don't think electricity and technology are magic spawned by the (literal) devil lean obama, and they're the xbox crowd. But even then, when both major parties agree that drone strike are in some form or another are the way to go, it's hard to see how anyone would expect the american public to be wildly out of step with that.

Drones are relatively new, and their spillover effects aren't apparent, the nonsense of how 'Civilian' vs 'combatant' deaths are counted with drone strikes (anyone near a terrorist is a terrorist) is a newer policy than drone strikes, and is mostly hurting a bunch of tribal guys in pakistan, it's not at all obvious to the average person, let alone xbox gamer, how this could end up being a bad thing. Even people who at least somewhat understand the risks of drone strikes can have the view that 'Pakistan harboured bin laden' and well, so might view pissing off the pakistani's as one of the benefits rather than a negative (I might disagree, but people could easily have that view).

I suspect if you hit the Xbox age group 15-40, mostly male, but semi-affluent (enough to afford a high def TV and Xbox 360) they probably lean obama anyway - Romney's demographic is angry old white people who believe the devil is real, or extremely rich people who think they should be more extremely rich, and that's just not the video gamer demographic.

Re:72% For Obama (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 2 years ago | (#41765045)

I watched all four debates on XBox Live.

Why watch on XBox Live? I'm assuming in addition to the XBox, a television is required to do this. And once you have the television, the XBox is unnecessary. Is your XBox connected to a monitor that doesn't receive OTA signals? Do you do it for the interactive aspect (polls)? Just curious.

And while I'm here...wow, that article was awful. I generally agree the USA shouldn't be regularly bombing countries without a declaration of war and the president shouldn't be keeping a "kill list," but the article includes what I consider to be extraordinary claims with no citations or support.

Re:72% For Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765055)

Maybe those answers were mapped to the shoot button.

Re:72% For Obama (3, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#41765197)

Will you vote for Obama or Romney?
                    Obama [ 72% ] Romney [ 23%] Not Sure [ 5%]

Where's the "Neither Of Those Assholes" option?

Need to make a comparison, not absolute judgment. (3, Insightful)

concealment (2447304) | about 2 years ago | (#41764789)

Regarding drone strikes on terrorists, we need to know what our other options are:

1. Let the terrorists live.
2. Send in a SEAL team to kidnap them.
3. Assassinate them by some other means.

Would these create more civilian deaths?

Is it worth taking civilian deaths on our side, through terrorism, to avoid civilians deaths on the other side?

Despite all the pretense of morality, voters are going to side with sending screaming death down upon these people if there's a chance that some of our people are going to get killed.

Re:Need to make a comparison, not absolute judgmen (2)

Terry Pearson (935552) | about 2 years ago | (#41764957)

Is it worth taking civilian deaths on our side, through terrorism, to avoid civilians deaths on the other side?

Civilians, by nature should be valued as equally as possible. Obviously, a state's military has a duty to their own citizens, but I think we should find a way to avoid civilian deaths on each side. It is not their fight. Their children didn't ask for this. As decent human beings, it is our duty to prevent harm to civilians on either side.

Re:Need to make a comparison, not absolute judgmen (5, Insightful)

omfgnosis (963606) | about 2 years ago | (#41765053)

4. Determine the conditions that inspire people to become—or, more importantly, support—violent extremists who threaten us and our values, and mitigate or eliminate those conditions.

Most people have the good sense to support that option, especially in recognizing that those conditions themselves fundamentally threaten our values as well, if it's presented as an option. It's so far from the dominant discourse that we end up facing the false choice you've presented.

Re:Need to make a comparison, not absolute judgmen (2)

Simon Brooke (45012) | about 2 years ago | (#41765105)

Is it worth taking civilian deaths on our side, through terrorism, to avoid civilians deaths on the other side?

These civilian deaths are not 'on the other side'. They're innocent bystanders. Further, killing them is extremely unlikely to diminish terrorism; it's far more likely to encourage terrorism. It's not just immoral, it's also stupid.

Loaded question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764793)

This is a loaded question. I'm quite anti-military but taken at face value I could answer this question with an honest yes. Do I support more use of drone attacks against suspected terrorists? Sure, if it prevents troops being deployed in a ground war. Absolutely, assuming they are actual terrorists.

At the surface it seems a positive thing, similar to less than lethal options for law enforcement. In practice though I expect that like less than lethal weaponry the positives will be used to justify increases and result in itchy tazer trigger finger syndrome. In practice I find it hard to trust the intelligence. In practice I can't ignore the civilian casualties.

Load questions much? (3, Insightful)

singingjim1 (1070652) | about 2 years ago | (#41764797)

Geezuz....no agenda in this "news" story. How about it's because gamers know the efficacy vs. collateral damage of drone strikes and accept the numbers? Genuis whoever approved this as a /. story. It's going to be the hottest topic of the day probably.

Lets stop this right now (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | about 2 years ago | (#41764809)

The whole "Video games make you violent" debate was squashed in the 90s. Lets leave it dead. I suggest that people who play xbox 360 are in general more pro military than most. I don't want to make a stereotype here, but we all know what the xbox stereotype is: a 16-24 year old "bro" who is libertarian, holds slightly sexist views, and is pro military. Maybe there is some truth in that stereotype.

If your views are not popular opinion... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#41764811)

Then it must be the popular opinion is wrong.

Drone attacks are not perfect. However it is better than having our soldiers in harms ways doing the attacks. Or would you prefer these terrorist organizations to flourish and grow and get better organized again?

The biggest question is the fear of the US dones creating more terrorist then we are killing? That is a tough call.

Re:If your views are not popular opinion... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764933)

If we legalize terrorism it wont' be such a problem anymore.

Re:If your views are not popular opinion... (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#41765107)

Then it must be the popular opinion is wrong.

Drone attacks are not perfect. However it is better than having our soldiers in harms ways doing the attacks. Or would you prefer these terrorist organizations to flourish and grow and get better organized again?

The biggest question is the fear of the US dones creating more terrorist then we are killing? That is a tough call.

Soldiers are not perfect. However, it's better to put the lives of our beloved young soldiers in harms way doing the attacks. Or would you prefer having even less of an incentive to maintain peace by reducing the price of war? To me it's far better to see the news broadcast about one of our local "heroes" who died in the war vs a footnote about the on going remote controlled attacks on far away lands. To me the cost of war should be felt as powerful as possible on both sides -- It should be nothing less than insufferable.

What is a terrorist but a surgical strike intended to do the most damage and strike fear into the enemy at the least cost to the overall effort? You would have us swap places in our "War on Terror" and become the robotic terrorists of the world.

need better drones then (2)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 years ago | (#41765135)

if you level a building with a drone or with an A-10 it does not matter if the building in question has "civilians" in it.

drones at least can be lost without needing rather long term (and expensive) build processes.

the ideal drone should be able to "redact" a single building and leave the surrounding buildings intact.

Self preservation explains it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764821)

Most of these gamers are probably not too old to serve in the military, whether by draft or choice. Using more drones means they personally are much less likely to be in the line of fire. So, duh, 70% prefer that idea.

Oversimplification. (1)

MaerD (954222) | about 2 years ago | (#41764825)

The question about "ignoring dire real world consequences" is a gross oversimplification.

I think if you talked to most of those who support drone strikes they probably see this as an alternative to sending flesh and blood troops to try and deal with the situation. Even sending a traditional plane puts a soldier in potential harm's way. To most people "Use drones instead, they are expendable" is an easy answer.

Most people are not going to weigh "are we hitting the right targets, have we caused collateral damage?" they are going to look at it as "Are we risking the lives of people who are on Our Side(TM, patent pending)"
 

Re:Oversimplification. (1)

slim (1652) | about 2 years ago | (#41764881)

The question about "ignoring dire real world consequences" is a gross oversimplification.

I think if you talked to most of those who support drone strikes they probably see this as an alternative to sending flesh and blood troops to try and deal with the situation. Even sending a traditional plane puts a soldier in potential harm's way. To most people "Use drones instead, they are expendable" is an easy answer.

Speaking of oversimplification... Is it the case that the potential danger to "our" people is something that puts the brakes on our instinct to blow up more of "them"?

Missed the point Dpt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764847)

Perhaps it just shows that the 360 users understand it would be better to sit in a bunker (or at home on the couch) where it's relatively more safe to send air attacks, regardless of who is hurt.

XBOX Live Drone Strike (4, Funny)

puddingebola (2036796) | about 2 years ago | (#41764849)

XBOX Live is pleased to offer a new real time, real world game, "Drone Strike." In an innovative and wonderful new partnership with the Pentagon and US Military, gamers will now be able to pilot real drones on real actual strikes, killing real actual people. The first game of its kind, now you can help your country by helping the Pentagon cut costs through outsourcing, and experience the thrill of remote controlled combat at the same time. Only $9.99 on XBOX Live.

Re:XBOX Live Drone Strike (2)

rogueippacket (1977626) | about 2 years ago | (#41765075)

Yeah, I'm getting a real creepy Ender's Game vibe here. Of course, you could never tell the children that they are using real drones - they would start to ask questions, and maybe even attack friendly targets. Just have the game give the most consistently skilled pilots a small chance to pilot a real drone (presented in a manner as to not break the fourth wall), and nobody will ever know. Ugh, it's creepy because it's not that far-fetched...

Problem with the question? (0)

KBentley57 (2017780) | about 2 years ago | (#41764857)

Asking the "Do you support more use of drone aircraft to attack suspected terrorists?" against what was probably a large group of 15-22 year old males, is probably why the results are misleading. It's a loaded question. Of course they would respond with "yes". A better question would have been "Do you support taking military action, which may result in untold civilian murder, against alleged terrorists?, and if so, what is your banks routing number?" The results would surely have been more swayed towards no. An even better question would have been "In the event of a government sponsord asassination, which results in X deaths, who is to be held responsible for those X deaths, and if no evidence of malice is found on behalf of (X-Y) victims, what should the punishment of the government be?" There are way too many hidden variables in this type of question to take any valid results away from a poll like this.

Maybe... (1)

luckymutt (996573) | about 2 years ago | (#41764859)

Jack Thompson was right!

/ducks

Poll not taken seriously. (2)

vovick (1397387) | about 2 years ago | (#41764865)

They don't expect people to give insightful answers while sitting on a couch and holding a gamepad which was used to shoot people's heads off probably just an hour ago, do they? This, and probably just a dash of the good ol' American ignorance.

Needs more context (3, Insightful)

mooingyak (720677) | about 2 years ago | (#41764867)

Do most of the Xbox poll questions come anywhere near other polling on each topic? If not, is their an observable leaning? Is that lean towards liberal views, conservative views, just plain 'Yes', or something else? Are they just way off in all sorts of random directions?

And once you've got all that covered, how does that 72% compare to polling on the same topic done by other polling methods?

Re:Needs more context (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41764953)

62% of the US general population support the same thing as the question here. So the results aren't that far off considering the biased sample.

Games don't have many civilians (5, Interesting)

phorm (591458) | about 2 years ago | (#41764879)

How many military-esque games have civilians (particularly in multi-player mode)?
In any of the games I've played where drones etc were an option, it's just "your team" (good guys) and the "other team" (bad guys).
A drone strike/airstrike/satellite bombardment/etc only hurt military characters. Heck, on many settings you don't even get friendly-fire.

Is your average gamer going to know what a real drone strike is like? Probably not. Accompany the poll with some documentation + pictures of mangled civilians and see if what approval rate you get.

Re:Games don't have many civilians (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765205)

You should try Spec Ops: The Line

Deaths (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764883)

> drone strikes in countries like Pakistan cause a serious number of civilian deaths

And terrorists also cause a serious number of civilian deaths.

Uneducated (1)

Mordermi (2432580) | about 2 years ago | (#41764891)

It is probably due to most of the 72% not being educated and basing their knowledge from video games. I am a gamer myself, and have play a lot of COD, but I disagree with any tactic that causes civilian casualties on a regular basis. Is it the fault of the games? I think not. I would hope that the 72% consists mainly of 14 year old kids who just think it's cool to call in a predator missile, and not voting adults that are clueless to real world consequences of such actions.

Re:Uneducated (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41764995)

Or because of the biased sample the percentage is higher than the general population which was 62% in its support. But that clearly couldn't be the explanation. *rolls eyes*

The entire generation (1)

techstar25 (556988) | about 2 years ago | (#41764893)

We will have an entire generation where all of their knowledge of the military comes from playing video games, and so their opinion of war, fighting, etc. is going to reflect that.

They are young (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764895)

Most of these gamers are probably around 15 years old, and have no concept of what life is like outside of their own little bubble in their parents house. Their minds are not yet completely formed, and they probably don't watch the news all that much because news is boring to kids.
For the majority of them, their opinions will probably change somewhat as they get older.

Re:They are young (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#41765111)

Average gamer is in their 30s.

*BUZZ*

Wow.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764897)

That article doesn't even attempt to be objective.

Tl;Dr: Author believes drone strikes are wrong, that our government redefined the term militant so that drone strikes will statistically have less collateral damage. Also, Xbox users by inference are hawkish ignorant trigger happy gamers. Btw, turns out the Xbox polling number isn't so far off from the national polling number.

Aren't drones and collateral damage, orthogonal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764899)

Is the average Xbox 360 player at all aware that drone strikes in countries like Pakistan cause a serious number of civilian deaths on a regular basis?

I'm not familiar with Xbox 360 games, but do many of them have friendly fire? Do the higher-level strategy war games (are there games like that, on consoles?) model civilian casualties? It might be that console gamers don't know drones can do collateral damage, but it also might be that they know that other forms of warfare have collateral damage too.

It's not like "replace the drones with B-29s loaded with incendiary bombs and send 'em to Tokyo" is a smarter alternative, and I'm pretty sure there were at least a hundred thousand Iraqi deaths in the 1991 war, where drones played essentially no important part. (2003 is less clear to me, someone else pipe in about that one.)

Most Gamers are Male. (1)

mat690 (2568981) | about 2 years ago | (#41764915)

Most gamers are male that may have something to do with the support for a more aggressive action.

Re:Most Gamers are Male. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765173)

Using drones is more aggressive than sending in the army?

Which button was Yes? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764919)

I bet close to 72% hit whatever button they normally use to acknowledge some popup in order to get to their game/netflix. I'm betting it was either A or X. Put "yes" on left button and you'll have vastly different results.

Re:Which button was Yes? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41765069)

I was wondering the same thing, although I gather these questions were asked of those who were actively watching the debate via Xbox Live. If they were wise, they would randomise which answer was on which button. But still, the question is one that could be asked in a number of ways and is wide open to inference. It's not like "Will you vote for Obama or Romney?"

SO FUCKING WHAT? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764925)

Who cares what these assholes think?

Wrapping my head around this one, folks (1)

American AC in Paris (230456) | about 2 years ago | (#41764943)

So a bunch of people who play near-photorealistic games of combat simulation, wherein rewards are meted out based on one's ability to kill brutally and/or efficiently, hold favorable views of their pastime's real-world analog?

Goodness me. I think I need to sit down.

I don't believe this is Scientific Enough (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | about 2 years ago | (#41764969)

The only people in that poll are 360 users who choose to watch the debate on their XBox and not just over the regular broadcast. People who didn't want to be bothered by random questions during the debate ether didn't answer, or watched it on broadcast. The given response isn't that far out of line with the US Population ether, or at least the Republican population of the US like in this [talkingpointsmemo.com] talking points memo poll where 74% approve of drone strikes. The summery is clearly written by an anti-military nut job who believes that their view is the one held by the majority when the truth is clearly pointing and laughing at them.

Which answer was selected by default? (1)

Luuseens (1422579) | about 2 years ago | (#41764989)

Makes me wonder: which answer was selected by default? Were the Yes/No answers equally randomized, or was "Yes" initially selected by default, and people just clicked "Ok" to get rid of the question?

Trench Warfare was wayyy better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764997)

Yeah, we should go back to fighting in jungles and plains, in trenches and holes....oh wait, then tons of farmers get raped, robbed, and killed...

Drone strikes just make sense in the type of fight we have today.

Ever asked a troop member what it is like? You can clear a building on the ground, move to the next, and the get attacked from the building you just cleared!!!

Asking on a game platform. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41764999)

There is no friendly fire in COD, so drone strikes are super effective. If you could get killed by your team-mates with these, I think the numbers would skew the other way. if you pose the question "should we restrict sniper rifle usage to close range no-scope 360s" im guessing that you would get a resounding yes.

Serious number of civilian deaths? (1)

CQDX (2720013) | about 2 years ago | (#41765009)

If you are sitting in a hide out with or travelling in a caravan with a known terrorist, are you truly a "civilian"?

So (2)

koan (80826) | about 2 years ago | (#41765013)

Modify the game to show photos of actual war casualties, so every time you shoot someone in COD or BF you get a photo of a bullet mangled corpse, or if you use a UAV or other weapon you get real photos of blood and guts.

I'm amazed at how powerful television and video games can be as teaching tools, it's just a shame what we are teaching most of the time.

In related news... (2)

ShaunC (203807) | about 2 years ago | (#41765021)

72% of Xbox 360 Gamers are about 12 years old, full of raging hormones, and love yelling "YEAH MOTHERFUCKER I PWNZ J00" at their fellow gamers. What the heck would anyone expect from such a poll?

Drone strikes are essential (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765057)

...when fighting guerilla tactics.

The USA (and allies) are fighting guerilla forces using a conventional army. They are not allowed to hide behind civilians, leave unattended bombs in the road or use children as unwitting suicide bombers. They have to be in plain sight and wear uniforms. There are no rules of engagement for the Taliban.

Although civilian casualties occur and it's a tragedy every time an innocent life is lost, the Taliban over report every drone strike as killing scores of innocent people regardless of whether that is true or not, because they know they desperately need to stop drone strikes. Every Taliban killed while attacking a foreign soldier can be martyred but not so when a foreign machine kills them first.

In other news (1)

mesri (993588) | about 2 years ago | (#41765061)

Slashdot commenters approve of the use of drone strikes over other options...

The difference between sympathy and empathy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765063)

You would also have to ask the question how much does the potential for foreign civilian casualties matter when compared to the perceived lower risk to American military personnel.

Trolling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765073)

How many were just trolling? It's not a new thing on the Internet.

Blinkered (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765079)

Blowing up civilians is like, extra points right?!?

Hanging chad^H^H^H^H X button (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#41765089)

Is the average Xbox 360 player at all aware that drone strikes in countries like Pakistan cause a serious number of civilian deaths on a regular basis? Or do Xbox 360 gamers live in a parallel, game-inspired universe, where a real world 'Drone Strike' is something seriously cool, just like it is cool to use it in popular games like Call of Duty?

Or a bunch of people, a lot of them kids, gave some bullshit answer? Awesomely scientific survey there. Did they massage the numbers with four year out of date voting patterns like the big boy polling outfits?

Versus How Many Non-Gamers? (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 2 years ago | (#41765099)

Last poll I heard had a pretty significant majority of people (Gamer or not) in favor of drone strikes. The submitter is making a big deal out of the fact it's gamers, but in reality it's probably not that statistically different than what the majority of Americans think.

If they are not Americans they are not real people (5, Insightful)

lxs (131946) | about 2 years ago | (#41765101)

I remember an online discussion I had about the Collateral Murder video. This guy took the stance that the civilians killed shouldn't be in a war zone. When I tried to convey the idea that the war zone came to their homes by asking my counterpart to imagine Chinese helicopters circling his neighborhood shooting American civilians (in precisely these terms), he accused me of distorting the argument by bringing emotion into it.

Apparently empathy for people from a different part of the world is in short supply with some people. Especially online.

Truth be told, I'm as guilty of this as the next person. When I read about shooting sprees in the US, I don't really care beyond the sensational aspects. I should, but I don't.

Natural correlation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765123)

Video game players like video game wars.

Maybe 72% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765155)

Just want to kill more fucking terrorists

So, I guess everyone has to agree with your view? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765169)

This raises an interesting question in and of itself: Is the average Xbox 360 player at all aware that drone strikes in countries like Pakistan cause a serious number of civilian deaths on a regular basis?

So, as I understand it, your point of view (we should stop drone strikes) is the one and only valid opinion?
Because, as far as I can tell, everyone who disagrees with you is either: uninformed, stupid, or calloused?

Have you considered that, maybe, just maybe, there are educated people out there who happen to believe that the civilian casualties are worth saving the lives of our soldiers.

This post is a massively biased piece of shit. I'm not used to seeing things so clearly biased on Slashdot.

Democracy means a lot more than voting (1)

RichMan (8097) | about 2 years ago | (#41765177)

Polls like this are a waste of time. They are more a measure of media's impact than actual informed intent over issues.

This is where all attempts at direct democracies and most democracies fail. Democracy requires an educated and informed population. And media campaigns are usually have negative impacts on proper and balanced information.

Good little Nazis, these gamers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765181)

Anyone with a brain knows that the US is engaged in wars of aggression
against countries which have NOT attacked the US, in order to secure
access to resources which are found in the countries which are under attack
by the US.

Support our troops ? Why ? Because they are serving our masters who
become ever more wealthy at our expense ?

What a joke it all is, and most of you are too god damned stupid to even
realize what is really going on.

Thought this was a great question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765227)

This question shocked me. I was watching the debates on xbox because of the interactive polling feature. This question fell somewhere near a question on 'Do you support the use of military against US citizens suspected of being a terrorist'.... Right when this drone question came up i got flashbacks of terminators, skynet, and drones patrolling burnt out city streets. Normally I consider myself to be highly conservative and a hawk on pretty much all foreign policy issues but for this question i chose "No"... still feel weird about it because at least half of me is thinking damn right drones are pretty cool... the other half is warning me not to trust any of these assholes with a weapon that can be automated so easily.

The poster's legs must be tired... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765231)

...from jumping to conclusions.

"In other words, does playing simulated war games like COD on a game console on a daily basis, and enjoying these games, cause gamers to become blinkered to the at times seriously dire real world consequences of using military tactics like drone strikes for real?"

How does someones answer to the poll question directly relate to what game(s) they are playing? How does their enjoyment factor in?

"Well I didn't enjoy it when I played CoD, but I voted for more drone strikes, so that means I'm aware of the dire real world consequences of using drones."

Not sure why I bothered wasting my time responding to this troll's bait. That or they have no idea on how flawed their assertions are about the respondents based on an Xbox live poll response.

could be 100% if (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41765235)

The option was to send in Master Chief

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?