Banning Violent Games Tops Conservative's To Do List

[Capslockbroken]

The title was a little mislead

Oh, it's just for selling them to children younger than 17. I have no problem with that... I thought they were going to ban violence is games all together. If they try that, I'm going after them asking why shit like SAW would be legal to make as a movie, but no violent games?

The title was a little misleading, wasn't it? She's not actually talking about "Banning violent games", she's talking about age restrictions. That's not nearly as bad but, in my opinion, is still a serious problem.
If you say that young children should not be allowed to have access to games like GTA or movies like Saw, then you are absolutely right. The big question is: who should be doing the "not allowing". I think it's a tremendous mistake to be the putting something like that on the government. Bureaucrats are neither equipped nor inclined to do any sort of responsible policing of consumer content, and putting them in that role can only result in serious abuses. The role of parents should still be played by parents.

 

[SpaceCop]

I never really understood the doublethink mentality of folks like that, who use the Conservative moniker and demand less government intervention!!--except where we want it to intervene, obviously.

And yeah. Anti-feminist? Wow.

 

[Vrach]

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?

Didn't say it in a l2readnoob sort of way, it's literally the BASICS, just go on wikipedia and look up the First Amendment. It's also been explained so many times over the course of the Schwarzenegger vs EMA debate that really, if you don't know what I mean, go check out the related episode from Extra Credits/Zero Punctuation on the subject (though Yahtzee was mostly talking about a counter-organization, but you can still find what you need in the comments) or read the Battlefield Washington article by Greg Tito.

To give you the skinny, it's basically:
1. First Amendment protects free speech
2. Art and related mediums (books, movies etc.) are therefore protected by it
3. To pass a law that would allow a government to regulate (what's already being regulated remarkably well by stores and various private organizations like ESRB, especially in comparison to other mediums) the sale of games would effectively brand games in the same category as porn, painting it with a very broad brush as a medium that has no artistic value (amongst other things, again, go watch Extra Credits) and place the gaming industry under the risk of a massive number of frivolous lawsuits every time a parent feels a game is too violent and they haven't been informed well enough by the massive sticker saying "18+"

Imagine a slightly similar state of that of the current US health care system of everyone just waiting to sue someone's ass off every chance they get, but in about 1000 times worse way considering how negatively a significant portion of the population (and sadly a good deal of those in power) views gaming as a medium.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

The title was a little mislead

Oh, it's just for selling them to children younger than 17. I have no problem with that... I thought they were going to ban violence is games all together. If they try that, I'm going after them asking why shit like SAW would be legal to make as a movie, but no violent games?

The title was a little misleading, wasn't it? She's not actually talking about "Banning violent games", she's talking about age restrictions. That's not nearly as bad but, in my opinion, is still a serious problem.
If you say that young children should not be allowed to have access to games like GTA or movies like Saw, then you are absolutely right. The big question is: who should be doing the "not allowing". I think it's a tremendous mistake to be the putting something like that on the government. Bureaucrats are neither equipped nor inclined to do any sort of responsible policing of consumer content, and putting them in that role can only result in serious abuses. The role of parents should still be played by parents.

99% of it should be the parents. I think they are just trying to blame it on the companies so the parents don't have to take responsibility if their children do something stupid.

 

[eelel]

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.

Pleas tell me you are joking.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Okay... So she's a Conservative Anti-Feminist.

The fuck is she doing in politics?

Found that weird, since from her stance it seems she'd like to see women in the kitchen rather than doing anything else other than cooking or taking care of kids.

(Sorry if I offend anyone, just pointing out something I found odd)

Also, isn't that exactly she is in politics? She's got views and opinions and wants to push them, she thinks she's right and can make the country better. That's kind of the point.

I don't agree, but if everyone agreed we wouldn't need politics.

This is coming from the UK where we voted in the BNP in a couple of small areas, who are pretty much racist skinheads puhed into a suit so they can marry their sister,yet if that's what we choose to vote in, that's our decision and our fault, and we obviously need to try to educate the public, not stop people being allowed to stand for office.

(I consider the only reason the BNP got any seats at all, is because of the constant barrage of 'immigrants invading Britain, taking everything that's yours! Are things bad? It's the fault of foreigners! headlines on most UK papers. It's kind of easy to sway people to vote for you if you hide your racism as 'concern about immigration')

 

[audiblemirage]

demonizing video games is one of those common political maneuvers that politicians partake of when they have no real issues to tackle, or don't have the brains to take on. If you look at the politicians that have taken on the game industry in the past, they are the same idiots that try to distract everybody from the real problems of the world by getting us to panic over nothing.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Hey, I have something for you to lady:

 

[shaboinkin]

You know, I'm pretty sure there are more important things that should top a "to do" list than "protecting our children."

 

[The Random One]

I can't support someone who stands for those horrible sickening boy scouts anyway.

 

[deth2munkies]

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.

 

[Sallix]

I for one am relieved, in a way. I thought the article was talking about the Conservative party of the UK

 

[Musiclly enhanced]

hey its the parents fault for buying the kid the game cs im 15 and i still get turned down 15 games sometimes so i buy off the interwebs but im mature enough to know that the games arnt real and they should not be copied
do you see 14 year olds running round T-bagging people cs they thought it was fun on halo?
.....thats what i thought

 

[Divine Miss Bee]

i'm just shocked that there are female anti-feminists out there. the feminist movement was about setting women in a place that they were legally and socially equal to men. this woman would not have been able to publish her book under her own name without a feminist movement creating a way for her. maybe the movement is a bit scattered, and i'll admit, a bit too led around by the democratic party at times nowadays, but that doesn't mean that women have stopped being the equal of men in any way. i can believe anti-feminist men, because they lack the perspective of a woman as a functioning human being, and can see one as being lesser because they don't know better (they should find out, but point is, it's understandable, in its way). but i highly doubt that this woman considers herself to be anyone's inferior, based on the tone of her writings, so i can;t take her seriously, based on the label alone.

 

[AlexWinter]

I am literally crying.

Not because of the banning of violent video games but because this is their no.1 priority.

We're so fucked.

 

[Dr.Sean]

I'm a boyscout and a liberal hippy atheist tree-hugger and I sincerely hope that there will be no laws preventing discrimination against me. Hell, I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'm not moderately xenophobic myself, so I welcome the ignorant masses to express their misinformed opinions to me. It makes me giggle when people try to discriminate against me.

 

[LCP]

I hate putting labels on things....

nobody likes a nanny state, imma just leave it as so.

 

[manythings]

It doesn't say "Tops the conservative party's to do list", it says "Tops Conservative's to do list". The apostrophy in "Conservative's" indicates possession of an individual which is not the same as "Conservatives". If you plan on complaining about language use learn some first.

You know, that kind of furious nit-picking kind of rationalisation comes up every time that people use loaded language, and I think it's just a pile of ... something. We're not saying "Person X thinks we should ban violent video games" which would be fair and unbiased. We're saying "Conservative wants to ban violent games" which unfairly associates a fringe extremist with a mainstream political movement. It's biased. I wish people would quit it.

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).

 

[Cryo84R]

]

He's a hideous excuse for a human being who only supports the rights of those who are rich, white, christian, straight, and agree with him. He's a "libertarian" when asked, until you ask him about the rights of muslims, atheists, or homosexuals.

Odd. In the 10 years I have listened to him I have never heard him saying anything as bad as what you are trying to convey. I actually met him once at a private airport I used to work at.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

You know, I'm pretty sure there are more important things that should top a "to do" list than "protecting our children."

I'd disagree, protecting and nurturing children is one of the main things a society is formed for.

In which case, making parents do their job instead of making the government ban/censor everything you don't like in the guise of "protecting your children" is the best solution for this.

OT: On either side, these people just get annoying. Nothing new.