Funny I actually agree as well. There's SO much more to do outside than just sitting around playing games, BUT...
Some of us don't have that choice.
I met a guy on an MMO some years ago who played his character with a keyboard that he could only work with his mouth. And he was still a good player, which takes a lot more dexterity than I have.
Games aren't evil, but they're not all we have either. Enjoy the sunshine sometime (or moon if you're as white as me )
I don't go outside, because, I have nothing to do. I don't like my neighbors, considering how I live in a neighborhood full of trailers that look like shit, one of my neighbors is a believed drug dealer, and I don't want to get to know any of my neighbors. Yeah, I'm judging a book by it's cover, but I don't care. If you live in a trailer that looks like it's been through a Nuclear bomb test...I honestly don't want to walk to your house and knock on your door to hang out... and then, there is nothing else to do around my town. So I generally just stay at home.
My neighbour hood at my mums is similar, not nearly so bad though, so I have a similar reason for playing video games. So I get we're you're coming from too. But still, after a while, don't you get bored and want to go outside and chill with friends?
I dont even know where to begin to critisize all that you just typed, i dont even know if i have the patience to type that much. More housewives? Are you serious? Im sorry but you really are the buzzkill of the escapist.
But still, let's address the one point you mentioned: Housewives
It's a dirty word in terms of the new empowered woman, but think of it this way. One of the things that always brought stability and defined the way children developed was someone being home for them, making it a home. That role has typically been the mother, and women are ideally suited for it temperment wise.
Oh sure, you could be politically correct and point out that there could be "Househusbands" as well, or simply say that the parents need to be there for their kids generically, but there IS a reason why concepts like "Daddy Daycare" recurr in the cinema: because it doesn't usually work and the reasons why can be humorized easily because they are true.
So basically, with both parents out working, we've got NOBODY home watching the children and we're noticing the results now that this has become a practical reality. Everyone recognizes the problem, but of course nobody wants to be un-PC and say flat out that for proper child development as we have seen, we need stay at home mothers.
The result of not doing this is what you see. Unsupervised latchkey kids growing up with nobody present to rely on in an increasingly dangerous enviroment. People of course refuse to acknowlege that anything could be less than perfect about the way women's sufferage has worked out so of course all of these issues must be caused by something else. God forbid that children being raised by strangers (or raising themselves) could have negative effects, or produce sociopathic behavior.
Despite how it might sound, I'm not a sexist who thinks women are inferior or anything. I'm just being a realist. I'll also be honest in saying that right now at a time when we have an increasingly bad economy and the number of decent jobs with which people can support themselves are shrinking, it's not the best idea for someone to be screaming "yes ladies, go out and grab the power! Fight for those jobs, Boo yaah!".
If anything rather than attacking video games, I think we're at a point where we should be providing some balance and promoting the idea that there really is nothing wrong with being a home maker. Especially with the problems we are dealing with.
Trust me, both parents working and nobody around who is awake or whatever when the kids are around probably has more to do with a lot of the problems we're seeing than any form of escapism they might be using.
Video Games are however a conveinent target, look at how badly you freaked when I talked about a big issue like Homemaking and women staying at home to be mothers. It's easier to attack video games and pretend your doing something, than deal with a REAL issue which is going to upset someone no matter what you do. As a result American society continues to decay as problems become worse and worse and people dance around them hoping someone else will adress the big questions and committ political suicide, so they don't have to (and can keep bidding for popularity and re-election).
The issue I mention is just one of many similar elephants basically sitting in the middle of the political conferance table that nobody wants to address.
There is no nice way to say what I have said, without upsetting somebody. This is why for example if I was somehow in charge, I would be the least popular leader in history. I'd be going after all the big issues and doing something. No matter what I did a ton of people would be VERY angry but in the end after I was crucified people would enjoy the benefits of what I did while referring to me in hushed tones reserved for Hitler and The Devil.
I don't hate women, but I do think women are simply better/more tolerant/more empathic when it comes to raising children than guys are. I also believe that every kid needs to have a parental figure around to be involved in their life as part of proper development, and that is the way things have worked out for the best. The mother is there providing stability, the father is present less but also comes in to provide guidance, and a male role-model. Single parents can do the job somewhat, but it works best with a pair and one being at home.
However in today's society believing in the classic family structure makes me an anethema.
Well now i have more proof, thanks buzzkilington...
Seriously though, all that you just stated is a matter of opinion. A man can do just a good enough of a job at taking care of children as a woman. Granted there is the whole women being just mothers that runs through history but i think we have progressed enough where that doesnt matter anymore. Both parents around is the ideal way, but we cant have everything its up to the individual to do the best with what they have.
Secondly i didnt freak out at all, i was just bored and i really dislike when people reply to me or anything else with a 2 page essay of an opinion. You seem to fancy doing that...i guess if you have nothing better to do keep it up. Also not everything should be a political issue, we dont need politicians of any kind telliing anyone how to be good parents. Its sad that they feel the need to anyway. You seem to be heavily biased by your political leanings, which is fine just understand that not everyone gives a shit.
While I tend to ramble off track, how is Obama talking about the negative effects of video games on children and society not a political issue? Unless I'm misunderstanding what your saying.
Please note I'm not attacking this just because it's Obama, but because of the issue itself.
Personally, I agree with this one. Rather than trying to "reform" healthcare, he should actually be doing more of this. And if he does "reform" healthcare, I wouldn't even mind it if Obama personally went door to door and ripped the video game controllers out of people's hands. Our social programs are taxed because everyone assumes that when they can't take care of themselves, someone else will.
While I tend to ramble off track, how is Obama talking about the negative effects of video games on children and society not a political issue? Unless I'm misunderstanding what your saying.
Please note I'm not attacking this just because it's Obama, but because of the issue itself.
Well the issue is much more broad than just gamers. There is a health problem of obesity in this country. When this problem becomes an issue with our children it means that in the long run it will become even more costly. What happens when these kids grow up as adults with serious obesity related health complications, regardless of what party is in office in the future they will have to deal with it. Thats all there really is to it, and it seems to me that if someone states something as simple as that as long as they are in the political party they agree with then its all ok. If the opinion should come from someone of their rival party all of a sudden its a debatable issue, your arguments are filled with that bias. We do have a health problem, derailing that simple fact because its currently being undertaken by a political party you dont agree with doesnt help.
EDIT: I know this was a little off your reply, but i had to address this fundamental issue in your arguments.
BUT in this paticular case video games are being used as a scapegoat for the issue. In reality the obesity problem is a universal one among first world countries where there is a lot of technology and automation as well as food being so easily accessible that people have a wide variety of options and can pretty much eat every meal for pleasure (ie what would taste good for dinner, rather than 'will I be able to eat dinner?' or only being given one option like a staple crop for the region... like say rice or potatoes). America whines the loudest about the problem, but in reality it seems a goodly portion of Europe has the same issues, it's just that nobody is exactly in a rush to dispute America's claim to be the porkiest nation on earth.
The issue here as being expressed however is directed at children and video games are being used as the scapegoat, when in reality (as I explained) there are a wider array of issues at hand than the video games. For example, are there parents around to take the children to a local playground and supervise them to begin with? Kids can't just run wild through the neighborhood as they did in the past. Even when it's safe, people just generally don't tolerate it.
I've never denied being very right wing on most issues, despite this site mostly being frequented (like a lot of fan/nerdom based sites) by lefties making my sentiments fairly unpopular. If anything I present balance by speaking from another perspective.
However in this case, it's not really about political leaning as the issues themselves. Sure, I'm not Obama's biggest fan in the world (I didn't vote for him obviously) but I don't attack him out of hand for no reason. Really here he's only being attacked based on what he said which was to use video games as a scapegoat for much larger issues which have nothing to do with video gaming.
Apologies for the length, but technically if you want to get "political" it would come down to techniques to solve the underlying problems. I for example favoriting very hard solutions which would involve giving police a free hand, and aiming them at the worst areas around. Leading to a lot of "death by cop" incidents and brandy new prisons being filled up as quick as we can build them. Left wingers favoring softer social solutions which sound wondeful on paper and I used to believe in once upon a time, but nowadays figure are worthless (where in turn to a left winger their methods are civilized, where I'm a brutal thug).
Face it, when it comes to issues of censorship, and using fandom (including video games) as an excuse for problems, I tend to go after pretty much everyone. I believe I've even gone after some pretty right wing folks on similar issues on this very site since I'm nothing if not consistant.
As far as I can see, he isn't on an anti-anything crusade. If there is one thing he is doing is encouraging kids and people altogether alike to take time for more pursuits than just sitting in front of a tv drooling. The people that this upsets frankly upset me. But if you want to just sit in front of your tv or pc all day doing nothing but building up your gaming score, that is your right. Obama ain't stepping on your right. He is just exercising a moment of his time as a citizen of the US to encourage us to do something more. Something more, not something else. I will admit I spend a fair amount of time in front of my pc, but I try every day to offset it with some stuff around my house or elsewhere in town.
If your gamerscore is more important than your health, that's fine. Just don't come to me when you can't even run 5 paces or get a prognosis that you probably won't live past 40.
I did take the time to read your post, and kudos to you to taking the time to present your point of view. If there is one flaw to this, is your expectation that one man should take care of all the problems we are experiencing today, especially those that discourage activities like going to shoot hoops. Those take a community effort, and shouldn't even need the actions of the President of the US. If you are concerned about gangs or groups that generate concern, then generate a community effort to either disband the gangs, or find ways to work with those groups to make the neighborhood friendlier as it may once have been. You may be very surprised how positive their response may be. It may also be a negative response, too, but doing nothing but crossing your fingers and hoping the problem goes away with some new law from Washington won't do any good. This might be your way of taking some time away from your games. I would prefer having someone suggest what I could do, than have someone tell me what I should do. Which is likely to have the better received response?
What a shame. After reading that article I had hopes people would remove thier heads from thier colons for just a second and try to hear the whole message instead of choosing specific words and just hear "Games are bad." Well good article Andy. Better luck next time.
And everyone who did understand deserves a cookie.
Nice article. I thought you were on a rant about Obama not "supporting" gaming through the first few paragraphs but, thankfully, you pointed out that he is right.
People need to open their ears more. Obama is just encouraging us to get the hell off our asses and do something other than game all day. Alas, the days of children running freely around the town are long gone. A large percentage of towns and cities no longer have fun outdoor areas to go and play in and with the ever growing problems of gangs, muggers, group-jumpings, drug dealers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, etc, going outside, now more than ever, ACTUALLY POSES A THREAT TO PEOPLE! Even in my town I see that the streets are becoming grimy, derelict buidings begining to appear, and roving groups of shady looking people, are becoming more common place. Many of the reasons people spend so much time gaming are socialy based. For me, it was being bullied and shunned for the 8 yrs I was in grade school, so I really didn't want to go outside and possibly encounter those kids outside of school, where they could do more than just make fun of me and exclude me(over that little problem now, really helped when I learned how to break bones in different ways and picked up some fighting techniques). But I'm getting off topic. The fact is that the over-gaming problem will end when our social problems are solved too.
As far as I can see, he isn't on an anti-anything crusade. If there is one thing he is doing is encouraging kids and people altogether alike to take time for more pursuits than just sitting in front of a tv drooling. The people that this upsets frankly upset me. But if you want to just sit in front of your tv or pc all day doing nothing but building up your gaming score, that is your right. Obama ain't stepping on your right. He is just exercising a moment of his time as a citizen of the US to encourage us to do something more. Something more, not something else. I will admit I spend a fair amount of time in front of my pc, but I try every day to offset it with some stuff around my house or elsewhere in town.
If your gamerscore is more important than your health, that's fine. Just don't come to me when you can't even run 5 paces or get a prognosis that you probably won't live past 40.
I did take the time to read your post, and kudos to you to taking the time to present your point of view. If there is one flaw to this, is your expectation that one man should take care of all the problems we are experiencing today, especially those that discourage activities like going to shoot hoops. Those take a community effort, and shouldn't even need the actions of the President of the US. If you are concerned about gangs or groups that generate concern, then generate a community effort to either disband the gangs, or find ways to work with those groups to make the neighborhood friendlier as it may once have been. You may be very surprised how positive their response may be. It may also be a negative response, too, but doing nothing but crossing your fingers and hoping the problem goes away with some new law from Washington won't do any good. This might be your way of taking some time away from your games. I would prefer having someone suggest what I could do, than have someone tell me what I should do. Which is likely to have the better received response?
Let's just say that Obama hasn't exactly had the best relationship with video games and leave it at that. This isn't the first time he's been here, I believe people have also made an offhanded referance to it.
In the end though I think a lot of it has to do with the central divide between Democrats and Republicans. That divide largely being that the Democrats want an all powerful central goverment (Big Brother) with themselves in charge, and the Republicans want a very weak central goverment with most of the power being held by state and local goverments (Judge Roy Bean's tavern open for bizzness Ya-hooo).
A multi-pronged offensive on video games has a chance of letting the feds get their hooks into direct media control if they succeed, lessening the need to work through privatly owned proxies and groups like the ESRB (ie they could open the door to regulate directly based on ANYTHING that causes the people to give them that power).
So really, he probably is anti-game to some extent given some of his comments, but largely it's just a scapegoat, and part of an overall power grab. Politicians on both sides play the game for their party, and nobody (contrary to rumors) gets the connections to run for the big seat without being part of the game.
That said I truely loathe what was said here on any level you can view it on, as should any gamer.
-
As far as the rest goes, the problem with things like gangs is that community action is NOT going to get rid of them. It's been tried. The whole point of gangs is that they can overpower the community (duh) they never would have gotten to the point of a problem if people could just decide to get rid of them.
It becomes a federal issue because Obama is opening his mouth on it. Either he wants to deal with it at the federal level (which is in keeping the the Democratic platform) or he doesn't. In the end though he really probably doesn't, he's using games as a scapegoat to avoid real issues, and also figures that playing that card if he can get people to attack his scapegoat with enough fervor they will demand goverment action on games, and then whoa... now Federal Agencies can directly control speech in that platform! Federal Power!
Trust me, I'm critical of Republicans too, as I said above they have their own agenda though it's exactly the opposite (and results in differant people holding the power). I simply see their "endgame"/overall strategy as the lesser of two evils (which leads to another whole discussion).
In general though some of the problems with society have gotten so bad that it might require federal action to remove the cancer (so to speak). For example, people have empowered things like the "CRASH" and "Street Crimes" units in the past to do things that normal cops couldn't and violate the laws in certain ways, focusing on results. Various incidents of course lead to outcries which lead to the units being shut down despite their successes (much to the joy of the elements they were targeting). On a lot of levels the left wing is responsible for it as it heavily goes into civil liberties territory and the latitude a state/city has the empowerment of their own law officers. It can get pretty technical (and it's been a very long time since I've done any serious reading on the subject).
At any rate someone like Obama who is left wing could ultimatly take the kid gloves off of the state and local goverments, put his stamp of approval on things like old school CRASH teams, and even help gear them up with federal funding (along with more money for things like prison construction).
This is all hypothetical of course. It's simply my opinion that I think the battles between Federal and Local goverments have wound up favoring the Federal goverments and despite by disagreements, there are some things the States and towns simply cannot do. If the Feds wanted this power that means it's time for the President (who runs the Executive Branch) to make use of it since really he probably has more abillity to lower the boom on crime right now than most governors, since when states and towns cut loose the bad guys cry to the feds ("Oh civil liberties, oh my search and seizure rights. The CRASH units suspended some of my central freedoms when they seized the 14 assault rifles and $50k worth of crack I had. On top of this they actually shot some of my thu... friends. Please federal goverment shut them down. I am an innocent victim! Oh the humanity of it all. How can they make units with special exceptions to target hard working crimi... citizens like me") who typically wind up pressuring a shut down.
Nice article. I thought you were on a rant about Obama not "supporting" gaming through the first few paragraphs but, thankfully, you pointed out that he is right.
I was thinking exactly the same when I saw the headline.
It's just an undeniable fact that spending all of your free time playing games is doing terrible things to your waistline and (real world) social life. That doesn't mean that games are generally bad. Anybody who spends all of his/her free time watching TV isn't any better.
It's all about moderation.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
)
