Banning Violent Games Tops Conservative's To Do List

[FaithorFire]

Banning Violent Games Tops Conservative's To Do List

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

I'm not sure you or this crazy woman understand the meaning of the word "conservative".
"Conservative", by definition, implies a desire to embrace policies or values of the past. Prior to the 60s era of LBJ, the mass censorship of a medium, ANY MEDIUM, would have been seen with disgust. This lady is not a conservative, and is clearly a Right-Wing progressive. Supporting total censorship and mass government control in favor of Left-Wing or Right-Wing ideologies is a relatively new thing in America.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Won't go through. You can't define violent let alone extremely violent and it isn't the governments place to raise a child. She's just another crazy conservative trying to use more power than she has.

I question everything about that crazy woman.

 

[Thirsk]

I don't get the 'graphical' part when people rage against videogames. When I was 10 or 11 I read a childrenbook, and it was a childrenbook meant for kids my age, where it was about Merlin the wizards younger years. The part I want to mention is a part where his wife (yeah, he had a wife and had sex with her in this book.) got ambushed by saxons that discovered that she was pregnant and raped and murdered her brutally, when merlin found her cold corpse the body of the unborn child was halfway stikking out a hole in her womb so he could see the pretty grim and well-described scene.
The reason I mention this is because it was extremly morbid. The book was pretty popular. AND NO ONE was making a fuzz about it. Even though it contained imagery extremly dark and grim that I have never seen anything similar to in a videogame.

And now you've turned into a homicidial maniac, haven't you?

This leads me elegantly onto my point: this discussion would be relevant in a parallel universe where kids actually took harm from playing violent videogames.

 

[Snotnarok]

Yeah don't let them see anything bad so when they actually get out in the world (mid thirties) they just are horrified by how horrible everything is and how people treat them. Sheltered lives are great.

 

[deth2munkies]

I don't know, is it abusive to try to prevent us from fucking up our only planet?

...everyone has a different mental maturity.

So yours is around age 14 where you think you can make uninformed judgements about everything and be automatically right?

 

[TheAceTheOne]

She can try all she wants. I have a feeling I'm not alone when I say that us gamers aren't gonna roll over and take it.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Kinda both. I'm not going to start watching Fox News, but I have started listening to Rush Limbaugh.

D'aww.

Come on.

If you are sick of liberal media portraying conservatives in a bad light, you shouldn't really look for conservative midea to redeem the ideology - they do a FAR better job of painting themselves as total unreasonable lying dishonest... you get where I'm going.

Not that I'm a die-hard liberal, I have a lot of conservative and even authoritarian view, but I wouldn't go listening to Rush Limbaugh... or Glenn Beck... or Bill O'Reilly... or, the crown jewel, Sean Hannity.

This coming from a non-American most of whose experience comes from watching Fox, MSNBC and the Daily Show.

Sean Hannity. He has less journalistic credibility than my cat...

But I saw Rush stand up for what he believes in with the video games thing. A lot of people in politics would just jump on video games because it's the "cool" thing to do these days. He's earned my respect.

 

[lovest harding]

The problem we have here is, brace yourselves kiddies, this system already exists!

The other day I was buying a copy of Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood for my friend as a Christmas present (also for myself - good teammates / opponents really improve the game) and I was waiting behind a woman and her child, who was no older than 12, whilst the woman behind the desk sold them an Xbox 360.

What game did the little kid want? Why Grand Theft Auto of course!

Now here's the thing; GTA is an 18 game. That's "R" for people in Crazyland (yes, I watch The Big Picture. ). That means it is ILLEGAL TO SELL THE GAME TO ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF 18! However, and here's where the problem comes in, it is NOT illegal for some dipshit failure of a mother to buy the game, willfully ignorant of its themes and content, and hand it over to a boy whose testicles haven't even dropped yet to play on unsupervised in his bedroom.

Honestly, I had to restrain myself from telling that woman what a failure of a parent she was right then and there!

This is the flaw in this legislation; the problem is not that there is no law to prevent children buying unsuitable games (there is, in Britain anyway), it is that parents don't give two shits - they're still in "games are kiddie toys" mode and they don't so much as glance at the rating. This has been going on for YEARS! The original GTA came out on Playstation in December 1997. This means I was 12/13 years old myself when I was bought it by my grandparents. Personally, I don't think that game was really a bad influence on me (anyone who has seen how laughably bad the graphics are will see it is less graphically violent than most kids TV shows of the era, and I never really acknowledged the foul language) but games are becoming more and more realistic, and just because people didn't bother to pay attention when I was a kid doesn't mean it's okay to do so now.

Hold on a second. How do you know the mother hadn't had an hour-long chat with the kid about the dangers of the game beforehand? How do you know she wasn't going to supervise him? You're assuming a lot, and you're just making us look bad. My thirteen year old brother played GTAIV on its release. It was bought for me, but we had no qualms letting him play it. He's no worse for wear. Neither was I when I played the first Grand Theft Auto. And I wasn't even as old as you were. So, y'know, just because a mother allows her children to play a violent videogame does not say she's a bad parent.

Are you saying that kids should be stopped from reading violent novels and watching violent films too? Because if so, I'd have to disagree with you yet again.

Sorry to break in, but I just want to say something.
My problem with this situation is not that the mother either did or didn't talk to the kid, it's that GTA at it's basis is adult. It's not just a game where there's a lot of violence. It's a game series that by its very nature deals in incredibly adult themes, it's a game that honestly deserves the mature rating for being mature. Games like God of War receive a Mature rating for being immature (at least when it comes to sex and violence, the story was quite mature beyond sex and violence).
By my standards, I wouldn't let a child play GTA simply because it's thematically mature, not just violent.

I'm kind of awkward as I don't believe games will affect children, but I'd rather keep a child on developmentally positive path (with games that foster more positive things, Viva Pinata is a great example of showing a child how to care for an animal without being an educational game). I also find a lot of JRPGs tend to be good for children (and by children I mean 10-14) as well as they tend to be rated T but also have serious issues in their plots, which can lead to an honest and serious discussion (something that more children need with their parents). I mean Lost Odyssey has a scene with a dying mother and her two children, emotionally powerful and something a child can easily relate to (as two of the affected characters ARE children).
I think Japanese studios are amazing in the respect that they aim for a wide audience and still deal with serious things (Enchanted Arms has an openly gay character, albeit a stereotypical one, Lost Odyssey talks a lot about death, even Chibi-Robo, an adorable Gamecube game rated E10+, deals with the serious familial issues of economics and divorce)

 

[captaincabbage]

These kids didn't go out and buy the games themselves. They MIGHT have bought the headset with the $50 allowance their spoiled little brat ass gets every week, but they didn't buy the game himself.

Headset but not the game..?

What the hell are you talking about, lol

They can't legally buy the game, because Gamestop won't let them on account of the ESRB.

 

[Lyri]

Learn the basics of the American justice system before commenting in such a manner mate. Had tons of these posts during the Schwarzenegger vs EMA debate as well, really, research a bit before you post.

Why don't you enlighten whilst you post, "Research the American Justice system" is a pretty broad answer to give so vaguely.
He's also entitled to his opinion, you just posted "L2Readnoob".

OT: So really what is this big deal?
Don't you guys have the PEGI ratings on your video games anyway? It just means they're enforcing what they should be doing anyway, surely?
Infact reading it makes it look like a no change, "Without parents consent", so essentially all they're saying is
"You can't buy the lastest Blood and Gore 2: More gore unless your parents say so".

Ok?
How is that bad?

 

[Danpascooch]

These kids didn't go out and buy the games themselves. They MIGHT have bought the headset with the $50 allowance their spoiled little brat ass gets every week, but they didn't buy the game himself.

Headset but not the game..?

What the hell are you talking about, lol

They can't legally buy the game, because Gamestop won't let them on account of the ESRB.

There is no law saying minor's can't buy violent games or games rated M by the ESRB, it might be harder for them to do it because of Gamestops STORE POLICIES (IE NOT a LAW) but it's entirely legal for them to do it. And Gamestop isn't the only place in the world to buy videogames.

 

[2fish]

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.

Plastic Wrap

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.

I though most media was owned by big corporations (isn't it down to six major owners?) that are conservative...

Not the best list I found but the most clear and has links to is source it seems slightly biased but in these days what isn't?

Spoiler

[link]http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-owns-the-media-the-6-monolithic-corporations-that-control-almost-everything-we-watch-hear-and-read[/link]

I laugh at these old people, let them take away this generations fun, we will in turn take away their social security. Stand strong gamer brethren soon we will be banning our kids stuff!

 

[Danpascooch]

These kids didn't go out and buy the games themselves. They MIGHT have bought the headset with the $50 allowance their spoiled little brat ass gets every week, but they didn't buy the game himself.

Headset but not the game..?

What the hell are you talking about, lol

Technically, they can't buy the game if it's rated M. They need their parent to buy it or at least have their parent with them in order to buy it, and given how spoiled some kids are today, it's probably the former.

Sure they can, it's entirely legal for kids to buy M rated games (In USA anyway) it's Gamestop's store policy (that they only enforce sporadically) that stops them, and even then it only stops them if they choose to buy the game AT GAMESTOP.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

"...without parental consent"

Hmmm, I don't mind this. Hell, I'm 17 as of last December, and it's already Californian Law, so it's not actually that bad. All I see is her attempting to make that into a nation-wide deal. Still, not that bad, not gonna stop kids from getting their COD, cos all they have to do now is send their parents out to do it instead.

 

[deth2munkies]

I don't know, is it abusive to try to prevent us from fucking up our only planet?

...everyone has a different mental maturity.

So yours is around age 14 where you think you can make uninformed judgements about everything and be automatically right?

Because personal insults are the way to get your point across, right?

The point is, if you want to make an argument, make one that doesn't make you look like a fool for knowing nothing about which you pretend to know much.

 

[ffxfriek]

I think they have more important things to worry about rather than trying to cover for shitty parents. How about we do this? A license to breed and raise children. You and your spouse go to a class to learn how to raise a child. You have to pass three exams to be allowed to have kids and must be of a certain IQ level to gain admittance. There! I just made your problems of violent videogames and other media totally negligible.

DUDE IVE BEEN THINKIN THIS FOR A LONG TIME!!

seriously how much better would the world be if it happened like this?

 

[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)

 

[Omnific One]

Social conservatives will be the death of this nation; not economic conservatives, just social ones.

Scratch that, just the insane ones.

 

[asinann]

a law against companies who "discriminate against the Boy Scouts"

It doesn't explain what is meant by "discriminate against the Boy Scouts", so I'm quite confused.

Regardless, I'm not really pleased by a theist organization like the Boy Scouts (at the top, at least) getting special protections from the government.

She sees discrimination against the Boy Scouts as wrong, which is ironic since the Boy Scouts discriminate against anyone gay or non-christian.

 

[emeraldrafael]

This.... this bothers me.

Not really cause she wants to do it, thats never really gone out of style. Videogames are the hot topic issues, and conservatives appeal to the group that dont particularly find the direction videogames are taking... acceptable, lets just say that. Mostly cause of the other two things she wants to do. The videogame thing always happens and goes up for debate.

But I think it will yield the same results as past motions have.