Atkinson Says You Don't Need to Impale People

[Daedalus1942]

Seriously, it doesn't matter what you give a violent person, they'd still be a violent person if you gave them a kite (to more or less quote Dylan Moran).
And if he's so worried about degenerates being inspired by violent images, why does he allow violent media in at all, should he not do something like ban all violent/sexual/mildly-sweary media?

I'm sure a media mogul would have him assassinated post-haste, but if he really has such convictions, he would not be as hypocritical as he's being.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say he doesn't have these convictions and that he has an ulterior motive for doing this, though I've no idea what it is.

Yeah I agree. I think it's nothing to do with protecting children or being righteous. I personally think he's got some other agenda or vendetta against us, and I want to know what his motives are, because he's wrong on all fronts. But he's such a moron, he doesn't seem to grasp the fact that he's a hypocritical imbecile who has no idea how to do his job effectively.

 

[machineiv]

Before video games there was art, drama, literature, theatre, plays, the Colosseum, mock fights, etc, ad nausm.

In short, escapism in all its various forms, both active involvement and passive observation.

And throughout history, we've had plenty of art, drama, literature, et cetera that didn't involve antisocial fantasy. Go figure.

Although, going back to his original argument, I'll take it as a compliment. He said that we haven't evolved out of our violent tendencies. I apparently have evolved further than he had. I have no inclination to kill or hurt people. In fact, I detest violence. If I don't have video games, I don't resort to murder.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Eh, this is all old news to me.

If you've spent any time either in Australia, talking to Australians or checking out a website about Australia and gaming (like Australian Gamer, an excellent site), you've come across Jack Thompson's craziness. If you want to really see how strangely his brain works, check out one of his interviews, like his Gamespot interview.

Anyway, punishing the majority for what the minority does is blatantly unfair.

 

[Daedalus1942]

He is even worse than Jack Tompson....

Somewhere out there, Jack Thompson is having an orgasm over the censorship Atkinson is bringing, when it comes to games.

Ever notice how the trend seems to ONLY be banning popular games (Left4Dead, MW2, AvP?) while ones that aren't popular slip completely under they're radar. Am I the only one who's noticed that? It really is bullshit the way he's running the oflc.

 

[ZehGeek]

This is why I hate politics...and law makers...and government in general. They fail to grasp what we mean by "introduce an 18/R rating" and Australians will need to vote him out. (He can get voted out right?)

I hope, or atleast he gets the idea of there won't be a idiot out there going to impale someone.
-Like I said before, atleast in my opinion, most law makers and politicans don't understand much of the "real world". Alot of them were probably rasied in really good private schools and were in gated communities so they didn't have to worry about any of that "violence" that is "imitatable". They also are very "politicaly correct", which is bad a good lot of the time.

Ever notice how the trend seems to ONLY be banning popular games (Left4Dead, MW2, AvP?) while ones that aren't popular slip completely under they're radar. Am I the only one who's noticed that? It really is bullshit the way he's running the oflc.

Probably some Conspieracy to get rid of games completely in Australia, but yea. Seems to be alot of the popular games that have issues getting accepted by the Australians.

 

[VinnyKings]

Hmmm I don't need to impale people? Well maybe I'll just make their lives fucking horrible like you do to the public Michael you douche.

 

[Amnestic]

He is even worse than Jack Tompson....

Somewhere out there, Jack Thompson is having an orgasm over the censorship Atkinson is bringing, when it comes to games.

Ever notice how the trend seems to ONLY be banning popular games (Left4Dead, MW2, AvP?) while ones that aren't popular slip completely under they're radar. Am I the only one who's noticed that? It really is bullshit the way he's running the oflc.

MW2 passed the ratings board. Atkinson is trying to appeal their decision to get it banned though.

Before video games there was art, drama, literature, theatre, plays, the Colosseum, mock fights, etc, ad nausm.

In short, escapism in all its various forms, both active involvement and passive observation.

And throughout history, we've had plenty of art, drama, literature, et cetera that didn't involve antisocial fantasy. Go figure.

And plenty which did. Just as we have plenty of video games which don't involve antisocial fantasy (unless you count Peggle and Phoenix Wright as antisocial fantasy)

 

[Twilight_guy]

Someday a kid will mass murder turtles by jumping on them and suddenly even non-violent videogames will be banned. Then all media that shows violent, then all media that has a "negative influence" then all media that opposes the laws, then all media period. (Okay, that's not going to happen I know).

I'd like to know what the true motive behind this garbage is. Singling out videogames alone when so many other forms of media have violence is completely illogical and stupid. Somebody is using this as a scapegoat and I want to know why. Or maybe the government has just become so full of itself that it thinks it can decide what the people want better then the people. I want some hard numbers on who is supporting what side and what Australia thinks about this.

 

[Doug]

Before video games there was art, drama, literature, theatre, plays, the Colosseum, mock fights, etc, ad nausm.

In short, escapism in all its various forms, both active involvement and passive observation.

And throughout history, we've had plenty of art, drama, literature, et cetera that didn't involve antisocial fantasy. Go figure.

Although, going back to his original argument, I'll take it as a compliment. He said that we haven't evolved out of our violent tendencies. I apparently have evolved further than he had. I have no inclination to kill or hurt people. In fact, I detest violence. If I don't have video games, I don't resort to murder.

And throughout history, a vast amount of it did. People where even killed on mass for entertainement, for real! And I'm pretty sure most earlier societies always had a special place for honoured warriors.

Now about this 'he' - you're use of the pronoun is confusing; are you talking about me or the originally quoted person? I'm not the origin 'he', and 'he' didn't say about the evolution thing. Further still, are you honestly saying you've NEVER in your whole life had a voilent impulse or played a game involving real or pretend voilence? And given you did an article on table top RPGs, I'd be extremely surprised if you said no given every table top RPG I've heard of features at least some combat (I doubt there is a 'The Sims' table top game).

Now, to the originally quoted person; if he really does NEED to impale people (and I doubt he really does) then I'd rather he were impaling virtual people who are, very literally, not alive in the first place. If he really is THAT murderously voilent, I'd really, REALLY prefer that he dump that rage into a game if he isn't talking to a pyschologist.

I have no inclination to kill or hurt people. In fact, I detest violence. If I don't have video games, I don't resort to murder.

I doubt the Karmapa Lama would go out an murder people if he didn't have video games (although it would make Buddism a VERY strange religion if one of its top people was a Jack the Ripper-ski person). What he said was that killing people in video games allows him to expel his aggressive and 'negative' emotions effectively. And given that sort of think seems important to Buddists, thats were the appeal comes from.

Personally, I have NO idea how to handle a gun, knife, or weapon (well, aside from a paintball gun once, and lets just say I wasn't so good with it - and those things HURT went they hit), and have no intent to ever murder, torture, imprison or otherwise conduct acts of the bloody and painful type. And frankly, the few torture type scenarios that have been in games I've played have been quite destressing. And yet, I'll happily gun down a dozen armed Russians in MW2 or blow way zombies in Left 4 Dead 2, or gun down scouts in TF2.

Why? Because they aren't real, and I don't have to worry about hurting anyone anywhere anytime, because its fun, because its a way of expeling all the annoyances of the day in a frankly over the top manner. Looking down on someone because they enjoy getting rid of the daily stresses and annoyances isn't evolved, I hate to tell you.

With my vested interest in numbers, it would be lax of me not to mention the 2,283 people who have already signed the petition here [http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/game-ratings-aus/signatures-35.html].

So before video games, nearly half the population of the civilized world killed people?

Given the World Wars, The Troubles, Africa, Middle East, The Crusades etc. I can sort of believe that. Or they played army.

What they didn't do was watch things like POV JugFuckers, as they're perfectly allowed to do now. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.159457?page=1]

Well, depends when you looked. In the tribal era, most of the males would have been hunters and part time (or full time) warriors for the tribe. So yeah, you can say roughly half the world was trying to kill each other. As for the 'civilized' world that we live in, we have voilent TV, voilent films, war films, war novels, war games (Cowboys and Indian's anyone? - yeah, ethnic warfare got turned into a kids game, how fucked is that!), we had empires (hence why the second most spoken language in the world is English), had reenactments of historical battles, wrestled, boxed, cage fights (well, maybe not 'properly' civil), bar fights, street brawls, gang wars, the Mafia... I don't know how voilence a 'civilized' world would be without the escapisms given the real results with them.

In short, voilence is a part of being human, whether its the minority of people who are physically voilent to each other, or apart of the majority who typically observe or fantasize about voilence. It is a part we all have to control in order for a civilized society to exist. EVERY tool to help should be encouraged. And given voilence is an absolute certainy if the population reaches the point of starvation, or water shortage, you can bet voilence isn't something we're going to give up for the forseeable future.

 

[asinann]

But if you don't impale them how do you kill them slowly?

 

[Amnestic]

But if you don't impale them how do you kill them slowly?

With song.

Wait, that was killing them softly.

I dunno then.

 

[cainx10a]

But if you don't impale them how do you kill them slowly?

He never said, you can't skin them while they are still alive.

 

[Sven und EIN HUND]

"This is a question of a small number of very zealous gamers trying to impose their will on society. And I think harm society," he said. "It's the public interest versus the small vested interest."

Yeah, in this case you would be the small vested interest, Atkinson.

I somewhat respect his hardheadedness, which is a good asset for any politician, but fuck, pack it in mate.

 

[FightThePower]

"It's a small vested interest"

Well, first of all, you're wrong, and second of all, just because a minority want it doesn't devalue their position. Just because something isn't popular doesn't mean it's wrong.

"...but the 1% or 2% could go on to be motivated by these games to commit horrible acts of violence"

There's no long term evidence that violent videogames have an effect and you pulled that figure right out of your arse. Once again, Atkinson still hasn't explained why explicit/violent films and TV shows are fine but games are not...probably because there isn't a valid reason.

Open your eyes, you stubborn arsehole.

 

[CD-R]

I'd like to know what the true motive behind this garbage is. Singling out videogames alone when so many other forms of media have violence is completely illogical and stupid. Somebody is using this as a scapegoat and I want to know why.

I had heard that Atkinson's son is a professional gamer. That may be it.

 

[machineiv]

Now about this 'he' - you're use of the pronoun is confusing; are you talking about me or the originally quoted person? I'm not the origin 'he', and 'he' didn't say about the evolution thing. Further still, are you honestly saying you've NEVER in your whole life had a voilent impulse or played a game involving real or pretend voilence? And given you did an article on table top RPGs, I'd be extremely surprised if you said no given every table top RPG I've heard of features at least some combat (I doubt there is a 'The Sims' table top game).

I was citing the guy that stated that we haven't evolved past violent impulses, and that without video games, we'd resort to murder.

I write pen and paper RPGs for a living. I don't have inclinations towards violence. I don't fantasize about hurting people. I don't think that slights against me or my family should be met with killing. In the games I write, violence is a tool to shock, frighten and appall. I make a point of not glorifying or glamorizing violence.[/quote]

Now, to the originally quoted person; if he really does NEED to impale people (and I doubt he really does) then I'd rather he were impaling virtual people who are, very literally, not alive in the first place. If he really is THAT murderously voilent, I'd really, REALLY prefer that he dump that rage into a game if he isn't talking to a pyschologist.

I can only go off of what he expressed.

I'd rather he take it to a psychologist. I'd rather people like that get help. What if his power goes out?