California Congressman Demands Videogame Warning Labels [Again]
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
...Seriously? *Seriously?*
Dip Shits like this asshole are the reason the US's economy is in the toilet.
The supreme court already pretty much said "Leave games alone you guys, quit being dicks." And they're still going at it.
The EFF is just gonna sue because they are being unconstitutional, they're going to curb stomp them, and then they'll have their legal fees paid along with the settlement, and another couple million dollars will be out of the US economy because of ****ERS LIKE THESE.
Dip Shits like this asshole are the reason the US's economy is in the toilet.
The supreme court already pretty much said "Leave games alone you guys, quit being dicks." And they're still going at it.
The EFF is just gonna sue because they are being unconstitutional, they're going to curb stomp them, and then they'll have their legal fees paid along with the settlement, and another couple million dollars will be out of the US economy because of ****ERS LIKE THESE.
It's funny that you are trying so hard to make this fit the narrative you have in your head. You saw this story and immediately thought "GOD DAMNED REPUBLICANS", and after seeing that this idiot is in fact a Democrat you just don't know what to do with yourself. Obviously he must be a southern bible belt retard who snuck into the Democratic party and got voted into office in the most liberal state in America while we weren't looking.... lol.James Ennever said:
Maybe before you give yourself an aneurism, why not try rethinking what you think you know about the two parties.
Well, I mean this is not completely unreasonable... The label should say "WARNING: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior in case of a pre-existing mental conditions."
The poor guy is so confused though... It's not that games create violent behaviour, it's that children that show violent behaviour are much more inclined to play "violent" videogames to vent instead of, say, going out and mugging someone which takes more effort.
The poor guy is so confused though... It's not that games create violent behaviour, it's that children that show violent behaviour are much more inclined to play "violent" videogames to vent instead of, say, going out and mugging someone which takes more effort.
Why is is it the rich idiots that always manage to get into politics?
There's already ratings and why it has that rating on games, if parents or the gamers themselves are too stupid to read it and decide from there if the child/they want to play it then tough titties.
There's already ratings and why it has that rating on games, if parents or the gamers themselves are too stupid to read it and decide from there if the child/they want to play it then tough titties.
I want to be rational and reasonable about this but he's giving me no reason to - so I'm saying we hang him - the world would be better off for it. Inb4 'but ur prving gaems mak u violnt'
You know what? At some point, all of these obstinate cro-magnon anti-gaming octogenarian enthusiasts will be dead, and we can finally get on with our lives. Just think about that.
On a more scientific note, I would support this legislation myself if he can prove demonstrably that the act of playing video games causes serious behavioural problems. Ok, maybe I wouldn't, but still, any studies done so far have either been inconclusive or inadequate, and any that propose a clear link between aggressive behaviour and gaming are easily discredited by those that show the opposite. I'm not saying there isn't a link, I don't have the authority to do that, I'm just saying that you don't put warning labels on things that HAVEN'T BEEN SHOWN TO CAUSE THE PROBLEM. Some consistency, please, why don't we put cancer warnings on melons next? Or perhaps a label expounding the dangers of contracting tetanus from exposure to aluminium. Have there been scientific tests on these things? No, because that would be f***ing ludicrous, but mainly because old f***s like this man do not have a problem with aluminium or melons. They have a problem with video games. And that is why we have to endure this s*** day after day.
On a more scientific note, I would support this legislation myself if he can prove demonstrably that the act of playing video games causes serious behavioural problems. Ok, maybe I wouldn't, but still, any studies done so far have either been inconclusive or inadequate, and any that propose a clear link between aggressive behaviour and gaming are easily discredited by those that show the opposite. I'm not saying there isn't a link, I don't have the authority to do that, I'm just saying that you don't put warning labels on things that HAVEN'T BEEN SHOWN TO CAUSE THE PROBLEM. Some consistency, please, why don't we put cancer warnings on melons next? Or perhaps a label expounding the dangers of contracting tetanus from exposure to aluminium. Have there been scientific tests on these things? No, because that would be f***ing ludicrous, but mainly because old f***s like this man do not have a problem with aluminium or melons. They have a problem with video games. And that is why we have to endure this s*** day after day.
I never understand things like this cause the only thing I know about violent video games is they saved me from tearing through my schools/neighborhoods in real life by giving me an alternative release, so it just seems to me like these people would rather I had taken my frustrations out on the real things instead, eh?
Can we get this label for parents to, and say that having a child means that YOU have responsibility and shouldnt leave your decisions to arbitrary boards to dictate what is and istn good for you child?
Warning: exposure to berks who propose legislation like this may result in violent behaviour being enacted on their person for not having the mental capacity of a heavily anaethatised goldfish.
To pick up on an interseting point made by a couple of other Escapists, in a few decades time the members of Congress and Senate will be people like us, who have had prolonged exposure to video games and the internet, and actually know what we are talking about. We can but wait, our time will come (not crazy, promise).
To pick up on an interseting point made by a couple of other Escapists, in a few decades time the members of Congress and Senate will be people like us, who have had prolonged exposure to video games and the internet, and actually know what we are talking about. We can but wait, our time will come (not crazy, promise).
Dear Old Guys in Government,
Unless you plan on giving these same labels to other media like TV shows, movies, books, and pictures; please stop thinking you need to "police" gaming. Actually, wait, just stop doing that, it's not needed. Seriously, been playing video games for 15 years and I'm not a psycho killer, along with hundreds of thousands of others. So stop, there are bigger fish to fry in government.
-A gamer.
Unless you plan on giving these same labels to other media like TV shows, movies, books, and pictures; please stop thinking you need to "police" gaming. Actually, wait, just stop doing that, it's not needed. Seriously, been playing video games for 15 years and I'm not a psycho killer, along with hundreds of thousands of others. So stop, there are bigger fish to fry in government.
-A gamer.
Well warning about shitty games would be great.
For example.
"After finishing it you would consider investing in memory erasing technology just to get rid of any memory of this game"
Or
"This is the same game you played year ago"
Or
"This game is overpriced, you should wait for few months till price drops in half"
Or even warnings from game critics (like my favorite one)
"Mindjack is fucking fucking fucking fucking bad bad bad bad don't don't don't don't play it"
Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw
Such warnings would be great to avoid horrible game.
Luckily it is only matter of time
We had crusades against books, music and movies, now it is turn for games
Soon things will change
For example.
"After finishing it you would consider investing in memory erasing technology just to get rid of any memory of this game"
Or
"This is the same game you played year ago"
Or
"This game is overpriced, you should wait for few months till price drops in half"
Or even warnings from game critics (like my favorite one)
"Mindjack is fucking fucking fucking fucking bad bad bad bad don't don't don't don't play it"
Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw
Such warnings would be great to avoid horrible game.
Same here, if not for "Unreal Tournament" for me to vent down, there would be at least one Bring-your-gun-to-school day for me.Isaac Levy said:
Luckily it is only matter of time
We had crusades against books, music and movies, now it is turn for games
Soon things will change
Most studies on both sides are bull. Both sides have something to gain from having their side being 'right'. The gaming industry and gamers want games to be proven to have no effect and so we jump on those studies we agree with and im willing to bet many are funded by or for the sake of business lobbyist groups. At the same time those against gaming get their studies from evangelical groups and people who really oppose what is in games in general. On the other hand those who dont like gaming are probably not that into the stuff they decry gaming for (sex, violence, canadians ect) when they are in any other medium. They just cant stop it in the others and so wont try and fight it. Gaming is a new thing and so it is seen as a young persons thing. Therefore people think games are marketed primarliy to children (many have the maturity level for it and there really arent many good games available to children. Seriously there is a saturation of extreme violence which is a real problem). Problem is this gags a real discussion about it. I feel gaming probably can entice people to violence. These people are probably impressionable or need little to push them to cause harm but I still think it is an issue.
I think we dont help ourselves with many popular games being incredibly violent. (In the UK) how many games do you have that arent rated 15 or above and arent about violence. If your anything like me and most gamers (console gamers at least) then thats not many. This is absurd and it gives people grounding to claim that games are pornographic and focused on extreme violence, because they are. Now dont get me wrong to many games the extreme violence suits the story or setting and there is nothing wrong with it if it does but it just seems to be common place as a feature without reason to exist. Could gears of war be as good as it is without gallons of blood? Was mass effect really improved with decapitation and a much greater level of graphic violence (i think thats the right term. The combat was unchanged in amount or nature but it has gotten significantly bloodier for little reason bumping it from a 12 to a 15). GAmes are getting more and more violent with ip's getting more violent as a series progresses. Im no prude I just dont want it when it isnt necessary. It means something in Fallout games (suits the dark world) and it was a new thing in mortal kombat but I think having it in so many games devalues its effect and misrepresents the games to people who dont play them. Sorry for the ramble.
I think we dont help ourselves with many popular games being incredibly violent. (In the UK) how many games do you have that arent rated 15 or above and arent about violence. If your anything like me and most gamers (console gamers at least) then thats not many. This is absurd and it gives people grounding to claim that games are pornographic and focused on extreme violence, because they are. Now dont get me wrong to many games the extreme violence suits the story or setting and there is nothing wrong with it if it does but it just seems to be common place as a feature without reason to exist. Could gears of war be as good as it is without gallons of blood? Was mass effect really improved with decapitation and a much greater level of graphic violence (i think thats the right term. The combat was unchanged in amount or nature but it has gotten significantly bloodier for little reason bumping it from a 12 to a 15). GAmes are getting more and more violent with ip's getting more violent as a series progresses. Im no prude I just dont want it when it isnt necessary. It means something in Fallout games (suits the dark world) and it was a new thing in mortal kombat but I think having it in so many games devalues its effect and misrepresents the games to people who dont play them. Sorry for the ramble.