cerebus23 said:
Good for them i support this, we have more than enough studies that utterly destroy the senators opinions on the matter, we do not need our tax dollars spent on 10s of millions more to study something that has been studied to death since moving pictures became a thing.
And if the side effect of opposing such studies is to look unreasonable at a point when we're already in a bad situation, so be it. I mean, what's the absolute worst that could happen? They manage loaded study and our reticence completely undermines any later criticism because we already look like we're pro child murder and children murdering?
...Actually, that does sound bad. Hmm.
CardinalPiggles said:
Never. I'd say we need 2 sides to every argument. Otherwise nothing changes.
Any side to an argument, particularly a scientific one, should have good faith and basis. I mean, as much as I think fighting this sort of political call is a quick way to vilify gamers and the industry to the public, it's not like there's a lack of study on this already. Do you want equal treatment of the notion of a flat earth, despite the fact that we've had evidence backing that up for thousands of years? Maybe we could do studies on left-handers and their relationship with the devil?
Why should "I believe this thing, without any evidence and in fact despite evidence to the contrary" be treated as equal to a scientific conclusion reached ostensibly apolitically?
Let's face it: sometimes you cannot muster up a second side to an argument. Not a decent one, anyway.
shirkbot said:
Independent studies nothing, even the Surgeon General of the United States has chimed in on a couple of occasions to say that it's a minor contributing factor at most. Are senators just ignoring the Surgeon General now?
Congress is like the gaming community. When they don't like what they hear, they claim that the people involved are TEH BIAS! whether it has merit or not. The Surgeon General is a position where many people have retired for controversial opinions...Which were backed up by scientific data or at least potentially so.
...The crux of the "study on video games" thing here is that, if it doesn't fit a certain narrative, half of Congress is going to cry foul. Politically, there's only one answer that will be accepted by the loudmouths who keep calling for this: not only do video games make you violent, but they put the gun i your hand and train you how to use it. The same is true of the Surgeon General or any other authority. That's why Congress (and many other demonstrators) will latch on to ANY study that says otherwise (no matter how poor the research methdology is), they THINK says otherwise (I've read the abstracts to a couple of studies cited which say there's no causal relationship but to which gaming critics claim supports that there is one because they need to learn how to read or something), etc.
FootloosePhoenix said:
Well if video games are, in fact, having a negative impact on developing young minds, we'd need a system in place that prevents minors from freely purchasing the more violent, "mature" games available. That would be an important first step, at least. Something like...I dunno, a ratings system, like films have, but specifically tailored to the medium? Hopefully I don't sound too crazy here; I'm just throwing ideas around.
But for that to happen, we'd need some sort of review board. No, an electronics software rating board. And it would have to be enforced somehow: perhaps stores refusing to stock titles beyond a certain rating. And then there's the question of efficacy: I mean, we are largely okay with a roughly 50% purchase rate of explicit music and 30-ish% success at purchase of R and unrated DVDs. Surely we're okay with similar numbers, rather than hypocritically demanding more compliance should this voluntary ratings system have a failure rate of a little over, say, ten percent.
Hero in a half shell said:
Of course there is content in videogames that can be inappropriate for younger children. We know this, the industry knows this, the government knows this, and it is the exact reason for the PEGI/ERSB age rating on every single videogame sold in our countries.
Can't speak for the PEGI system, but the ESRB system was adopted (it already existed) in this country not because od an admission of harmful nature, but out of fear that a ban would be more harmful to the industry's wallets. Even still, it is not law; it is a voluntarily-enforced program. There is no legal mandate for an ESRB rating; rather, the reason most games have them is that most stores will not stock AO or unrated games. And of the games they do stock, they aren't selling to minors: The FTC has done undercover shoppers for years regarding violent media, and the results are clear:
2011 and 2012 were 13% success for the undercover shoppers. Contrast this with the next best numbers being nearly TWICE that and explicit music being almost four times that number. Obviously, kids still get their hands on these games, but it appears to be mostly the fault of parents. And in almost every other aspect of culture, the "keep games away from kids!" people are all "don't tell me how to raise my kids!"
I mean, you can buy rifles specifically for five year olds, because MURRRRRRICA! But games are a problem where choice shouldn't be allowed. Not that I want ten year olds on live or six year olds playing Deadpool. I'm just noting the hypocrisy in the "my choice" argument.
Voluntary regulation sometimes works, and here it clearly does. But it's not law, and it's not an admission of harm.
Captcha: fair or foul. Yeah, that sounds about right.
