Rush Limbaugh Sticks Up for Video Games
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Odd considering his opinion on religion. I'm not saying that religious people must hate videogames but usually with exception on libertarianism means they are willing to make more exceptions. He obviously isn't a saint tho so why should he reprimand videogames.
Sooooo, your for the restriction in games? What does your point have with this thread, I'll wait, actually no I won't. Nothing. Take your politics bashing somewhere else.Commander Breetai said:
First off: Limbaugh, even though I don't agree with the guy a lot has been the target of laws to "silence" him, now that it's happening to someone else he isn't jumping on a political band wagon against us, he's taking the same position that he would that if it was against himself. I wouldn't call it Kudo's I would call this an act of character.
Second: Whats the deal with the trolling Skeletor? (I know what your image is robo tech) It's just that your jumping into a touchy subject and yourself trying to get "brownie points" bothers me.
So please, just go outside and leave this discussion to the adults. (if your 10 years old and can contribute to this discussion then I welcome you(ie. you don't have to be an adult, you just have to act like one))
Well no, Conservitism's purpose is to preserve traditional institutions in society,while allowing for minimal evolutionary change. It got a distinctly liberitarian flavor in the Regan presidency, (because lets face it: those are the ideas that've held currency for the past few decades) But strictly speaking, neither party has a lease on libertarian ideas. As evidenced by the fact that this bill was bi-partisan.Skullkid4187 said:
As a liberal against the censorship of games, I am not surprised by Rush's stance. I agree that the issue is bipartisan and depends more upon one's understanding of games than anything else. There is one thing with which I take issue, however...
...am I splitting hairs here?
This is not to say that I refuse to accept Rush's support for our cause just because I disagree with him about pretty much everything besides this issue. I'm just saying that different people with the same opinion can have different reasons for holding that opinion. Yeah, that kinda seems like a lame reason to post such a long analysis, but I think it's important, because if you* aren't careful, you can submit yourself to an ideology with which you would otherwise disagree simply because it is used to support a cause that you also support. For instance, soon after Rush backs up his point, he says "welcome to conservatism," probably under the assumption that the caller identified themselves as a liberal. Note how Rush frames his point in the form of several questions, to make sure that the caller agreed with what he was saying, and thus demonstrate that the caller was, in fact, conservative (whether the caller realized it or not) because the logical path he outlines makes use of conservative values. Had the caller said "no" to one of them, I bet Rush would've assumed the caller was in favor of the California law, because this is the only path Rush sees to his particular viewpoint. Of course, this is all conjecture, and there's no way of knowing for sure.
People often make the inverse fallacy, too (though I haven't seen any applied to this conversation): assuming they have disproved a theory/political view because they refute a single reason for holding that view... okay now I'm just rambling.
TL;DR: I usually disagree with Rush's political views, and here I disagree with his reasoning, but in the end we're on the same side (as far as what should actually be done), and I'm glad this is so. Just don't categorize people ideologically based on what side they're on in this or any debate; you need to know WHY they believe what they do.
I am also not surprised that this is his rationale, but I think it's a bit more complex than another "free market vs. the government" issue. I think a great number of people against the government regulation of video games (if not the majority) believe it is the responsibility of the individual parents to decide what content is and isn't appropriate for their children, and for individual adults to decide what is and isn't appropriate for themselves. Yes, these people ARE "the market," but I see it less as the collective market deciding what is and isn't "too raunchy" on the whole as opposed to each individual having a sort of "appropriateness threshold" that generally advances with age, but at different rates for everyone. That is, some 13-year-olds are more emotionally mature and can handle more than some 18-year-olds. It seems to me like Rush is still advocating the idea that some works are appropriate or inappropriate for EVERYONE of a given age, but he just believes that this opinion should be socially enforced rather than legally enforced.
...am I splitting hairs here?
This is not to say that I refuse to accept Rush's support for our cause just because I disagree with him about pretty much everything besides this issue. I'm just saying that different people with the same opinion can have different reasons for holding that opinion. Yeah, that kinda seems like a lame reason to post such a long analysis, but I think it's important, because if you* aren't careful, you can submit yourself to an ideology with which you would otherwise disagree simply because it is used to support a cause that you also support. For instance, soon after Rush backs up his point, he says "welcome to conservatism," probably under the assumption that the caller identified themselves as a liberal. Note how Rush frames his point in the form of several questions, to make sure that the caller agreed with what he was saying, and thus demonstrate that the caller was, in fact, conservative (whether the caller realized it or not) because the logical path he outlines makes use of conservative values. Had the caller said "no" to one of them, I bet Rush would've assumed the caller was in favor of the California law, because this is the only path Rush sees to his particular viewpoint. Of course, this is all conjecture, and there's no way of knowing for sure.
People often make the inverse fallacy, too (though I haven't seen any applied to this conversation): assuming they have disproved a theory/political view because they refute a single reason for holding that view... okay now I'm just rambling.
TL;DR: I usually disagree with Rush's political views, and here I disagree with his reasoning, but in the end we're on the same side (as far as what should actually be done), and I'm glad this is so. Just don't categorize people ideologically based on what side they're on in this or any debate; you need to know WHY they believe what they do.
You too?antipunt said:
I can't even believe that Rush actually appears to be a voice of reason, let alone on something like this.
I think I need a drink.
While there are a lot of good points made here regarding the fact that the gaming legislation isn't strictly-speaking a left/right issue, I am kind of surprised that so many people are that shocked to see Limbaugh acting on its defense.
Though I'm not American, I remember even during the last election campaign - I think this was an article on the Escapist no less - both Obama and McCain were questioned about their stances on legislating games. McCain said that he would not legislate against games, whereas Obama said that he might, if games did prove problematic and corrupting enough in their influence on youth. Later on, people were shocked and amazed when he said things like blaming children's obesity on games.
There's many different kinds of conservatives and Republicans, just as there are many different kinds of liberals and Democrats, it has never been a case of Good versus Evil. Limbaugh, if I remember right, is staunchly set against government regulation and control, of course he'd be arguing against legislating games.
Though I'm not American, I remember even during the last election campaign - I think this was an article on the Escapist no less - both Obama and McCain were questioned about their stances on legislating games. McCain said that he would not legislate against games, whereas Obama said that he might, if games did prove problematic and corrupting enough in their influence on youth. Later on, people were shocked and amazed when he said things like blaming children's obesity on games.
There's many different kinds of conservatives and Republicans, just as there are many different kinds of liberals and Democrats, it has never been a case of Good versus Evil. Limbaugh, if I remember right, is staunchly set against government regulation and control, of course he'd be arguing against legislating games.
This is a Bazinga right?
Agreeing with Rush Limbaugh on a reasonable and thought out argument......didn't think it could happen.
Agreeing with Rush Limbaugh on a reasonable and thought out argument......didn't think it could happen.
But I thought US Conservatives were stupid and silly, and US Liberals were intelligent and brave! How can I uphold my broad generalizations of an entire country if people start to have opinions that cannot be easily fit into my own simplistic mental boxes?
DAMN YOU LIMBAUGH GO BACK TO YOUR BOX.
DAMN YOU LIMBAUGH GO BACK TO YOUR BOX.
i don't really think that having rush limbaugh on our team isn't exactly a good marketing scheme, but what the hell. he's an influential and powerful guy so yays! he commented about cable tv being bad but i can't believe that no one ever mentions how there is free porn available to teenagers and there parents accept that they jerk off!
The issue itself seems pretty alarmist to me.
By democracy, we have already thrown away so many censorship rights and submitted to government propaganda all the way since WWI, I doubt videogames will make much of a difference in this nastiness. And to be honest, I want to see another annoying law fail to lower incidents like child negligence or whatever the latest plague is. Prove the thing you already "know": regulation doesn't fix anything. Or don't.
I'm disgruntled by the performance of this industry and it's highly expendable to me. For economic benefit, instinct indicates that preserving some other industry (even Hollywood and its movie lovers don't whine so much about revenue or piracy) would be far better fighting for this. It's probably all French or Canadian anyway.
I've heard readers and writers for the Escapist argues that "gamers" (a clique which I proudly consider myself to not be a part of) are mature, intelligent, etc. Some of you will even say that you're superior to businesspeople or producers of the games you so highly crave. Fix these things already, you apes. Especially those of you who are convinced that Rush can't do it right.
By democracy, we have already thrown away so many censorship rights and submitted to government propaganda all the way since WWI, I doubt videogames will make much of a difference in this nastiness. And to be honest, I want to see another annoying law fail to lower incidents like child negligence or whatever the latest plague is. Prove the thing you already "know": regulation doesn't fix anything. Or don't.
I'm disgruntled by the performance of this industry and it's highly expendable to me. For economic benefit, instinct indicates that preserving some other industry (even Hollywood and its movie lovers don't whine so much about revenue or piracy) would be far better fighting for this. It's probably all French or Canadian anyway.
I've heard readers and writers for the Escapist argues that "gamers" (a clique which I proudly consider myself to not be a part of) are mature, intelligent, etc. Some of you will even say that you're superior to businesspeople or producers of the games you so highly crave. Fix these things already, you apes. Especially those of you who are convinced that Rush can't do it right.
Rush Limbaugh = extreme conservative
Extreme conservatives do not want any government regulation.
Limbaugh's comment does not surprise me.
Extreme conservatives do not want any government regulation.
Limbaugh's comment does not surprise me.