California Congressman Demands Videogame Warning Labels [Again]

[Darkmantle]

how many times is the supreme court going to have to smack this guy down?

 

[dslatch]

He wants warning on video games while they still dont have similar warnings on smokes. Silly congressmen.

In California, they do. Everything does.

In fact, they have BUILDINGS WITH WARNING LABELS.

One (real) label claims:

"WARNING! THIS BUILDING CONTAINS CHEMICALS KNOWN TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE CANCER." - A label I found next to the door at a fucking Carl's Jr.

Thats... umm... asinine

 

[Isaac Levy]

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?

 

[Isaac Levy]

That's California

 

[DaHero]

Guys, relax.

The bill only has 2 people signed, this guy and someone else he is speaking for. This is just a political ploy so he can generate sympathy for re-election.

 

[emeraldrafael]

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?

 

[Dominic Burchnall]

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).

 

[Ticonderoga117]

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.

 

[blackrave]

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.

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?

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.
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

 

[ablac]

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.

 

[minuialear]

Now, I will grant you that Democrats are more liberal than Republicans, but on the political spectrum, almost everyone at the Federal Level of the USA is more conservative than, say Reagan or Eisenhower.

Saying that most people in the U.S. federal government are more conservative than Reagan is pretty wrong, unless you have an odd way of measuring conservatism. Or unless you have an extreme lack of knowledge about the U.S. government and rely on news stories to fill you in on it.

The thing is, a lot of the policies Reagan enacted that were conservative at the time have become common place today and many conservatives think we should take them even further. There has been a massive conservative shift in the US over the last 30 years. Reagan's tax cuts were cuts down to about the level we have them today. The current conservative position is that we need to cut them even further, but Reagan likely wouldn't have agreed, given that he raised taxes every remaining year of his presidency. He increased the national debt and federal government spending by more than 200% during his term.

Yes (except for the conservative shift; that is debatable, depending on how you want to define "conservative").

He was strongly in favor of and raised funding to entitlement programs such as medicare, medicaid and social security. Today the generally held "liberal" position is to maintain these programs and the "conservative" position is to cut them.

He was strongly opposed to nuclear weapons and appointed two Supreme Court Justices that refused to disagree with the decision of Roe v. Wade.

All of those positions are more liberal than most Democrats today.

...No? Many liberals/Democrats are still seeking to expand these types of programs (see ObamaCare, prescription drug laws, etc), are still opposed to nuclear anything, and continue to fight to keep Roe v. Wade as-is, and are actually seeking to expand on that in some ways. Democrats and liberals also still believe in raising taxes rather than instigating more tax cuts so that such social programs described above can be better funded by the government, among other reasons (raising taxes being a liberal stance and not a conservative one). Then there are the other examples of Reagan's conservatism, which also are not examples of Democrats being more conservative than he was.

Are some Democrats becoming less liberal and more moderate? Absolutely. Is it correct to argue that most Democrats are now less liberal than Reagan? I'd still say no, and I don't think any of the examples that you provided actually support your position (in fact many do the opposite).

I'd also point out that the fact that some of the more liberal congressmen who have lost their seats recently (e.g., Kucinich) did so not because of people becoming more moderate or because there is less of a desire to have very liberal candidates, but because that's what happens when states have conservative legislatures and governors who can change the boundaries of districts to ruin candidates' changes of winning elections. When more liberals are in charge, the same thing happens in the other direction.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Bit of a correction to the post: it was pointed out last night that I'd mixed up the study comparing studies that support and deny the link between violent gaming and violent behaviour. I wrote that studies claiming games are harmless outweighed those that made a link, but as anyone who actually looked at the post it linked to would know, I had it backwards. It is now corrected.