Banning Violent Games Tops Conservative's To Do List

[gurall200]

Comapnies discriminate against boy scouts....Good I say...

OT: Old Conservative doesn't care for games and is trying to appeal to parents, nothing to see here, worst case is that we may get a new jack thompson (the goofy one, not the slightly reformed one), likely nothing will come of it, surprised it's a conservative though to be honest, they are all for morality and that bull but given there track record for private business and non-government interference, they've tended to ignore video games.

 

[narwhalman218]

Demand small and limited government.

Demand Government ban gay marriage, abortion, and the sale of violent games to minors.

3. ...

4. Profit!

 

[Royas]

"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.

That's not the case in the United States. Walmart doesn't sell M rated games to minors because of store policy, just like the movie theaters won't admit minors to R rated movies due to their policies. There are no laws that have held up in court that make the sale of any game (that isn't outright pornographic) illegal to anyone. The first amendment has trumped every one of the laws that have been passed.

The industry polices itself, and reportedly does a better job than the movie industry. Leave well enough alone.

 

[DannibalG36]

Ironically, if political conservatives had any interest in their own survival, they would plug video game (and general free speech) rights for all their worth.

Incidentally, Schlafy should take notes from Ron Paul and Antonin Scalia.

 

[BabyRaptor]

This lady, and all other self-proclaiming Conservatives, can go DIAF. Flame me, I don't care, that's my honest opinion on the matter.

 

[BabyRaptor]

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.

The power of the liberal media of today has made it so that any one who is even remotely conservative is villainous.

I'm actually considering switching to Fox News just to see the other side of these stories.

The Liberal Media? You mean the media that regurgitates all of Fox News' lies, lets everything that comes out of any Republicans' mouth go without so much as a second look and criminalizes anything coming from Democrats? Yeah...

 

[Samus Aaron]

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.

The power of the liberal media of today has made it so that any one who is even remotely conservative is villainous.

I'm actually considering switching to Fox News just to see the other side of these stories.

Other side? Fox News doesn't give the "other side". Fox News creates its own fucked up version of reality where the message takes precedence over the actual news. Stick to a real news channel.

 

[ecoho]

Banning Violent Games Tops Conservative's To Do List

Conservative columnist and anti-feminist writer Phyllis Schlafly has a few zingers for New Year's Resolutions including instituting a ban on violent videogames.

I'm sure that many of you have resolved to be a better person in 2011, whether through a formalized list of Resolutions or merely choosing to eat a salad over that burger that's calling your name to offset the excess of the Holidays. *cough* *raises hand* But some people have more lofty goals than weight loss for 2011. Phyllis Schlafly, author of Feminist Fantasies [http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Fantasies-Phyllis-Schlafly/dp/1890626465] arguing against the Feminist movement, decided to write a post on Townhall.com that outlines her resolutions for what the newly-elected Republican state senators in the US should make a priority in 2011. To be honest, most of Schlafly's resolutions are pretty boring governance issues like election fraud and taxes, but then you get about mid-way through the page and see this gem:

Videogames: "There shall be no sale, rental or arcade-playing of extremely violent videogames by children without parental consent." Explanation: Videogames are increasingly graphic and harmful.

There are a number of things wrong with this statement, which takes some things for granted while simultaneously presenting a very outdated impression of the videogame industry. First off, who plays games in an arcade anymore? It's like Schlafly is stuck in the 1993 Mortal Kombat controversy. The actual content of the resolution is something that I generally agree with - there are a bunch of games that I wouldn't want my child to play - but I don't think that legislating it is a good idea as it will lead to abuse.

The tone of Schlafly's "explanation" is the real problem here, though. It disturbs me that an intelligent person such as Schlafly clearly takes the fact that videogames are inherently harmful as a matter of fact. Well, we do not hold these truths to be self-evident. There is no actual evidence that videogames are harmful in any way or that they encourage negative or violent behavior. The recent Supreme Court arguments prove that not even the State of California could come up with compelling evidence that significantly swayed the opinions of the highest court in the land.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Reading the rest of Schlafly's resolutions leaves me equally stupefied. You think it's that important that Good Friday become a State Holiday? Or that it's worth writing a law against companies who "discriminate against the Boy Scouts"? Really?

Source: Townhall.com [http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2011/01/04/new_years_resolutions_for_state_legislators/page/full/]

Permalink

please change that to conservative radicals cause im a conservative and i live in a conservative state and we have NEVER let a law be passed that was against video games period.

 

[RatRace123]

Damn it, Grandma escaped from the nursing home and now she's crusading against violent videogames again.

God if only kids had some sort of... guardians or something who'd monitor what games they bought, some adults that raise them and buy games for them after they deem them appropriate, damn what are those things called?
Huh, well until that day comes I guess children will just be able to play whatever games they want, 'cause there's also not some sort of review board that passes ratings on games, we're really falling behind here, we'd better start coming up with these things chop chop.
[/incredibly dry sarcasm]

 

[SamElliot'sMustache]

Does anyone suppose that there will be a time when people like this will be put in the 'Ignore Pile' like they deserve?

Spoiler: The correct answer

No, because we don't even need something to be shiny in order for us to start flocking and give it attention.

 

[Godhead]

A woman who is an anti-feminist....... The fuck?

OT: If they were actually conservatives then wouldn't they want the government to have absolutely nothing to do with video games?

 

[espada1311]

ok, here's my two cents. (sorry its really long for a thread post, but i have a lot i want to talk about)

The current method of trying to stop the sales of violent video games to minors is (in my opinion) wrong. When you ban a product or create a social stigma against it, you entice people to see what the controversy is, which ends up bringing free advertisement for the product in which you are trying to boycott. Supposing we do have a 100% enforced no-minor-can-buy-a-violent-game law, there will always be minors who get their hands on it, via illegal sales, illegal downloads or just the fact that their parents buy it for them. obviously this does not solve the problem.

Now, this kind of "problem" (personally, i think it's not a problem at all, but for those who need a solution to satisfy themselves) has 2 kinds of solutions, one is completely left-wing, the other, completely right-wing. The right wing solution would be to ban the entire fabrication of violent video games, or even video games in general. of course, this still wont be a good solution since non-official developers who work in their basement can put out a cheap game on any site in the world, admittedly, they wont be good, but its games nevertheless and it can be made to be extremely violent.

the left wing solution is to completely let it go. if you try to ban the product, it will be more widely published and overall, will have more sales. however, if you come up and just let them buy it, eventually it will no longer be that great to buy a violent game, because there is no real sense of anything in the actual purchase. After a certain period, everyone will be used to the concept and no longer be thrilled by the concept of a violent game. think of it like riding a bike. the first time or so you are thrilled and cant get enough time in the world to ride your bike, but over the years, riding that bike doesnt have the same feel, or any feel at all. it becomes a commodity to simply get yourself from point A to point B.

at the same time, its best to educate younger people about basic moral ethics and to challenge their way of thinking. i played Black ops and when it came to doing close up knife kills that were part of the cinematics, i have to admit that i was slightly revolted at what was happening, as someone who knows pain well, it was sickening to watch the kinds of things that each person was doing to one other. many people probably didnt care, but for me, it was tough to watch.

 

[TonyVonTonyus]

Movies are violent and people don't complain as much about them. Videogames are seen as children's toys, mainly because of the game part. They are as valid an art form and learning experience as a books, movies or television. I wouldn't say all games are good because that isn't true. Can a truly good game, one that's immersive, fun and well written that makes the player think, make decisions and also have fun be bad for people? Also by restricting sales to minor they're implying two things and sometimes even saying it out right. Parents are stupid enough not to be able to look after the well being of their children and minors below the age of seventeen are so stupid they can't make desicions for themselves and can't differentiate a game from reality so they won't emulate what they see in games. I played some pretty violent games when I was a kid and extremely suceptible. I'm not running around hitting people with baseball bats and holding up stores. Why? Because at the time,I like many other people under seventeen were able to make a desicion for ourselves!


(Insert long, deep breath here)

 

[Blackjack 222]

Is it bad that i still want every current US politician to just drop dead? Also is it bad i want the law to go through to ban sales of video games to idiot mothers buying CoD or God of war for little timmmy?

 

[dalek sec]

Aren't conservatives supposed to be against the whole "nanny state" ideology?

Yeah, this is the thing that confuses me about this lady, pretty sure conservatives hate the whole "nanny state" bullshit that's cropping up these days.

 

[lovest harding]

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.

First off, I just want to say that I don't think GTA is very good model of the real world especially for a child (similar to how I don't think Scarface would be either). That's not to say I think a child should only be exposed to sugar and candy and unicorns, just that running over pedestrians on a sidewalk or killing hundreds of police officers or picking up prostitutes and choosing sexual acts or beating people with dildos isn't exactly a pure example of the world. The real world should be lived, not watched or played or read. Media is escape not a giant lesson machine.
I wouldn't want to expose a child to guns or drugs or sex before a child could handle and I believe most children can't (I'm not against letting say a 14 year old play a mature game like GTA, but anything younger is territory I wouldn't enter). That's exactly why I mentioned games that can be fun and teach something real to children under 14. There aren't real lessons to take from GTA, especially any lessons that can't be taught in another game with a T rating that will just as easily teach a child that guns can kill people (of course that as a lesson is pretty easy to teach a child with any media).
A child who learns what sex is from a video game is a child who would have no understanding of sex. Video games do not treat sex maturely enough to really show sex as what it is (at least not most games). Same goes for sex from movies or television or books (although books tend to get the closest in all aspects).

As a note: 14 isn't a magic number, just a generalization. Age would depend entirely on the child.
My entire point is that any child old enough to understand a lot of what happens, but not old enough to handle adult situations (ages 7-14 in my opinion, someone who could say understand what a bad touch is without understanding how molestation can affect a victim for the rest of the victim's life) isn't a good fit for GTA or any adult series. Although the definition of adult series isn't entirely dictated by rating (some M games, like Mortal Kombat, aren't all that serious with how they are portrayed so I don't see that as mattering as much. I let my niece and nephew play Mortal Kombat and they're both 8 while their 2 year old sister watches, that's more comically exaggerated than anything).

Example of what I mean: A girl goes through puberty and believes she's sexually ready. Until she has sex, gets pregnant and her boyfriend dumps her. This can be remedied by telling her to use a condom if she wants to have sex, but if she doesn't understand the consequences or just isn't mature enough to care about them (this is a problem with a lot of teens, they know pregnancy and STDs can happen, but they just don't care or don't believe it will happen to them), she isn't ready for sex.
Same goes for exposure to sex, drugs, guns, murder, etc. A child can understand these, but a lot of children can't deal with them properly as they just aren't mature enough.

 

[Carlston]

If a parent walks into a game store, let's the kid pick a M rated game. Pays the money for said game without looking it over and walks out they gave consent.....


Parenting fail still equals consent or neglect on the parents fault.

 

[CatinHat]

Is her hair photoshopped on?

 

[HobbesMkii]

Wheee! Look how much response a poorly-titled article about a politically polarizing individual's stance on videogames has generated. Yay! It's a full-out flame war!

Seriously, though. 1) calling Phyllis Schlafly an "intelligent" person is a bit of a stretch. I'd give you "learned" or "well-educated." Intelligent...maybe not so much. 2) Could we, perhaps, try to report on these things in an intelligent way. Like maybe "Phyllis Schlafly Calls Videogames Harmful; Advocates Parental-Consent Law" rather than throwing around loaded words like "banning" and "conservative."