Katatori-kun said:
Vault101 said:
Katatori-kun said:
Wow, some of you should see a orthopedic surgeon the way your knees are jerking over this.
Aside from the dubious claims about violence in the news story, this event doesn't hurt anyone. If they want to waste their money so they can feel like they've done something, then what skin is it off of your nose? I mean, since you're all so happy to let scientists study the effects of gaming violence on people, we've got easy evidence to show their claims are wrong- oh wait....
because its pure stupiditiy is why,
People all over the world do things that are pure stupidity all the time and no one on this forum makes a peep about it.
its not jsut games, its the crusade against artistic expression,
Isn't everyone above me pretty much blasting them for
not buying violent movies or books? Kinda hard to accuse them of having a crusade against artistic expression when they're perfectly comfortable with huge swaths of it.
you can't prevent psycho nutters by banning whats already made and you certainly can't prevent them by getting sane people to hand over their games
As for the banning, sure you can. It's a little thing called the constitution. This group has zero power to ban anything, hasn't attempted to ban anything, and hasn't talked about banning anything.
As for preventing people from handing over their games, why would you? It's their game. If they want to hand it over, what business is it of yours?
I bet thease self rightous wankers would force us all to give up violent games if they could.
You bet that, do you? Based on what? What evidence do you have that these particular "self rightous [sic] wankers" would force us all to give up violent video games?
Let's face it: This entire story boils down to one thing- some people in Connecticut have marked themselves as not being a part of the gamer tribe, and so gamers on this site are throwing a tantrum.
Actually, I think your missing the point in wanting to engage in your crusade of technicalities for the sake of having an arguement.
We've seen things like this happen before and snowball out of control. We had the crusades against PnP RPGs, against music, and the entire comics industry shackeled with self regulation. If you let a group of people like this go unchecke they will grow, and gain more of a following to either create PACS which can push for changes to the laws, or simply engage in private regulation and censorship, by acting en-masse to force changes entirely by using civil methods. You start with "buy backs" and "burnings", then next thing your doing is blockading stores, then your blockading trucks carrying the merchandise, chasing people down in their homes who make the stuff, etc... and before too long even if it's a relatively small group of people overall, everyone in the target industry is forced to do whatever it is that they want due to little in the way of adequete protections, since the police aren't going to step in to stop people's right to assemble or whatever for the sake of your product or business.
The best way you counter this kind of insanity, is with more insanity, you basically have the more radical fringes in the gaming community, counter those with anti-gaming sentiments, preventing them from ever getting the kind of support. You make it just as inconveinent for them to protest as they would for a company to operate with them protesting. If you pretty much just sit back and ignore them, sometimes it fizzles out, in other cases it snowballs.
We have yet to get to the point where someone has produced a new version of "Mazes and Monsters" aimed at video gaming, or things like "What Happened To Rosemary's Baby" where the evil child draws power from hard rock music, but let it go unchecked and it can get to that point. It took so long for gamers to rally against an even smaller minority of people that by the time they did it was an insane uphill battle.
While nobody is proposing violence yet, I'll also go so far as to say that in cases like this I'm not 100% opposed to the idea. While not legal, it's sort of a principle that your freedom of speech and such are wroth fighting to protect, which is why everyone is supposed to be armed. A lot of people might not like this idea, but I believe that Heinlan's old statement "An Armed Society Is a Polite Society" kind of summarizes it. One thing that hurts society is that relatively small groups of people feel safe to act against larger ones in matters like this without any real fear of repercussions, it makes taking a knee-jerk scapegoat reaction and turning into a nation-wide position relatively easy. If everyone on both sides is armed, it at least makes people stop and evaluate their beliefs and their relative value a lot more before they decide to head out and start movements like this... and really while harmless in of itself, this is how movements get started. Today's Gun or Game buy back today, is tomorrow's MADD (Mothers Against Dungeons and Dragons, a shared Acronym), you wouldn't have thought a sewing circle could have turned some irritation over Jr. wanting to play with books and dice into a national platform that actually survived on the fringes for years either, but it did happen.
Don't get me wrong, I understand where your coming from, I just think your a little too dismissive. The guy your responding to might not be as right in the specifics of what's happening right now, but the point is valid simply in regards to what this could turn into. In the end it really doesn't matter if the goverment bands violent games, if you let groups like this rally to the point where stores become afraid to carry them, schools do more to ban discussing them, and workplaces won't let you talk about them around the water cooler without becoming a pariah, due to efforts
by this group. Let a few thousand people get organized, establish a newsletter, and then all write in en-masse on a subject and you'll be surprised what happens, and it gets worse if the same group can get a dozen or two people show up in a parking lot once in a while with signs to say bad things to passers by about a business as well. You don't really need the goverment to ban something to get a very similar effect, since really, today people effectively have the right to mass-harass any target they can agree on without fear of repercussions. (and to put things into perspective on an earlier statement, so it's not misunderstood, when everyone is armed people are less likely to mouth off to each other for the hell of it, as nobody will want to provoke anyone else. "An armed society is a polite society", but that goes into a seperate issue).