Banning Violent Games Tops Conservative's To Do List

[Caiti Voltaire]

Then I would chock that up to the same problem, People not reading what is THERE. Loaded language as a concept is bullshit. Words have meanings and if you don't know them then anything can mean anything. This is why they can drinkify snacks and snackify drinks (I personally think it is the start of getting us used to the idea of bland nutrient pastes so we won't object when they set up the internment camps).

Thankfully, human psychology doesn't care if you think it's bullshit.

 

[Danpascooch]

Alright, I'm going to nip this in the bud here: ONE CRAZY ***** DOES NOT REPRESENT ALL OF CONSERVATISM. STOP DOING THAT ESCAPIST.

I just came from Teamliquid where evidently all Texans are crazy because we don't like a fairly abusive new statute the EPA is trying to cram down our throats, I've had enough of political misrepresentation and ignorance today.

When someone is a politician it is standard practice to mention their party alignment when introducing them. You'll notice that nowhere does it mention conservatives as a whole (except to say that she, A SINGLE PERSON, thinks they should do X Y & Z), the title is using Conservative's pertaining to a SINGLE CONSERVATIVE I'm sure. You're projecting.

I'm well aware of what it ACTUALLY says, but don't tell me you read it, read my post, then went back and re-read the thread title. It's completely misleading in its current wording as evidenced by a good number of posts in this thread ALREADY.

It's only misleading if you jump in with the preconceived notion that its intention is to bash Conservatives because:

1.) You hate Conservatives yourself

OR

2.) You are used to seeing Conservatives get bashed, and are projecting that expectation onto the title.

What would you have called it? "Woman who just happens to be a Conservative and is not representative of the party as a whole wants Violent Video Games banned"?

Because it SHOULD be mentioned that she is conservative (because that's standard practice, if it was a Liberal, that should be mentioned too) and that alternative title is pretty fucking wordy.

Stop being so sensitive, you conservatives always make trouble where there isn't any! (that was a joke)

If I put up a title that says "Negros Does not Like Video Games", and I was referring to John Negros who lives down the street, you'd STILL get half the posts declaring me a racist at worst or a generalist at best. Making your thread titles less apt to spark controversy helps discourse along and cuts out the extraneous bullshit. This woman isn't representing herself as a conservative at all in the stated work, or the principles of modern conservatism either. You have to reach all the way back to classical conservative radicals to even categorize her as one and THAT's a stretch. It was posted on a conservative website, that's all.

That's because it's not common practice to announce someones race when you are commenting on their political views.

But when you are talking about the POLITICAL VIEWS of a POLITICIAN it's more or less universally accepted that you should mention their POLITICAL PARTY when introducing them. Notice how on CSPAN there are little (D) or (R) icons next to them? Yeah.

You completely ignored the second half of my post which addresses that. Even then, the thread title will cause more knee jerk reactions than is healthy.

Sorry, I'll address that now, I didn't before because I thought it was batshit obvious she was conservative because she is referenced as conservative in works by the Boston Globe and the New York Times, she ran as a Republican with a Conservative agenda in 1952, and look at the title of this New Yorker article from 2005.

Kolbert, Elizabeth. "Firebrand: Phyllis Schlafly and the Conservative Revolution." The New Yorker. Nov 7, 2005

Yeah that's not a coincidence, her views are literally the definition of Conservative when it comes to feminism, abortion, gay rights and legal reform.

You are probably the only person who thinks she is not a conservative, and the idea that the Escapists had to bend the definition or dig deep to find that she's a conservative is fucking insane, do a google search for god's sake, there is a universal consensus that she is a conservative, and literally 5 seconds of research will show you that.

Secondly, as I said earlier, the kneejerk reaction comes from your expectation that "everyone is out to get conservatives"

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

i love how "conservatives" claim to be against bigger government, yet don't see the irony in forcing more government control of our lives...

NEWS FLASH: banning things is not a conservative act, it's as liberal as they get. and yet our "liberals" don't seem to spend nearly as much time banning things. weird...

(Yes, i realize these are just nut-jobs, and not actual representatives of conservative ideals. just frustrates the hell out of me when people claim to espouse ideas their actions prove they despise.)

 

[Caiti Voltaire]

i love how "conservatives" claim to be against bigger government, yet don't see the irony in forcing more government control of our lives...

Well, they want their dictatorship to be as small and efficient as possible, clearly.

More seriously, its like anything else with politics, a constant compromise between them saying whats popular to get the votes and trying to shove extremist philosophy down peoples throats with it.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Alright, I'm going to nip this in the bud here: ONE CRAZY ***** DOES NOT REPRESENT ALL OF CONSERVATISM. STOP DOING THAT ESCAPIST.

I just came from Teamliquid where evidently all Texans are crazy because we don't like a fairly abusive new statute the EPA is trying to cram down our throats, I've had enough of political misrepresentation and ignorance today.

When you can prove that none of the pollution you generate in Texas makes it across the border into neighbouring states or countries, you can opt out of the EPA program.

Agree or disagree with it, calling all of Texas "childish", "crazy", and "insane" are not names that can be levied over a legal issue like this one. That kind of generalization and ignorance is what's wrong with a bunch of people and general discourse at low (random assholes on forum boards) and high (Fox News/editorials) forms of political thought.

true dat man!

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Let me get this straight.. shes trying to get children from buying violent video games. So in terms...getting lil kids of call of duty, halo, and other multiplayer video games. seems like protection of youth....one of the reasons Limited Censorship is needed.

 

[Danpascooch]

A female anti-feminist in politics?

Unless I know even less than I thought about feminism, I can safely say my brain just broke....

YOUR brain is fine.

Her brain is fucked up.

Where is hypnotoad?

......I miss Hypnotoad

 

[subject_87]

Alright, I'm going to nip this in the bud here: ONE CRAZY ***** DOES NOT REPRESENT ALL OF CONSERVATISM. STOP DOING THAT ESCAPIST.

I just came from Teamliquid where evidently all Texans are crazy because we don't like a fairly abusive new statute the EPA is trying to cram down our throats, I've had enough of political misrepresentation and ignorance today.

After all, we know that all Texans are brilliant, if somewhat psychotic engineers who loudly vocalize their every action, have sawed off their right hand and replaced it with machinery, and are constantly shouting about things being sapped

OT: Really, why give people like this free publicity? Let them fade into obscurity. Besides, people ranting and raving about how video games are the devil can be quantifiably discredited regardless of political affiliation.

 

[VelvetHorror]

"There shall be no sale, rental or arcade-playing of extremely violent videogames by children without parental consent."

For starters, video games that are extremely violent, which I assume she's talking about, are the M rated games like Halo, Call of Duty, etc. Those games can't legally be sold to children by distributors like Walmart. The only way a child could get their hands on them is if their parents buy the game for them and therefore give their consent.

What she's arguing for is already in place. She needs to get out of the stone ages.

 

[Thaius]

Alright, I'm going to nip this in the bud here: ONE CRAZY ***** DOES NOT REPRESENT ALL OF CONSERVATISM. STOP DOING THAT ESCAPIST.

I would just like to quote that for truth before I go off about how stupid this person is. Because this person is really, really stupid. I'm tired of ignorance ruling the politics surrounding video games. Ugh.

EDIT: "This person" referring to the lady in the news post. Not the person I quoted. The person I quoted is absolutely right. The woman the news post references is absolutely wrong. Just wanted to clear that up.

 

[bruunwald]

Not all conservatives are nuts or bad people. Just most. Flame all you want, but it is not the liberals who have to petition educated historians to change history texts in schools because real history doesn't come down favorably on their side. If you're so nasty and wrongheaded that history has judged you, you don't get an honest do-over by paying people off to change the record.

Back on topic, I find it interesting that these topics always get the bees buzzing. Crazy people always want censorship, but rarely get it because it's so hard to prove it necessary.

And as to the poster who said he can't wait for the "gaming generation" to take political office, note that there are people in their forties who have been playing video games all their lives at this point, and a few of them are in office.

 

[Tsaba]

Well, I don't think this matters seeing as we are going to hear the results from the Schwarzenegger vs EMA hopefully soon, so if we (the gamers) win, this little "bill" they want to pass will never see the light of day.

 

[Scout Tactical]

Firstly, i hope you're aware of the fact that Scouting, intrinsically, has nothing at all to do with religion. AT ALL. I've been to a couple Jamboree's in my tenure, one of them being the 21st WSJ 2007 in the UK (You're obviously a scout, so i take it that you know what that is.) and all of these Jamborees have multi-faith events where any scout of any religion can learn about any other religion .etc. Picking and choosing specific religions and allowing only them to join seems almost antithetical to the "scout message" of equality and brotherhood inspite of differences. That s my opinion at least.

I'm talking about the Boy Scouts of America, which is the only Scouting organization relevant to this topic, since the conservative representative in question is an American representative, and obviously has no jurisdiction over the UK, or any other sovereign nation.

Having a religious faith is a requirement in the Boy Scouts of America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Scouting#Boy_Scouts_of_America

Yeah...... people don't CHOOSE Atheism at birth. People BECOME Atheists through life experience. They experience certain events that, for whatever reason convinces them that their is no/may or may not be a God. That's what happened to me anyway (watch Movie Bobs latest "big picture" if you haven't already) In other words they "change their mind" NOT "lie to get an eagle badge" So to strip them of their honor because of this seems like.......well, like an excuse to keep slates clean, really.

So you're saying no one could be atheist before they join scouting, or before they get their Eagle badge? That's a pretty limited world view. I know plenty of atheists who were atheists their entire lives, or converted before they turned 18. In fact, people are born atheist. Religion is a learned behavior. A child has to be taught religion: he doesn't understand Christianity, for instance, simply by instinct. It would be silly to say all atheists are converts: plenty of atheists simply never went to church, as they had an atheist upbringing. As far as I know, the only atheists who were stripped of their Eagle honors in the US were those who were atheist when they obtained their Eagle badge, which would mean they were tacitly lying to maintain their membership, which requires faith in the United States.

 

[Sneaky Paladin]

Why anti-feminist? I mean it is true woman need equal rights. You could be anti-extremist sure but it just makes you a hypocrite in this situation.

 

[Moromillas]

If (and only if) this person is talking about their own children, then that's fine I guess, as it's her call to make. If she's talking about the children of other parents, well, I hope this Phyllis Schlafly isn't going to be a bum, and refuse to pay child support, for, how many parents with children are there in America?

Edit: Btw, the boy scouts actively discriminate against atheists and homosexuals, and should be spat on and told to f-off imo.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

A female anti-feminist in politics?

Unless I know even less than I thought about feminism, I can safely say my brain just broke....

YOUR brain is fine.

Her brain is fucked up.

Where is hypnotoad?

......I miss Hypnotoad

I miss it, too. But it's gone...

 

[Siege_TF]

"There shall be no sale, rental or arcade-playing of extremely violent videogames by children without parental consent."

Find and dandy until the Government fancies itself as that parent.

 

[Thyunda]

snip for tidiness

The things in GTA exist in real life. Guns kill. Drugs are harmful. People are dangerous. There is no advantage to 'protecting' children from this kind of thing. I would far rather my children grow up with games like GTA to give some warning about what life can be like. I think you'd agree, that you'd rather sit down and let them play GTA, after telling them that what's fun in the game, is fatal in real life.
I'd rather let them simulate life like that in a videogame than learn that guns kill from experience.

 

[Estocavio]

"WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT"

This is NOT banning, this is MODERATING!
Wow.